Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses (COLs) for 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 

Final Report 

Office of New Reactors 

NUREG-1947
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC=s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

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

Publicly released records include, to name a few, 

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; 

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and 

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal 

memoranda; bulletins and information notices; 

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event 

reports; and Commission papers and their 

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402B0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

 Office of Administration

 Publications Branch 

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.SERVICES@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC=s Web site address 

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

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found 

on a Web site bear the date the material was 

accessed, the material available on the date cited may 

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as 

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal 

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and 

congressional reports. Such documents as theses, 

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased 

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852B2738 

These standards are available in the library for 

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are 

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the 

originating organization or, if they are American 

National Standards, fromC

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036B8002

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not 

necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

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

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

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

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

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors=

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC=s regulations 

(NUREGB0750).
Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement for

Combined Licenses (COLs) for

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Units 3 and 4

Final Report 

Manuscript Completed: March 2011 

Date Published: March 2011 

Office of New Reactors

NUREG-1947 

March 2011 iii NUREG-1947

Abstract

This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) documents the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff’s analysis and conclusions regarding the environmental 

impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear units (Units 3 and 4) at the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site near Waynesboro, Georgia, and the mitigation measures 

available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental impacts.

On August 26, 2009, NRC issued Early Site Permit (ESP)-004 to Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Inc. (Southern) and several co-applicants (i.e., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe 

Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia) for 

the VEGP ESP site (the site of the proposed Units 3 and 4). An ESP is an NRC approval of a 

site as suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. As requested 

in the ESP application, the VEGP ESP also included a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) that 

authorized certain limited construction activities at the site in accordance with Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subparts 50.10 and 52.24(c). In response to subsequent 

license amendment applications from Southern relating to the activities authorized by the ESP 

LWA, the NRC issued three amendments to the ESP in May, June, and July 2010, respectively. 

These amendments authorized Southern to use Category-1 and Category-2 backfill material 

from additional onsite sources and to use engineered granular backfill over the side slopes of 

the Units 3 and 4 excavations. 

On March 31, 2008, Southern (on behalf of itself and its four co-applicants) submitted an 

application for combined licenses (COLs) for two new units at the VEGP site, referencing the 

VEGP ESP. A COL is a Commission approval for the construction and operation of one or 

more nuclear power facilities. Southern subsequently updated its COL application to reference 

the issued ESP-004.

For a COL application that references an ESP, the NRC staff, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.75(c), 

prepares a supplement to the ESP EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(e). NRC regulations 

related to the environmental review of COL applications are in 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 

52, Subpart C. Pursuant to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.50(c)(1), a COL applicant 

referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues 

that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified new 

and significant information regarding such issues. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.39, 

matters resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered to be resolved in any subsequent 

proceedings, absent identification of new and significant information. 
NUREG-1947 iv March 2011

In October 2009, Southern supplemented its COL application to include a second request for an 

LWA. The second LWA, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10 (d), would authorize installation of 

reinforcing steel, sumps, drain lines, and other embedded items along with placement of 

concrete for the nuclear island foundation base slab.

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

recommendation to the Commission is that the COLs and LWA be issued. This 

recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the environmental report and 

responses to staff requests for additional information, submitted by Southern; (2) the staff’s 

review conducted for the ESP application and documented in the ESP EIS; (3) the staff’s review 

conducted for the ESP license amendments as documented in the staff’s Environmental 

Assessments; (4) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (5) the staff’s own 

independent review of potential new and significant information available since preparation and 

publication of the ESP EIS; and (6) the assessments summarized in this SEIS, including the 

potential mitigation measures identified and consideration of public comments received on the 

draft SEIS. The staff’s evaluation of the safety and security aspects of the proposed action will 

be addressed in the staff’s Safety Evaluation Report.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This NUREG references information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved 

by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0014; 3150-0011; 3150-

0021; 3150-0151; and 3150-0093.

Public Protection Notification

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

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

currently valid OMB control number.
March 2011 v NUREG-1947

Contents

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

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................xi

Abbreviations/Acronyms ........................................................................................................... xv

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

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

1.1.1 COL Application and Review.......................................................................1-2

1.1.2 Concurrent Reviews....................................................................................1-4

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

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

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ........................................................................1-6

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

1.6 New and Significant Information Review.................................................................1-6

1.6.1 Applicant’s Process.....................................................................................1-7

1.6.2 Staff Evaluation...........................................................................................1-8

1.6.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................1-9

1.7 Report Contents .....................................................................................................1-9

1.8 References .............................................................................................................1-9

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

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

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

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

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

2.5 Radiological Environment .......................................................................................2-3

2.6 Water......................................................................................................................2-3

2.7 Ecology...................................................................................................................2-3

2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology ......................................................................................2-4

2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology ..........................................................................................2-7

2.8 Socioeconomics .....................................................................................................2-7

2.8.1 Demographics.............................................................................................2-8

2.8.2 Community Characteristics .........................................................................2-8
NUREG-1947 vi March 2011

2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources..............................................................................2-9

2.10 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................2-9

2.11 Related Federal Projects and Consultations ......................................................... 2-10

2.12 References ........................................................................................................... 2-10

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

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

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

3.2.1 Plant Water Use..........................................................................................3-4

3.2.2 Cooling System...........................................................................................3-4

3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System....................................................3-6

3.2.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System...........................3-6

3.2.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System ......................3-6

3.2.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste-Management System ............................3-7

3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems...................................................................3-7

3.3 Power Transmission System ..................................................................................3-7

3.4 References .............................................................................................................3-8

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

4.1 Land-Use Impacts...................................................................................................4-1

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

4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way................................................................4-3

4.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts...................................................................4-3

4.3 Water-Related Impacts ...........................................................................................4-4

4.4 Ecology...................................................................................................................4-5

4.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts ......................................................................................4-6

4.4.2 Summary of Terrestrial Impacts ................................................................ 4-13

4.4.3 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts ...................................................................... 4-14

4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts........................................................................................ 4-16

4.5.1 Physical Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-16

4.5.2 Demography ............................................................................................. 4-16

4.5.3 Economic Impacts to the Community ........................................................ 4-17

4.5.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts ......................................... 4-18

4.5.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................ 4-20

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources............................................................................ 4-20
March 2011 vii NUREG-1947

4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................................................. 4-22

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................ 4-23

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ................................................................ 4-23

4.8.2 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction 

Personnel to the VEGP Site ...................................................................... 4-24

4.8.3 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts............................................. 4-26

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts ................................................................................. 4-26

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures....................................................................... 4-26

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents ........................................... 4-27

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents................................................ 4-28

4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation Workers .................................................... 4-29

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts.................................................. 4-30

4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Site-Preparation 

Activities and Construction.................................................................................... 4-30

4.11 Site Redress Plan................................................................................................. 4-31

4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts ........................................................................ 4-33

4.13 References ........................................................................................................... 4-33

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation...............................................................................5-1

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

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

5.3 Water-Related Impacts ...........................................................................................5-2

5.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems........................................................................5-3

5.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts ......................................................................................5-3

5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts...........................................................................................5-8

5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts........................................................................................ 5-10

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts................................................................ 5-10

5.7 Environmental Justice........................................................................................... 5-11

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................................................ 5-11

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations .......................................................... 5-12

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways .................................................................................. 5-12

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public................................................ 5-13

5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public ............................................................. 5-14

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers ................................................................ 5-15
NUREG-1947 viii March 2011

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public................................... 5-15

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring............................................................................. 5-15

5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents ................................................... 5-16

5.10.1 Design Basis Accidents............................................................................. 5-16

5.10.2 Severe Accidents ...................................................................................... 5-18

5.10.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives .................................................... 5-19

5.10.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts ................................................. 5-20

5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation ..................... 5-20

5.12 Summary of Operation Impacts ............................................................................ 5-21

5.13 References ........................................................................................................... 5-21

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

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

6.2 Transportation Impacts ...........................................................................................6-4

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts......................................................................................6-5

6.4 References .............................................................................................................6-5

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

7.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Air Quality...............................................................................................................7-1

7.3 Water Use and Quality............................................................................................7-4

7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem .............................................................................................7-5

7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem .................................................................................................7-6

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

7.7 Nonradiological Health............................................................................................7-9

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation..............................................................7-9

7.9 Severe Accidents.................................................................................................. 7-10

7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning ............................................... 7-10

7.11 NRC Staff Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................... 7-11

7.12 References ........................................................................................................... 7-11

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

8.1 References .............................................................................................................8-2

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

9.1 No-Action Alternative ..............................................................................................9-1

9.2 Energy Alternatives.................................................................................................9-2
March 2011 ix NUREG-1947

9.3 System Design Alternatives ....................................................................................9-3

9.4 Region of Interest and Alternative Site Selection Process.......................................9-4

9.5 Evaluation of Alternative Sites ................................................................................9-4

9.6 References .............................................................................................................9-4

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

10.1 References ...........................................................................................................10-2

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

11.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................11-1

11.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts.......................................................11-2

11.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ......................................................................11-2

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

Human Environment.............................................................................................11-3

11.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.....................................11-4

11.6 Benefit-Cost Balance............................................................................................11-4

11.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................11-6

11.8 References ...........................................................................................................11-6

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

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

Appendix C – Chronology of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Environmental 

Review Correspondence Related to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 

Application for a Combined License for Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant .............................................................................................................................. C-1

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

Appendix E – Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Comments and 

Responses..................................................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F – Key Consultation Correspondence.................................................................... F-1

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

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

Appendix I – Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Characteristics, AP1000 Design 

Parameters and Site Interface Values ............................................................................ I-1

Appendix J – Statements Made in the Environmental Report Considered in the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission Staff’s Environmental Review................................................... J-1
NUREG-1947 x March 2011

Figures

3-1 Proposed VEGP Site Footprint with Proposed Units 3 and 4 .........................................3-2

3-2 Areas that will be Disturbed by Construction and Preconstruction Activities for VEGP 

Units 3 and 4..................................................................................................................3-3

3-3 Revised Intake Structure and Surrounding Wetlands .....................................................3-5

5-1 Extent of the 2.8°C (5.0°F)-Above-Ambient Isotherm Created by the Proposed VEGP 

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

Tables

2-1 2009 Average Annual Unemployment Rates..................................................................2-8

5-1 DBA Doses for an AP1000 Reactor at the VEGP Site (Southern 2009a) ..................... 5-18

7-1 Comparison of Annual CO2 Emission Rates ..................................................................7-3
March 2011 xi NUREG-1947

Executive Summary

On March 31, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application 

from Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), on behalf of itself and four coapplicants (i.e., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric 

Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia), for combined licenses (COLs) for two 

new nuclear units (Units 3 and 4) to be located adjacent to the existing Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2. The VEGP site is located in Burke County, Georgia, 

approximately 42 km (26 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia.

In Early Site Permit (ESP)-004 issued on August 26, 2009, NRC approved the VEGP site as 

suitable for the construction and operation of Units 3 and 4. As requested in the ESP 

application, the VEGP ESP also included a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) that authorized 

certain limited construction activities at the site in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Subparts 50.10 and 52.24(c). As permitted by NRC regulations, the 

COL application references the VEGP ESP.

The proposed design specified in the COL application for the two new units is the Westinghouse 

AP1000 pressurized reactor. An amendment to the certified AP1000 design currently is being 

reviewed by NRC in a separate design certification process.

On October 2, 2009, Southern supplemented its COL application to include a request for a 

second LWA. The second LWA, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10 (d), would authorize 

installation of reinforcing steel, sumps, drain lines, and other embedded items along with 

placement of concrete for the nuclear island foundation base slab.

During April, May, and June 2010, Southern submitted requests for amendments to the ESP 

relating to the activities authorized by the ESP LWA. In response to these applications, the 

NRC issued three amendments to the ESP in May, June, and July 2010, respectively. These 

amendments authorized Southern to use Category-1 and Category-2 backfill materials from 

additional onsite borrow areas and to change the classification of engineered backfill over the 

slopes of the excavations for Units 3 and 4. The NRC staff prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for each license amendment 

request.

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

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

potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. NRC has implemented 

Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, NRC has determined that 

the issuance of a COL under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an EIS.
NUREG-1947 xii March 2011

The purpose of Southern’s requested action is to obtain from the NRC a license to construct 

and operate two new nuclear power units on the VEGP site as well as an LWA to allow early 

commencement of certain limited construction activities. A license from the NRC to construct 

and operate nuclear power plants is necessary but not sufficient for construction and operation 

of the power plant. Southern must obtain and maintain permits from other Federal, State, and 

local agencies and permitting authorities. Therefore, the purpose of the NRC environmental 

review of the Southern application is to determine if a nuclear power plant of the proposed 

design can be constructed and operated at the VEGP site without unacceptable adverse 

impacts on the human environment.

The Southern COL application incorporates information from both the ESP Site Safety Analysis 

Report and Southern’s environmental report (ER). Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 52 contains 

NRC regulations related to ESPs. An ESP is an NRC approval of a site as suitable for 

construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. The NRC’s detailed review of 

the environmental impacts of constructing and operating new units at the VEGP ESP Site is 

documented in NUREG-1872, Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit 

(ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site, which was published in August 2008. For 

a COL application that references an ESP, the NRC staff, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.75(c), 

prepares a supplement to the ESP environmental impact statement (SEIS) in accordance with 

10 CFR 51.92(e).

NRC regulations related to the environmental review of COL applications are in 10 CFR Part 51 

and 10 CFR 52, Subpart C. Pursuant to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.50(c)(1), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

new and significant information regarding such issues. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.39, 

matters resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered to be resolved in any subsequent 

proceedings, absent identification of new and significant information.

Upon acceptance of Southern’s COL application, the NRC began the environmental review 

process by publishing in the Federal Register on June 11, 2008, an Acceptance for Docketing, 

which announced its intent to perform a detailed technical review and conduct a hearing in

accordance with Subpart L, ‘‘Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications,’’ of 

10 CFR Part 2 (73 FR 33118). Subsequent to the site visits in August 2008 and September 

2009 and in accordance with the provisions of NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff identified 

and evaluated the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating two new units 

at the VEGP site.

The draft SEIS was published in September 2010. A 75-day comment period commenced on 

September 3, 2010, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Filing appeared 

in the Federal Register (75 FR 54146) to allow members of the public to comment on the results 
March 2011 xiii NUREG-1947

of the NRC staff’s review. A public meeting was held in Waynesboro, Georgia, on October 7, 

2010. During this public meeting, the staff described the results of the NRC environmental 

review, provided members of the public with information to assist them in formulating comments 

on the SEIS, and accepted comments. When the comment period ended on November 24, 

2010, the staff considered and addressed all comments received. All comments received on 

the draft SEIS are included in Appendix E.

Included in this SEIS are (1) the results of the NRC staff’s analyses, which consider and weigh 

the environmental effects of the proposed action (i.e., issuance of the COLs and LWA) and of 

constructing and operating two additional nuclear units at the VEGP site; (2) mitigation 

measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to the proposed action; and (4) the staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action. To 

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

NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on guidance developed by 

the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27). The three significance levels 

established by the NRC – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – are defined 

as follows:

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

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

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

important attributes of the resource.

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

appropriate sections of the SEIS. In preparing this SEIS, the staff reviewed Southern’s COL 

application, including the ER and responses to staff requests for additional information; 

reviewed the ESP EIS and the ESP license amendment EAs; reviewed Southern’s process for 

identifying new and significant information; consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; reviewed other relevant literature and documents; and followed the guidance set forth 

in NRC NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 

Plants (ESRP). 

The NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of 

the proposed action is that the COLs and LWA be issued as proposed. This recommendation is 

based on (1) the COL application, including the ER and responses to staff requests for 

additional information submitted by Southern; (2) the staff’s review conducted for the ESP 

application and documented in the ESP EIS; (3) the staff’s review conducted for the ESP 

license amendments as documented in the staff’s Environmental Assessments; (4) consultation 
NUREG-1947 xiv March 2011

with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (5) the staff’s own independent review of 

potential new and significant information available since preparation and publication of the 

ESP EIS; and (6) the assessments summarized in this SEIS, including the potential mitigation 

measures identified and consideration of public comments received on the draft SEIS.
March 2011 xv NUREG-1947

Abbreviations/Acronyms

ac acre(s)

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System

APP Avian Protection Program

ARRA America Recovery and Reinvestment Act

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

BA biological assessment 

BTU British Thermal Unit

°C degree Celsius

CAA Clean Air Act

CCAA Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances

CDC U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 carbon dioxide

COL combined license

CWA Clean Water Act

CWS cooling water system

dBA decibel(s)

DBA design basis accident

DCD Design Control Document

DPS distinct population segments

DSM demand-side management

EA Environmental Assessment

EAB exclusion area boundary

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPP Environmental Protection Plan

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

ER Environmental Report

ESP early site permit

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan
NUREG-1947 xvi March 2011

°F degree Fahrenheit

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FR Federal Register

ft foot/feet

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

g gram(s)

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

GDHR Georgia Department of Human Resources

GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement

GHPD Georgia Historic Preservation Division

gpm gallons per minute

GPC Georgia Power Company

GPSC Georgia Public Service Commission

GRR General Re-Evaluation Report

ha hectare(s)

HLW high-level waste

hr hour

in. inch(es)

IRP integrated resource plan

km kilometer(s)

kV kilovolt

kWh kilowatt hour

L liter(s)

L/s liter(s) per second

LAR License Amendment Request

LLW low-level waste

LOS level of service

LPZ low-population zone

LWA Limited Work Authorization

m meter(s)

m3 cubic meters

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

mi mile(s)

mSv millisievert
March 2011 xvii NUREG-1947

mrem millirem(s)

MTU metric tons uranium

MW megawatt(s)

MWd megawatts per day

MW(e) megawatts electric

MWh megawatt hour(s)

MW(t) megawatts thermal

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ppm parts per million

PRA probabilistic risk assessment

RAI Request(s) for Additional Information

RDC Representative Delineated Corridor

REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program

ROI region of interest

ROW right(s)-of-way

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternatives

SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternatives

SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

sec second/seconds

SER Safety Evaluation Report

SERPPAS Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office/Officer

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement

SMEs subject matter experts

Southern Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Sv sievert

SWS service water system

TEDE total effective dose equivalent

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter
NUREG-1947 xviii March 2011

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

VEGP Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC

wt weight

χ/Q dispersion values

yd yard

yd3 cubic yards

yr year(s)
March 2011 1-1 NUREG-1947

1.0 Introduction

On March 31, 2008, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), acting on behalf of 

itself and several co-applicants (Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia), submitted to the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) an application for combined licenses (COLs) for 

the construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

(VEGP) site. The VEGP site and existing facilities are owned and operated by Georgia Power 

Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City 

of Dalton, Georgia. Southern is the licensee and operator of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2, 

and has been authorized by the VEGP co-owners to apply for COLs to construct and operate 

two additional units (Units 3 and 4) at the VEGP site.

1.1 Background 

On August 26, 2009, the NRC approved issuance to Southern and the same four co-applicants 

of an early site permit (ESP) and a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) for two additional nuclear 

units at the VEGP site (NRC 2009). This approval was supported by information contained in 

NUREG-1872, Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit at the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Site (ESP EIS) (NRC 2008a) and errata. The ESP resolved many 

safety and environmental issues and allowed Southern to “bank” the VEGP ESP site for up to 

20 years. The LWA authorized Southern to conduct certain limited construction activities at the 

site in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subparts 50.10 and 

52.24(c).

As permitted by NRC regulations, the COL application references the VEGP ESP. Southern 

also submitted a request for a second LWA as part of its COL application. The second LWA, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 50.10(d), would allow for installation of reinforcing steel, sumps, drain 

lines, and other embedded items along with placement of concrete for the nuclear island 

foundation base slab that are not included in the existing LWA (Southern 2010a).

The proposed design specified in the COL application for the two new units is the Westinghouse 

AP1000 pressurized reactor. An amendment to the certified AP1000 design is currently being 

reviewed by NRC in a separate design certification process. The draft SEIS indicated that the 

COL application references the AP1000 plant design that has been certified by NRC (Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 52, Appendix D) (Westinghouse 2005), as modified 

by the amendment to that design that Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse), 

the AP1000 vendor, has submitted to the NRC. The NRC staff is reviewing the design revision 

separately from this COL review. At the time the draft SEIS was published, Revision 17 of the 

AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2008) was the Revision being considered in 

the design certification review, and the environmental review in the draft SEIS accordingly 
Introduction

NUREG-1947 1-2 March 2011

accounted for the environmental impacts anticipated from use of the design in that Revision. 

Since publication of the draft SEIS, Westinghouse has updated its design certification 

application with Revision 18 of the AP1000 DCD, and the VEGP COL application has been 

updated to reference that Revision. The NRC staff has determined that none of the changes 

involved in the latest Revision has the potential to affect the environmental review documented 

in the SEIS. For that reason, references to Revision 17 in this SEIS have been left unchanged. 

If a subsequent Revision to the AP1000 DCD is submitted and referenced in the COL 

application, the staff will determine whether the change in Revision has the potential to affect 

the environmental review. Depending on the environmental significance of any such design 

change, the staff will supplement the SEIS as appropriate.

During April, May, and June, 2010, Southern submitted requests for three ESP license 

amendments associated with the previously-authorized LWA construction activities. These 

amendment requests sought authorization to use Category-1 and Category-2 backfill materials 

from additional onsite sources, including three new borrow areas, as well as to change the 

classification of engineered backfill over the side slopes of the excavations for Units 3 and 4 

(Southern 2010b, c, d, e). The NRC prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for each license amendment request (NRC 2010a, b, c). 

These ESP license amendments were issued in May 2010 (NRC 2010d), June 2010 

(NRC 2010e), and July 2010 (NRC 2010f), respectively.

1.1.1 COL Application and Review

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

Construction Permit and an Operating License or obtain a COL. Either approach constitutes a 

separate major federal action and would require that an environmental impact statement (EIS)

be issued in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51. Under 10 CFR Part 52, which contains NRC’s 

reactor licensing regulations, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 

51, which are the NRC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), the NRC is required to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) 

as part of its review of a COL application referencing an ESP. As required by 10 CFR 51.26, 

NRC published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (74 FR 49407) to prepare and publish 

a draft SEIS for public comment. The SEIS for the COLs was prepared in the same manner as 

the final EIS for the ESP except that NRC determined that it would not conduct a formal scoping 

process in accordance with 10 CFR 51.26(d). A separate Safety Evaluation Report (SER) also 

will be prepared in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52.

If a COL application references an ESP, the NRC staff, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.75(c), is 

required to prepare a supplement to the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Therefore, the staff can “tier 

off” the ESP EIS at the COL stage and disclose the NRC conclusion for matters resolved in the 

ESP review. Such matters will not be subject to litigation at the combined license stage unless 

new and significant information is identified. Because the VEGP COL application references the 
Introduction

March 2011 1-3 NUREG-1947

VEGP ESP, the NRC staff relied on the analysis in the ESP EIS as the basis in preparing the 

SEIS. NRC’s regulatory standards for a review of a COL application are listed in 10 CFR 52.81. 

Detailed procedures for conducting the environmental portion of the review are found in 

guidance set forth in NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan: Standard Review 

Plans for Environmental Review for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2000) and recent updates.

According to 10 CFR 52.80(b), an application for a COL must contain an environmental report 

(ER), which provides the applicant’s input to the NRC’s EIS. NRC regulations related to the 

contents of the ER are found in 10 CFR Part 51.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.45 and 10 CFR 51.50(c)(1), Southern submitted an ER as part of 

its COL application (Southern 2009). In accordance with 10 CFR 51.49, Southern also 

submitted an ER in support of its additional LWA request (Southern 2010f). The ER submitted 

with the COL application is not required to contain information or analysis that was previously 

submitted in the ER for the ESP application or address issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS and associated proceedings.

The SEIS, together with the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the ESP hearing proceedings, and the ESP 

license amendment EAs, provides the staff’s evaluation of the environmental effects of 

constructing and operating two AP1000 reactors at the VEGP site. In addition to considering 

the environmental effects of the proposed action, the SEIS addresses new and significant 

information with respect to alternatives to the proposed action and the benefits of the proposed 

action (e.g., the need for power). Southern’s COL application references an ESP; therefore, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 52.83, issues resolved as part of the ESP proceeding remain resolved 

except under conditions set forth in 10 CFR 52.39(a)(2). In addition, measures and controls 

previously identified to limit adverse impacts are evaluated along with any new or significant 

information that would have the potential to affect the findings or conclusions reached in the 

ESP EIS.

Upon acceptance of Southern’s COL application, the NRC began the environmental review 

process by publishing an Acceptance for Docketing in the Federal Register on June 11, 2008

(73 FR 33118). The Acceptance for Docketing announced NRC’s intent to perform a detailed 

technical review and conduct a hearing in accordance with Subpart L, ‘‘Informal Hearing 

Procedures for NRC Adjudications,’’ of 10 CFR Part 2.

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

the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on guidance developed 

by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27). The three significance levels 

established by the NRC – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – are defined as follows:

SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 
Introduction

NUREG-1947 1-4 March 2011

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

This SEIS presents the staff’s analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental impacts 

of the proposed action at the VEGP site, including the environmental impacts associated with 

construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 at the site, the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to granting the COLs, and the mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. The SEIS also provides the NRC staff’s recommendation to the 

Commission regarding the issuance of the COLs and LWA for the VEGP site.

The draft SEIS was published in September 2010. A 75-day comment period commenced on

September 3, 2010, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Filing appeared 

in the Federal Register (75 FR 54146) to allow members of the public to comment on the 

results of the NRC staff’s review. A public meeting was held in Waynesboro, Georgia, on 

October 7, 2010. During this public meeting, the staff described the results of the NRC 

environmental review, provided members of the public with information to assist them in 

formulating comments on the SEIS, and accepted comments. When the comment period ended 

on November 24, 2010, the staff considered and addressed all comments received. All 

comments received on the draft SEIS are included in Appendix E.

1.1.2 Concurrent Reviews

In a review separate from the environmental review process, the NRC analyzes the safety and 

security aspects of construction and operation of the proposed new reactors at the site, 

including the applicant’s emergency planning information. These analyses will be documented 

in an SER. The SER will present the conclusions reached by the NRC regarding whether there 

is reasonable assurance that two Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactors can be 

constructed and operated at the VEGP site without undue risk to the health and safety of the 

public and whether issuance of the license will be inimical to the common defense and security. 

In addition, the AP1000 reactor design referenced in the application is a standard design that is 

undergoing a design certification amendment review pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. 

This review will be the subject of a later rulemaking by the NRC.

1.2 The Proposed Federal Action

The proposed Federal action is issuance of COLs, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, for 

two AP1000 reactors at the VEGP site and an LWA for requested construction activities. The 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) disclosed the staff’s analysis of the environmental impacts that could 
Introduction

March 2011 1-5 NUREG-1947

result from the construction and operation of these two new units. This SEIS for the COL

application evaluates whether any new and potentially significant information has been identified

that would alter the staff’s conclusions regarding issues resolved in the ESP proceeding.

In the context of a COL application that references an ESP, the term ‘‘new’’ in the phrase ‘‘new 

and significant information’’ is defined as any information that was both (1) not considered in 

preparing the ESP ER or EIS (as may be evidenced by references in these documents, 

applicant responses to NRC Requests for Additional Information [RAIs], comment letters, etc.) 

and (2) not generally known or publicly available during the preparation of the ESP EIS (such as 

information in reports, studies, and treatises).

For new information to be ‘‘significant,’’ it must be material to the issue being considered; that is, 

it must have the potential to affect the finding or conclusions of the NRC staff’s evaluation of the 

issue. The applicant for a COL need only provide information in the application about a 

previously resolved environmental issue if it is both new and significant (72 FR 49352).

In this SEIS, the staff evaluates the impacts of construction and operation of two AP1000 units, 

with a total combined thermal power rating of 6800 megawatts thermal (MW(t)). The proposed 

units would use a closed-cycle cooling system and would require a single natural draft cooling 

tower for each unit. 

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose and need for the issuance of the COLs is to provide for additional base-load 

electrical generating capacity in the region of interest as defined in Section 9.4.1 of the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008a). Southern indicated that the proposed action also will allow it to be responsive to 

the Georgia legislature, which urged Georgia utilities to study the feasibility of building new 

nuclear power plants (Senate Resolution 865). The purpose and need for the issuance of the 

LWA is “... to support the project schedule by assuring that [the proposed LWA activities] occur 

independent of the COL issuance schedule and contribute to maintaining a margin in the 

construction schedule that ensures the operation need dates will be met” (Southern 2010e).

The ultimate decision about whether or not to build a facility and the schedule for any 

construction are not within the purview of NRC and would be determined by the license holder if 

the authorization is granted. A license from NRC to construct and operate a nuclear power 

plant is necessary, but not sufficient for construction and operation of the power plant. Certain 

long lead-time activities, such as ordering and procuring certain components and materials 

necessary to construct the plant, may begin before the COL is granted. Southern must obtain 

and maintain permits or authorizations from other Federal, State, and local agencies and 

permitting authorities before undertaking certain activities.
Introduction

NUREG-1947 1-6 March 2011

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA states that an EIS is to include a detailed statement on 

alternatives to the proposed action. This SEIS addresses the following categories of 

alternatives: (1) the no-action alternative, (2) energy source alternatives, and (3) system design 

alternatives. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(e)(3), the SEIS does not contain a separate 

discussion of alternative sites. The NRC’s detailed evaluation of alternative sites is documented

in Chapters 9 and 10 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

1.5 Compliance and Consultations 

Prior to construction and operation of the new unit, Southern is required to hold certain Federal, 

State, and local environmental permits, as well as meet applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements. Southern provided a list of environmental approvals and consultations 

associated with the VEGP proposed Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2010e). Potential authorizations 

and consultations relevant to the proposed COL are included in Appendix H.

Before it could obtain a COL from NRC, it was necessary for Southern to obtain a Clean Water 

Act Section 401 Certification. This certification, which was issued by the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources (GDNR) on June 1, 2010, ensures that the project does not conflict with 

water quality management programs in Georgia. Southern provided a copy of the 401 

Certification to NRC as a comment to the draft SEIS (Southern 2010g).

The NRC staff has contacted the appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies to 

identify any compliance, permit, or significant environmental issues of concern to the reviewing 

agencies that relate to the construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4. A list of 

organizations contacted is included in Appendix B.

1.6 New and Significant Information Review

As set forth in 10 CFR 51.92, an SEIS for a COL referencing an ESP shall contain an analysis

of those issues related to the impacts of construction and operation that were resolved in the 

ESP proceeding for which new and significant information has been identified. Information is 

considered new if it was (1) not considered in preparing the ESP ER or ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) 

(as may be evidenced by references in these documents, applicant responses to NRC RAIs, 

comment letters, etc.) and (2) not generally known or publicly available during the preparation of 

the ESP EIS (such as information in studies and reports). For information to be significant, it 

must be material to the issue being considered; that is, it must have the potential to affect the 

finding or conclusions of the NRC staff’s evaluation of the issue (72 FR 49352). If there is no 

new and significant information for matters resolved at the ESP stage, the staff may tier off of 
Introduction

March 2011 1-7 NUREG-1947

the ESP EIS at the COL stage and disclose the NRC conclusions for matters considered during

the ESP review.

A COL applicant should have a reasonable process to ensure it becomes aware of new and 

significant information that may have a bearing on the earlier NRC conclusion, and should 

document the results of this process in an auditable form. The NRC staff will verify that the 

applicant’s process for identifying new and significant information is effective (72 FR 49352).

1.6.1 Applicant’s Process

Southern developed a process to identify new and significant information relevant to the issues 

and conclusions presented in the ESP EIS. This process is detailed in Guidance for New and 

Significant Information (Southern 2007) and is summarized in the COL ER (Southern 2009). 

The process was designed to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 51.50(c) and to “... provide a 

methodical, comprehensive review of the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS and the 

supporting information for those conclusions to identify any new and significant information that 

has the potential to change the NRC’s conclusions presented in the ESP EIS” (Southern 2009). 

For purposes of its review, Southern adopted definitions of “new” and “significant” previously 

published by the NRC (72 FR 49352).

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information began with the designation of 

subject matter experts (SMEs) with extensive knowledge about plant systems, site environs, 

station environmental issues, and the regulatory issues relevant to the plant and site. The 

SMEs performed a line-by-line review of the ESP EIS to identify “key inputs.” This review 

focused on the portions of the EIS where conclusions were directly supported, especially 

Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7. The review also considered key assumptions that were included in 

Appendix J of the ESP EIS, key site characteristics, Westinghouse design parameters and site 

interface values that were found in Appendix I of the ESP EIS, and dose calculation 

assumptions provided in Appendix G of the ESP EIS.

The SMEs reviewed the key inputs to determine if any new information exists that could affect 

the NRC staff’s findings or conclusions. This determination typically was based, as appropriate, 

on current construction plans and designs, site documentation, environmental monitoring and 

sampling programs, interviews with Federal, State, or local officials, contact with Federal, State, 

or local agencies, and when necessary, the SMEs’ local knowledge. The SMEs conducted a 

review of other information sources including interviews with industry peers, academia, and 

Federal, State, and local resource agencies, a review of the AP1000 Design Control Document, 

Westinghouse Technical Reports for the AP1000, environmental monitoring reports from 

existing programs, and applicable scientific literature, to determine if additional information 

relevant to the COL application was available that was not captured in the direct review of the 

ESP EIS.
Introduction

NUREG-1947 1-8 March 2011

The SMEs then reviewed all information that had been identified as new to determine if it might 

be significant. When possible, this determination was based on comparison with regulatory

limits, guidelines provided in NRC review guidance such as NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), or other 

applicable criteria. When such a comparison was not possible, the SMEs used their best 

professional judgment to determine if new information was considered significant. The results 

of this review, including the bases for the conclusion on new information and the rationale for 

determination of significance, were summarized in documents that were audited by the NRC 

staff during the site audit that was conducted in late September 2009.

1.6.2 Staff Evaluation

The NRC staff’s evaluation of Southern’s new and significant information methodology began 

with the review of Southern’s process as described in Rev. 0 of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COL 

Application (Southern 2008). In August 2008, the staff performed an assessment of Southern’s 

process for identifying new and significant information in three specific areas: (1) aquatic 

ecology, (2) terrestrial ecology, and (3) hydrology. The assessment was performed at the 

VEGP site near Waynesboro, Georgia, and included review of documents, staff discussions with 

Southern, site tours, and discussions with representatives from other State and Federal 

agencies including the GDNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The staff raised several questions 

about certain aspects of the methodology that Southern needed to address. The results of that 

assessment were documented in a trip report (NRC 2008b).

During June 2009, the staff was provided access to the information developed during 

Southern’s implementation of its new and significant information methodology. This access 

was available through a reading room set up by Southern in Richland, Washington.

After the ESP was authorized in August 2009, the NRC staff performed a new and significant 

information audit at the VEGP site near Waynesboro, Georgia, during the period from

September 28 through October 1, 2009. The focus of the staff’s audit was to determine if 

Southern’s new and significant information methodology was robust and comprehensive and 

had the ability to capture any new information developed since completion of the ESP EIS and 

authorization of the ESP, and if Southern adhered to its process set forth in the new and 

significant information methodology. To make these determinations, the staff examined

Southern’s process in detail for all the resource areas discussed in the ESP EIS, assessed the 

results of Southern’s review for new and significant information, and participated in several site 

tours including potential transmission line rights-of-way, the location of the new intake structure 

on the Savannah River, and the locations of cultural and historic resources on the VEGP site. 

In addition, the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and officials were contacted to 

verify the presence or absence of new and potentially significant information. A summary of the 

site audit is provided in the site audit trip report (NRC 2010g). Following the audit, the staff 

conducted an independent assessment of other sources of new and significant information.
Introduction

March 2011 1-9 NUREG-1947

During March 2010, Southern provided new information about potential new onsite borrow 

areas (Southern 2010h). Because these borrow sources had not been evaluated in the ESP 

EIS, the NRC staff performed a second site audit during the period May 3–5, 2010, to evaluate 

the potential environmental impacts of developing these new borrow areas. The results of the 

second site audit are provided in a site audit trip report (NRC 2010h).

1.6.3 Conclusion

Based on the staff’s independent review of Southern’s new and significant information process, 

the staff determined that the process was adequate to identify new and potentially significant 

information concerning environmental issues addressed in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

1.7 Report Contents

The subsequent chapters of this SEIS are organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the 

proposed site and discusses the environment that would be affected by the addition of the new

units. Chapter 3 describes the power plant characteristics to be used as the basis for evaluating 

the environmental impacts. Chapters 4 and 5 examine the environmental impacts of

construction (Chapter 4) and operation (Chapter 5) of the proposed Units 3 and 4. Chapter 6 

analyzes the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive

materials, and decommissioning, while Chapter 7 discusses the cumulative impacts of the 

proposed action as defined in 10 CFR Part 51.75(c). Chapter 8 addresses the need for power. 

Chapter 9 discusses alternatives to the proposed action, and Chapter 10 summarizes the 

conclusions regarding the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, while Chapter 11 

summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and presents the staff’s recommendation 

with respect to issuance of the COLs and LWA.

1.8 References 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”

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

Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.”
Introduction

NUREG-1947 1-10 March 2011

72 FR 49352. August 28, 2007. “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power 

Plants.” Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

73 FR 33118. June 11, 2008. “Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Acceptance for 

Docketing of an Application for Combined License for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 

and 4.” Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

74 FR 49407. September 28, 2009. “Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application; Notice of Intent to Prepare a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.” Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

75 FR 54145. September 3, 2010. “Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability;, 

EIS No. 20100351, Draft EIS, NRC, GA, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, 

Construction and Operation, Application for Combined Licenses (COLs). NUREG 1947.” 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (Also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act [FWPCA].) 

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

Sen. Res. 865. 2006. “A Resolution: Urging Electric Utilities to Consider Building New Nuclear 

Power Plants in Georgia; Urging the Public Service Commission to Encourage Such 

Consideration; and for Other Purposes.” Georgia State Senate, Georgia General Assembly. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Guidance for New and 

Significant Information. ND-ARL-012, Version 1.0, October 8, 2007, Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081570520.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 0, March 28, 

2008, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081050181.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, August 23, 

2009, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010a. Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 6 Limited 

Work Authorization. Revision 2, August 6, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML102220380.
Introduction

March 2011 1-11 NUREG-1947

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010b. Letter from B.L. Ivey to NRC,

“Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Change 

Request, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Use of Category 1 and 2 Backfill 

Material for Additional Onsite Areas, on an Exigent Basis for Units 3 and 4.” Letter ND-10-0795. 

April 20, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101120089.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010c. Letter from M. Smith, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Amendment Request, Revised Site 

Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of Backfill.” Letter ND-10-0960. May 13, 

2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101340649.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010d. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Amendment Request, Revised Site 

Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of Backfill, Part 2.” Letter ND-10-1005. May 

24, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101470212.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010e. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Site Safety Analysis Report License Amendment Request, Revise Backfill 

Geometry.” Letter ND-10-0964. May 24, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML101470213.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010f. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, Environmental Report to Support Revision 1 to 

Part 6, LWA Request.” Letter ND-10-0227. February 5, 2010, Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML100470600.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010g. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement.” November 23,1010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession 

No. ML103300035.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010h. Letter from M. Smith, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, Supporting Information for Environmental Report 

Review.” March 12, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. 

ML100750038.
Introduction

NUREG-1947 1-12 March 2011

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

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007

revisions.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Summary of Environmental Site Audit 

Related to the Review of the Combined License Application for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML082620184. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site 

Permit No. ESP-004. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML092290157.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP 

Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101380114.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP 

Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101670592.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site 

Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of no 

Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101660076.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010d. Letter from C. Patel, Senior Project 

Manager, NRC, to J.A. Miller, Executive Vice President, SNC, “Subject: Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant ESP Site - Issuance of Exigent Amendment Regarding Request for Changes 

to the Site Safety Analysis Report.” May 21, 2010. Accession No. ML101400509.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010e. Letter from T. Spicher, Project Manager, 

NRC, to J.A. Miller, Executive Vice President, SNC, “Subject: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

ESP Site - Issuance of Amendment Regarding Request for Changes to the Site Safety Analysis 

Report Regarding Onsite Sources of Backfill.” June 25, 2010. Accession No. ML101760370

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010f. Letter from T. Spicher, Project Manager, 

NRC, to J.A. Miller, Executive Vice President, SNC, Subject: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

ESP Site, Subject: Issuance of Amendment RE: Request for changes to the classification of 
Introduction

March 2011 1-13 NUREG-1947

backfill over the side slopes of Units 3 and 4 excavations.” July 9, 2010. Accession No. 

ML101870522.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010g. Summary of Environmental New and 

Significant Site Audit Related to the Review of the Combined License Application for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Site. Package Accession No. ML093631157. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010h. Memorandum Regarding the Site Audit 

Summary Concerning Environmental Impacts Associated with Acquisition of Additional Backfill 

Material for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Combined License Application Review. 

Washington, D.C. Package Accession No. ML101550095.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML053480403.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML083230168. 

March 2011 2-1 NUREG-1947

2.0 Affected Environment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff provided a description of the affected 

environment in the vicinity of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit 

(ESP) site in Chapter 2 of the ESP environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). The 

applicant, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), evaluated potential new and 

significant information that could affect the description of the affected environment. The NRC 

staff reviewed Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, but also 

conducted its own independent review to verify whether new and significant information has 

been identified. The results of those reviews are presented in this chapter. The site location is 

described in Section 2.1, and the land, meteorology and air quality, geology, radiological

environment, water, ecology, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and 

environmental justice aspects (or conditions) of the site are presented in Sections 2.2 through 

2.10, respectively. Section 2.11 examines related Federal projects, and references cited are 

listed in Section 2.12.

2.1 Site Location

The staff described the location of the VEGP ESP site in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008). This description included the location of the proposed Units 3 and 4 on the VEGP 

site in relation to the regions within 10 km (6 mi) and 80 km (50 mi) of the site. The VEGP site 

comprises 1282.5 ha (3169 ac) in an unincorporated area of Burke County, Georgia. The site is 

approximately 24 km (15 mi) east-northeast of Waynesboro, the county seat of Burke County, 

and 42 km (26 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia.

In the environmental report (ER) included in its combined license (COL) application (Southern 

2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related to site location, and the 

NRC staff found no new and significant information during its review of Southern’s process for 

identifying new and significant information and the staff’s visit to the VEGP site.

2.2 Land

The staff described land-related issues for the ESP site in Section 2.2 of the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008). This discussion included a description of the VEGP site, the vicinity and region 

surrounding the site, and the existing electric power transmission system supporting the site.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to land-related issues, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its 

review of Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information and the staff’s audit 

visit to the VEGP site.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1947 2-2 March 2011

2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality

The meteorology and air quality of the VEGP ESP site were described by NRC in Section 2.3 of 

the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and by Southern in Section 2.7 of the ESP ER (Southern 2008a). 

These descriptions included a summary of the climatology and air quality for the region. They 

also included discussions of the onsite meteorological monitoring program and associated 

measurements that were the bases for other assessments described in the ESP EIS. For 

example, estimates of site-specific atmospheric relative concentration were used to assess 

dose from routine and accidental radiological releases in Sections 5.9 and 5.10, respectively, of 

the ESP EIS (NRC 2008).

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to meteorology and air quality. However, during the NRC staff’s independent review, new 

information related to changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone 

was identified. The staff determined that this new information warranted further review.

The VEGP site is centrally located within the Augusta (Georgia) – Aiken (South Carolina) 

Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

Part 81.114). All of the counties in this AQCR currently are designated as in attainment or 

unclassified for all criteria pollutants for which NAAQS have been established (40 CFR 81.311). 

On March 12, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a revision to 

the NAAQS for ozone. The final rule (73 FR 16436) is designed to further protect public health 

by reducing the standard from 0.084 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. Section 107(d)(1) of 

the Clean Air Act requires each state to submit, within 1 year of the revised standard, its 

recommended designation (i.e., attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) for each county. 

On March 12, 2009, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) issued a letter to 

the EPA providing its recommended designations; under those recommendations Burke County 

remains unclassified/attainment with respect to the new ozone standard (GDNR 2009a). EPA 

will make its final determination no later than March 2011.

2.4 Geology

The staff described the geology of the VEGP ESP site in Section 2.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008). The discussion included general descriptions of the regional geology, the topography of 

the site area, and the regional mineral resources. Detailed descriptions of the geologic, seismic, 

and geotechnical engineering properties of the site, including the results of field and laboratory 

investigations, were provided in the ESP Site Safety Analysis Report (Southern 2008b) and the 

ESP Safety Evaluation Report (NRC 2009).
Affected Environment

March 2011 2-3 NUREG-1947

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to the environmental aspects of geology, and the NRC staff found no new and significant 

information during its review of Southern’s process for identifying new and significant 

information and during the audit at the VEGP site. 

2.5 Radiological Environment

Detailed descriptions of the radiological environment of the VEGP ESP site were provided by 

NRC in Section 2.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and by Southern in Section 6.2 of the ESP ER 

(Southern 2008a). These discussions included summaries of historical data from radiological 

environmental monitoring program annual reports for the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2. Each 

year, Southern issues a report entitled Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the 

Vogtle Power Station, which documents gaseous and liquid releases and resulting doses from 

VEGP.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to radiological environment, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during 

its review of Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, during the audit 

at the VEGP site, and during its review of recent data on releases and estimated occupational 

and population doses regarding the radiological environment since issuance of the VEGP ESP 

(Southern 2006, 2007, 2008c, 2009b).

2.6 Water

The staff described the hydrology of the VEGP ESP site in Section 2.6 of the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008). These discussions included the regional and site surface water features, the 

regional and site hydrogeology and groundwater features, consumptive and non-consumptive

surface-water and groundwater use in the area affected by the site, surface-water and 

groundwater quality in the area affected by the site, and existing and possible future 

hydrological, thermal, and chemical monitoring at the site.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to hydrology, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its review of 

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information and during the audit at the 

VEGP site. 

2.7 Ecology

The staff presented detailed descriptions of the terrestrial and aquatic ecology in the vicinity of 

the VEGP site in Section 2.7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The following sections update these

descriptions, where appropriate, with information developed since the ESP EIS was prepared, 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1947 2-4 March 2011

including information from the COL ER (Southern 2009a), supplemental information provided by 

Southern, and reviews of current information available from Federal and State agencies.

2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology

The staff presented a detailed description of the terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the 

VEGP ESP site in Section 2.7.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). This discussion included 

wildlife habitats, wildlife usage, and terrestrial monitoring in the vicinity of the VEGP site and 

the proposed transmission line rights-of-way (ROW). The evaluation also included a discussion 

of the important species as specified by NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan: 

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2000), 

including Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species. 

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related

to terrestrial resources. The NRC staff performed site audits in September 2009 and May 2010, 

and contacted the GDNR, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to determine if new information was available, and 

received responses from each of these agencies (GDNR 2009b; SCDNR 2009; FWS 2010a, b). 

On October 20, 2010, FWS provided the NRC staff with an update of Federally listed threatened 

or endangered species that can be expected to occur in the project area (FWS 2010b). FWS 

identified four Federally listed terrestrial plant and animal species that may occur on or in the 

vicinity of the VEGP site and/or in the vicinity of the Representative Delineated Corridor (RDC) 

(FWS 2010b). The updated list includes the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the 

wood stork (Mycteria americana), the Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), and the eastern 

indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). In addition to the Federally listed species, FWS provided 

information on the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus) in the response letter. Impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker, wood stork, and 

Canby’s dropwort are discussed in the ESP EIS. FWS indicated that there are eagle nests in 

Jefferson and McDuffie Counties, including one nest in the Representative Delineated Corridor 

(RDC). The location of the eagle nest in the RDC also was discussed in the ESP EIS.

FWS indicated that the four Federally listed terrestrial plant and animal species may occur on or 

in the vicinity of the VEGP site as well as within the vicinity of the RDC (FWS 2010b).

The RDC is a transmission line route of sufficient width to contain the eventual ROW for the 

proposed new 500-kV transmission line. It is described in Sections 2.7.1 and 4.1.2 of the ESP 

EIS (NRC 2008) and in the “Corridor Study: Thomson – Vogtle 500-kV Transmission Project” 

(GPC 2007), and it was the focus for the staff’s analysis of potential impacts from the proposed 

transmission line. Southern and GPC have not determined the final route for the transmission 

line, but as explained in the ESP EIS, the transmission line ROW would be routed northwest 

from the VEGP site, passing west of Fort Gordon, a U.S. Army facility west of Augusta, Georgia, 
Affected Environment

March 2011 2-5 NUREG-1947

and then north to the Thomson substation. It is anticipated that the transmission line would 

cross primarily Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, and Warren Counties in Georgia, and would be 46 m 

(150 ft) wide and 97 km (60 mi) long.

Based on the October 20, 2010 FWS letter, the four Federally listed species that can be 

expected to occur within the project area are the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), 

the wood stork (Mycteria americana), the Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), and the eastern 

indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). In addition to the Federally listed species, FWS provided 

information on the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus) in the response letter. Impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker, wood stork, and 

Canby’s dropwort are discussed in the ESP EIS. FWS indicated that there are eagle nests in 

Jefferson and McDuffie Counties, including one nest in the RDC. The location of the eagle nest

in the RDC also was discussed in the ESP EIS.

The information discussed in this section focuses on species not previously considered in the 

ESP EIS. This includes the eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise, both identified by FWS in 

their recent letter as species that can be expected, to occur in the project area. FWS noted that 

the gopher tortoise is not a Federally listed species in Georgia; however, its status is under 

review by FWS (FWS 2010b). Sandhills habitat that could support the gopher tortoise and the 

eastern indigo snake is present in the project area.

The eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise were not included in the analysis undertaken for

the ESP EIS. The eastern indigo snake was not included because it was not in previous FWS 

lists of species within the project area. Likewise, the gopher tortoise was not included in 

previous GDNR species occurrence lists for the project area. Therefore, these species are 

discussed below. The Federally threatened eastern indigo snake also is discussed in the 

Biological Assessment included in Appendix F.

FWS indicated that the gopher tortoise, a Georgia state threatened species, can be expected to 

occur in the project area (FWS 2010b), and currently is under review by the FWS to be listed as

Federally threatened (FWS 2010b). There are no known populations of the gopher tortoise on 

the VEGP site or within the RDC (GDNR 2009b; FWS 2010b). The gopher tortoise is a 

characteristic species of the longleaf pine and wiregrass community, which includes sandhills, 

dry flatwoods, and turkey oak scrub. Historically, this community was represented by an opencanopied forest that allows abundant sunlight penetration and conditions favorable for a rich 

growth of herbaceous vegetation. Sandy soil, sunlight availability, and abundant herbaceous 

vegetation are key habitat requirements for the gopher tortoise. The gopher tortoise digs 

burrows that provide winter hibernacula, retreats from the summer heat, and shelter from fire for 

the tortoise and also for hundreds of invertebrate and vertebrate animal species. The gopher 

tortoise has been termed a "keystone species" of the longleaf pine community, meaning its 

existence is critical to the existence of many other species (GDNR 2009c). 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1947 2-6 March 2011

Southern submitted a draft Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) for the 

gopher tortoise at the VEGP Site. This CCAA is currently under review by FWS (SERPPAS 

2010). The draft CCAA does not include the offsite portions of the proposed transmission line.

The eastern indigo snake, identified by FWS as a species that can be expected to occur in the 

project area, but for which there are no documented occurrences in the area is Federally listed 

as threatened (FWS 2010b). It occurred historically throughout Florida and in the coastal plains 

of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi (43 FR 4026; FWS 2006). Most, if not all, of the 

remaining viable populations of the eastern indigo snake occur in Georgia and Florida. There 

are no historic or recent records for the upper Coastal Plain or Fall Line sandhill region of 

Georgia, including Burke, McDuffie, Jefferson, and Warren Counties (FWS 2006; Diemer and 

Speake 1983; Stevenson 2006).

The eastern indigo snake occupies a broad range of habitats, including pine flatwoods, scrubby 

flatwoods, high pine, dry prairie, edges of freshwater marshes, agricultural fields, and humanaltered habitats (FWS 1982). In the northern parts of its range, including southeastern Georgia, 

eastern indigo snakes are tied to the use of gopher tortoise burrows and longleaf pine habitat 

(FWS 2006). The gopher tortoise burrows are used by eastern indigo snakes to protect against 

cold in the winter and heat in the summer, and also for foraging, nesting, mating, and shelter 

prior to shedding (FWS 2006). Habitat use often varies seasonally between upland and wetland 

areas in Georgia (FWS 2006). Movement between habitat types may relate to the needs for 

thermal refugia, differences in habitat use by the juveniles and adults, or seasonal differences in 

availability of food resources. For these reasons, the eastern indigo snake is particularly 

vulnerable to habitat fragmentation (FWS 2006).

During the COL application review, Southern did identify new information with respect to the 

proposed new borrow areas, as described in its March 12, 2010, submittal (Southern 2010a). 

Southern also provided information in its subsequent submittals on May 10, May 13, and 

May 24, 2010, in support of requested ESP license amendments to obtain backfill material from 

onsite borrow areas not previously identified in the ESP (Southern 2010b, c, d). The information 

supplied by FWS and Southern resulted in a change in the terrestrial baseline conditions 

considered in the ESP EIS. The eastern indigo snake, gopher tortoise, sandhills milkvetch 

(Astragalus michauxii), and the southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis) all are known to 

occur in sandhills habitat. This habitat type is present both in the RDC and onsite. 

In the ESP EIS, which was completed in the summer of 2008, the NRC staff noted that, while 

mounds indicative of the State-threatened southeastern pocket gopher had been identified just 

north of the VEGP site boundary and that similar habitat occurred nearby on the VEGP site, the 

footprint of construction disturbance for the ESP EIS was not expected to encompass such 

habitat. The EIS also indicated that, while the State-threatened sandhills milkvetch, an 

herbaceous legume, was known to occur within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP site, it had not been 
Affected Environment

March 2011 2-7 NUREG-1947

identified as occurring within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the VEGP site. The sandhills milkvetch has since 

been observed on the northern section of the VEGP site (NRC 2010a). As discussed in the 

staff’s June 2010 Environmental Assessment (EA) (NRC 2010b) prepared in connection with 

Southern’s license amendment request (LAR) to use three additional onsite backfill borrow 

areas (Southern 2010d), both species were found in a proposed new borrow area westnorthwest of the power-block area in the spring of 2010 during the environmental review of the 

LAR. Additional details concerning the distribution and habitat preferences of the southeastern 

pocket gopher and the sandhills milkvetch are found in the LAR EA that was issued in June 

2010 (NRC 2010b). The staff incorporated that information by reference in this SEIS.

2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology

The staff presented detailed descriptions of the aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the VEGP site 

in Section 2.7.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). These included descriptions of onsite ponds and 

streams and the Savannah River in the vicinity of the VEGP site. They also included 

descriptions of important species as specified by NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), including Federally 

and State-listed threatened and endangered species.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to aquatic ecology. On October 6, 2010, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904) a proposed rule for listing the Carolina and 

South Atlantic distinct population segments of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The staff described the life 

history of the Atlantic sturgeon in the ESP proceedings; however, in light of the proposed listing, 

the staff considered the available literature and compiled additional information in a conference 

consultation letter to NMFS (Appendix F). 

Otherwise, the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its review of 

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, the audit at the VEGP site, 

and contacts with representatives of FWS, NMFS, GDNR, and SCDNR (see Appendix F for the 

letters regarding consultation).

2.8 Socioeconomics

The staff provided a detailed description of socioeconomics in the VEGP ESP region in 

Section 2.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included the socioeconomic resources 

that could potentially be affected by the construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 

and 4 at the VEGP site. This discussion is organized into two major subsections that provide 

details on demographics and community characteristics. New information that has become 

available since issuance of the VEGP ESP is described in the following sections.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1947 2-8 March 2011

2.8.1 Demographics 

The staff provided a detailed discussion of the community characteristics of the VEGP ESP site 

in Section 2.8.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included the resident population, 

transient population, and migrant populations.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to demographics, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its review 

of Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, the audit at the VEGP site, 

and contacts with county officials.

2.8.2 Community Characteristics

The staff provided a detailed discussion of the community characteristics of the VEGP ESP site 

in Section 2.8.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included the economy, taxes, 

transportation, aesthetics, recreation, housing, public services, and education in Burke, 

Richmond and Columbia Counties, which are the counties most affected by activities at the 

VEGP site.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to community characteristics. However, the NRC staff’s independent review identified changes 

in the community characteristics of the VEGP region that warranted further investigation. In the 

ESP EIS, the 2005 unemployment rate for Burke County was 7.7 percent; for Columbia County, 

4.4 percent; and for Richmond County, 7.1 percent. The State of Georgia’s unemployment rate 

was 5.2 percent. The 2009 average annual unemployment rates for Burke, Richmond, and 

Columbia Counties and statewide in Georgia are provided in Table 2-1. The unemployment 

rates of all three counties and statewide in Georgia have increased, with Burke County’s 

unemployment rate the highest at 11.5 percent. Unemployment rates are discussed further in 

Section 4.5.

Table 2-1. 2009 Average Annual Unemployment Rates

Labor 

Force Employment

Unemployment 

Number

Unemployment 

Rate

Burke County 9942 8802 1140 11.5

Columbia County 60,003 55,937 4066 6.8

Richmond County 90,520 82,553 8967 9.8

Georgia 4,769,000 4,312,000 457,000 9.6

Source: USBLS 2010
Affected Environment

March 2011 2-9 NUREG-1947

2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources

The staff provided a detailed discussion of the historic and cultural resources of the VEGP ESP 

site in Section 2.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included the cultural 

background of the area and sites eligible for listing under the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 (NHPA) (NRC 2008, Table 2-24).

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to historic and cultural resources. The NRC staff performed a site audit in September 2009, and 

contacted the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) during December 2009 to 

determine if new information was available. The new information identified during the COL 

application review effort was the existence of a historic cemetery located on the VEGP site 

outside the proposed construction footprint and the proposed new borrow areas (Southern 

2010a, d). A letter report dated May 14, 2007, documents an archaeological survey that was 

conducted to record the boundaries and features of the cemetery (New South Associates 2007). 

All of the proposed additional borrow areas whose use was authorized by the ESP amendments 

issued in May and June 2010 are within the VEGP site boundary and are within the area of 

potential effect for the cultural resource analysis included in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008, 2010b, c).

In accordance with Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Subpart 800.8c, the NRC 

staff is using the process implemented in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

to comply with the obligations defined under Section 106 of the NHPA. The area of potential 

effect used by the staff for this COL review is the same as that used for the ESP review 

(NRC 2008).

During December 2009, NRC initiated contact with the Georgia SHPO and the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and sent 25 letters to Tribes (see Appendix C for a complete 

listing) to begin consultations on the proposed COL action. NRC requested the participation of 

the SHPO, the ACHP, and the Tribes in identifying new and significant information concerning 

historic properties that may be impacted by this COL action.

2.10 Environmental Justice

The staff provided a discussion of environmental justice issues in the vicinity of the VEGP ESP 

site in Section 2.10 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The discussion included analysis on the 

location of minority and low-income individuals, scoping and outreach performed, health 

preconditions and special circumstances, and migrant populations.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information related 

to environmental justice, and the NRC staff found no new and significant information during its 

review of Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, or during the audit 

at the VEGP site.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1947 2-10 March 2011

2.11 Related Federal Projects and Consultations

The staff discussed related Federal projects and consultations in Section 2.11 of the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008). The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might 

impact the issuance of a COL for proposed Units 3 and 4. Any such activities could result in 

cumulative environmental impacts or the possible need for another Federal agency to become 

a cooperating or coordinating agency for preparation of this supplemental EIS (SEIS) 

(10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)).

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new and significant information 

regarding related Federal projects and consultations, and the staff found no new and significant 

information during its review of Southern’s process for identifying new and significant 

information, the audits at the VEGP site, and contacts with the FWS, NMFS, ACHP, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and various Tribal representatives.

The NRC is required under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA to consult with and obtain the comments 

of any other Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any 

environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the SEIS. During the course of preparing 

the SEIS, NRC consulted with the FWS, NMFS, and the ACHP. Contact correspondence is 

included in Appendix F.

2.12 References 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”

43 FR 4026. January 31, 1978. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Listing of 

the Eastern Indigo Snake as a Threatened Species.” Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.” Federal 

Register, Environmental Protection Agency. 

75 FR 61904. October 6, 2010. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Listing Determinations for Three Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in the North 

East Region”. Federal Register, U.S. Department of Commerce. 
Affected Environment

March 2011 2-11 NUREG-1947

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Diemer J.E. and D.W. Speake. 1983. “The Distribution of the Eastern Indigo Snake, 

Drymarchon corais couperi, in Georgia.” Journal of Herpetology 17(3): 256-264.

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009a. Letter from C.A. Couch, Georgia 

Department of Natural Resource, to A.S. Meiburg, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. “Recommended Designations of Ozone Non-Attainment Areas in 

Georgia.” March 12, 2009. Accession No. ML100601088. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009b. E-mail dated December 21, 2009

and letter dated December 17, 2009 from Katrina Morris, GDNR, to Mallecia Sutton, NRC, 

regarding Natural Heritage Database occurrences within the VEGP Boundary and the 

Transmission Line Macrocorridor. Accession No. ML100490042.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009c. Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus). Accessed December 13, 2010 at http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1379. 

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2007. Corridor Study: Thomson – Vogtle 500-kV 

Transmission Project. Accession No. ML071710085.

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

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.

New South Associates. 2007. A Determination of Boundaries and Surface Features for Historic 

Cemetery on Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia. May 14, 2007. Not for public disclosure

per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009. E-mail from Julie Holling, 

SCDNR, to Mallecia Sutton, NRC, “Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.” December 15, 2009. Accession No. ML093491132.

Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). 2010. Candidate 

Conservation Agreement for the Gopher Tortoise First Annual Report: October 1, 2008 – 

September 30, 2009. Accessed November 15, 2010 at 

www.serppas.org/.../GTCCA%20First%20Annual%20Report%202008-2009.pdf. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006. Annual Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report for January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant – 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1947 2-12 March 2011

Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML061240254.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Annual Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report for January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant – 

Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML071220467. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a. Vogtle Early Site Permit 

Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 4, Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. “Section 2.5 Geology, 

Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering, Subsections 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.1.2.” In Site Safety 

Analysis Report. Rev. 5. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession 

No. ML091540908.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008c. Annual Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report for January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant – 

Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081290295.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009a. Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 

2009, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009b. Annual Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report for January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant – 

Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML091260689.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010a. Letter from M. Smith, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, Supporting Information for Environmental Report 

Review.” Letter ND-10-0526. March 12, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML100750038. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010b. Letter from B.L. Ivey, Southern, 

to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, 

Combined License Application, Post New and Significant Audit Supporting Information.” Letter 

ND-10-0923. May 10, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession Nos. 

ML101320256 and ML101310333. 
Affected Environment

March 2011 2-13 NUREG-1947

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010c. Letter from M. Smith, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Amendment Request, Revised Site 

Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of Backfill.” Letter ND-10-0960. May 13, 

2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101340649.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010d. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Amendment Request, Revised Site 

Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of Backfill, Part 2.” Letter ND-10-1005 dated 

May 24, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101470212. 

Stevenson, D.J. 2006. Distribution and Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon 

couperi) in Georgia: 2006. Unpublished report to the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Forsyth, Georgia. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2010. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. 

Accessed at http://www.bls.gov/lau/ on May 12, 2010. Accession No. ML 102020520. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1982. Eastern Indigo Snake Recovery Plan. Atlanta, 

Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi): 

5-Year Summary and Evaluation. Southeast Region, Mississippi Ecological Services Field 

Office, Jackson, Mississippi.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Athens, Georgia, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. “Re: USFWS 

Log# 2009-1387.” February 12, 2010. Accession No. ML100500426. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Athens, Georgia, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. “Re: USFWS 

Log# 2010-1254.” October 20, 2010. Accession No. ML103010076. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan: 

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 

1, 2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, 

ML082260203; ML082550040.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1947 2-14 March 2011

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. “Chapter 2.0, Section 2.5 Geology, 

Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering.” In Vogtle ESP Final Safety Evaluation Report. 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML090130160.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. GDNR Conference Call Summaries, May 

26-June 3, 2010. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101570079.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP 

Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101670592.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site 

Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of no 

Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101380114.
March 2011 3-1 NUREG-1947

3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff provided a description of the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) in Chapter 3 of the early site permit 

(ESP) environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). This chapter of the combined license 

(COL) supplemental EIS (SEIS) provides new information relative to the key site and facility 

characteristics that the NRC staff used to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed 

action. The site layout and existing facilities are discussed in Section 3.1. The plant design and 

power transmission system are discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. References 

cited in this chapter are listed in Section 3.4.

3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout 

A detailed description of the external appearance and plant layout for VEGP Units 3 and 4 and 

associated structures and facilities was provided in Section 3.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). 

The description also includes a summary of the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 and their 

associated facilities and a discussion of Plant Wilson, a six-unit, oil-fueled combustion turbine 

facility located on the VEGP site. The ESP EIS states that the VEGP site is located on the 

Savannah River and that the proposed Units 3 and 4 would be located in a previously disturbed 

area adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. Figure 3-1 shows the proposed VEGP site footprint 

with the proposed two new units and associated facilities. Figure 3-2 shows the areas on the 

site that will be disturbed by construction and preconstruction activities. 

3.2 Plant Description 

Section 3.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) described VEGP, including information about the 

Westinghouse AP1000 plant design that has been certified by NRC (Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 52, Appendix D) (Westinghouse 2005) and that has been 

selected by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), as the reactor design for the 

proposed Units 3 and 4. Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse), the AP1000 

vendor, submitted Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document to the NRC for review 

(Westinghouse 2008), and the NRC staff is reviewing the design revision separately from this 

proposed action.

Section 3.2 of the ESP EIS also discussed the proposed cooling system and power output for 

proposed Units 3 and 4. The proposed cooling system would consist of one concrete naturaldraft hyperbolic cooling tower for each unit, and each unit would operate at an estimated net 

electrical power output of approximately 1117 MW(e) (NRC 2008).
NUREG-1947

3-2 March 2011

Figure 3-1. Proposed VEGP Site Footprint with Proposed Units 3 and 4
March 2011

3-3 NUREG-1947

Figure 3-2. Areas that will be Disturbed by Construction and Preconstruction Activities for VEGP Un
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1947 3-4 March 2011

3.2.1 Plant Water Use

Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and Section 3.3 of the ESP ER (Southern 

2008) described plant water use for the proposed Units 3 and 4. These sections described the 

surface-water and groundwater withdrawals required for operation of the facility, the 

consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses of the proposed units, the plant effluent streams, 

and the plant water-treatment systems.

Southern provided no new and significant information related to plant water use in the COL ER, 

and the staff found no new and significant information during its review of Southern’s process 

for identifying new and significant information and during the VEGP site audit. However, the 

NRC staff’s review did identify the following information that warranted further staff analysis in 

this SEIS.

Estimated plant water use for operation of Units 3 and 4 is provided in Appendix I. The normal 

and maximum plant effluent discharges to the Savannah River are 631 L/s (10,008 gpm) and 

2000 L/s (31,695 gpm), respectively. The impact of the plant effluent discharge described in the 

ESP EIS corresponded to a maximum discharge rate of 1941 L/s (30,761 gpm), which is 

3 percent less than the value given above. Accordingly, the effect on the staff’s ESP EIS 

conclusion of a plant effluent discharge of 2000 L/s (31,695 gpm) is evaluated in Section 5.3 of 

this document.

3.2.2 Cooling System

Section 3.2.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and Section 3.4 of the ESP ER (Southern 2008) 

described the operational modes and the components of the cooling water system for the 

proposed Units 3 and 4.

The cooling water intake structure has been repositioned upstream approximately 46 m (150 ft), 

which places it approximately 650 m (2130 ft) upstream of the existing intakes for Units 1 and 2, 

and approximately 427 m (1400 ft) downstream of the location where the stream from Mallard 

Pond enters the Savannah River. Southern also described a change in the dimensions of the 

intake structure (Southern 2010), lowering the intake structure floor from elevation 38.1 m to 

32.0 m (125 ft to 105 ft). In addition, there would be a slight bend (approximately 30 degrees) 

roughly halfway down the canal to orient the mouth of the intake canal perpendicular to the 

river. Figure 3-3 illustrates the revised intake structure and wetlands in its vicinity.

Southern determined the information in the preceding paragraph to be new but not significant 

information, and provided no other new information related to the cooling system in the COL 

ER. During its review of Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information and 

during the audit at the VEGP site, the staff found no additional new information that warranted 

further analysis. 
March 2011

3-5 NUREG-1947

Figure 3-3. Revised Intake Structure and Surrounding Wetlands
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1947 3-6 March 2011

3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System

Section 3.2.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and Section 3.5 of the ESP ER (Southern 2008) 

provided summary descriptions of the liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management 

systems for the AP1000 reactor, based on Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design Control Document

(Westinghouse 2005). The summaries of the radioactive waste-management system presented 

in the ESP EIS are augmented below where additional descriptive information was provided by 

Southern in its COL application (Southern 2009). A more detailed description of these systems 

can be found in Chapter 11 of Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document

(Westinghouse 2008). The description of the radioactive waste-management system provided 

in the COL ER is based on information from Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control 

Document (Westinghouse 2008). None of the changes in the description of the radioactive 

waste-management system from Revision 15 to Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control 

Document is considered to be significant for the purposes of the environmental review. In 

particular, the radioactive effluent release source terms are identical for Revision 15 and 

Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document. Therefore, there is no change in the 

design characteristic that is most relevant to dose and other environmental impacts associated 

with radioactive waste.

3.2.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System

The liquid radioactive waste-management system functions to control, collect, process, handle, 

store, and dispose of liquids containing radioactive material. Section 3.2.3.1 of the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008) described the liquid radioactive waste-management system.

The liquid radioactive effluent source term for the proposed Units 3 and 4, taken from 

Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005), was presented in 

Appendix G, Table G-1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The liquid radioactive effluent source term 

presented in Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2008) is 

unchanged from Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005). 

Dose calculation results presented in Section 5.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) remain valid and 

show that all the dose projected to the maximally exposed individual is within the design 

objectives identified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

3.2.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System

The gaseous radioactive waste-management system functions to collect, process, and 

discharge radioactive or hydrogen-bearing gaseous wastes. Section 3.2.3.2 of the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008) described the gaseous radioactive waste-management system.
Site Layout and Plant Description

March 2011 3-7 NUREG-1947

The gaseous radioactive effluent release source term for proposed Units 3 and 4, taken from

Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005), was presented in 

Appendix G, Table G-4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The gaseous radioactive effluent source 

term presented in Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2008) is 

unchanged from Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005). 

The results of calculations presented in Section 5.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) remain valid 

and show that all the projected dose to the maximally exposed individual is within the design 

objectives identified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

3.2.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste-Management System

The solid radioactive waste-management system functions to treat, store, package, and dispose 

of dry or wet solids. Section 3.2.3.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) described the solid radioactive 

waste-management system. Southern provided no new and significant information related to 

radioactive waste systems in the COL ER (Southern 2009), and the staff found no new and 

significant information during its review of Southern’s process for identifying new and significant 

information and during the audit at the VEGP site. However, Section 6.1 of this SEIS describes 

the NRC staff’s assessment of the potential environmental impacts that might occur if 

permanent disposal facilities for low-level solid radioactive waste remain unavailable to VEGP 

and Southern’s contingency plans for interim management of such waste need to be 

implemented.

3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

Section 3.2.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) and Section 3.6 of the ESP ER (Southern 2008) 

described the nonradioactive waste systems for the VEGP site. Southern provided no new and

significant information related to nonradioactive waste systems in the COL ER (Southern 2009), 

and the staff found no new and significant information during its review of Southern’s process 

for identifying new and significant information and during the audit at the VEGP site.

3.3 Power Transmission System 

Section 3.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) described Southern’s proposed system for transmitting 

the power produced by the proposed Units 3 and 4 to the regional distribution grid.

As described in Section 3.3 of the ESP EIS, Southern determined that one additional 500-kV 

transmission line in a new transmission line right-of-way would be required. The new 

transmission line would connect the substation for the proposed Units 3 and 4 to the Thomson 

substation located west of Augusta, Georgia. The precise route of the new transmission line 

right-of-way has yet to be determined, but it would be within a previously defined Representative 

Delineated Corridor, as summarized in Section 2.7.1 of this document. 
Site Layout and Plant Description

NUREG-1947 3-8 March 2011

Southern provided no new and significant information regarding the route of the new 

transmission line right-of-way in its COL ER (Southern 2009), and the staff found no additional 

new and significant information during its review of Southern’s process for identifying new and 

significant information and during the audit at the VEGP site.

3.4 References 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Vogtle Early Site Permit 

Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 5, Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Package Accession No. ML091550858. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application: Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 

2009. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application, Response to Request for Additional Information 

Letter on Environmental Issues.” ND-10-0023 dated January 8, 2010. Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML100120479. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML053480403.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML083230168. 
March 2011 4-1 NUREG-1947

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Construction

In Chapter 4 of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008a), 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff provided an analysis of the environmental 

impacts of constructing the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

(VEGP) site. The applicant, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), in its 

environmental report (ER) evaluated new and potentially significant information related to the 

impacts of construction in as part of its combined license (COL) application (Southern 2009a). 

The NRC staff reviewed Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, but 

also conducted its own independent review to verify whether new and significant information 

had been identified. The results of that review are presented in this chapter. Sections 4.1 

through 4.9 discuss the potential new and significant information regarding the impacts on land 

use; meteorology and air quality; water use and quality; terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; 

socioeconomics; historic and cultural resources; environmental justice; nonradiological health 

effects; and radiological health effects. Section 4.10 describes the applicable measures and 

controls that would limit the adverse impacts of construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4. An 

overview of the site redress plan that is applicable to both the Limited Work Authorization (LWA) 

issued concurrently with the ESP and the second LWA requested by Southern as part of its 

COL application is provided in Section 4.11. A summary of the construction-related impacts is 

presented in Section 4.12. References cited in this chapter are listed in Section 4.13. 

Cumulative impacts of construction and other past, present, and future actions are discussed in 

Chapter 7. The technical analyses provided in this chapter support the results, conclusions, and 

recommendations presented in Chapter 11.

Because the VEGP COL application references an approved ESP, the significance levels of the 

potential adverse impacts for the various areas evaluated will remain the same as documented 

in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) unless new and significant information has been identified that 

would change the original significance level. The definition of new and significant information is 

documented in a 2007 Federal Register notice (72 FR 49352) and is described in Chapter 1 of 

this supplemental EIS (SEIS).

4.1 Land-Use Impacts 

This section provides information on land-use impacts associated with construction of proposed 

Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Topics discussed are land-use impacts at the VEGP site and in 

the vicinity of the site (Section 4.1.1) and land-use impacts in transmission line rights-of-way

(ROW) and offsite areas (Section 4.1.2).
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-2 March 2011

4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

The NRC staff’s assessment of the land-use impacts related to construction of the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 4.1.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The assessment 

addressed the land area that would be impacted by various construction activities. Based on 

the staff’s analysis in the ESP proceeding, the staff concluded that the land-use impacts of 

construction would be SMALL.

In the ER included in its COL application, Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts on land use (Southern 2009a, 2010a). 

During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of 

potential new and significant information related to land use by reviewing Southern’s ER, 

auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other 

information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference 

documents. This review identified the following new information that warranted further review:

• The VEGP site land area impacted on a long-term basis would increase from the 131 ha 

(324 ac) stated in the ESP EIS to approximately 153 ha (379 ac) (Southern 2009b). The 

revised area includes land for the fire training facility and the simulator building.

• The VEGP site land area impacted on a short-term basis would increase by approximately 

108 ha (267 ac) to a total of 200 ha (494 ac). The additional land area consists of three 

onsite locations that would be used as a source of Category 1 and Category 2 backfill. 

The staff analyzed the environmental impacts associated with this additional land in an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (NRC 2010a).

• The entire VEGP site has been designated an Energy Production District in the Burke 

County Comprehensive Plan (MACTEC 2007).

The NRC staff determined that the new information does not have the potential to change the 

staff’s impact characterization in the ESP EIS. The reasons for this determination are (1) the 

additional affected acreage is on the VEGP site and (2) the entire VEGP site is designated an 

Energy Production District in the Burke County Comprehensive Plan (MACTEC 2007). Based 

on this review, the staff determined that the conclusion presented in Section 4.1.1 of the ESP 

EIS remains valid.

Southern indicated in a new and significant information evaluation (Southern 2010b) that it may 

subsequently seek to obtain engineering grade backfill materials from an existing, permitted, 

offsite borrow source. Southern stated that it has not made a final decision on whether to 

submit an ESP license amendment request (LAR) to the NRC to use this borrow source, and 

will not make the decision until it determines whether the already-approved onsite sources will 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-3 NUREG-1947

be sufficient for its construction needs. The staff recognizes that the use (or possible 

expansion) of an offsite borrow source could have adverse impacts to land-use; however, 

because the extent to which such an offsite source would be disturbed or expanded, if it is even 

needed at all, is not presently known, and the potential significance of those land use impacts 

cannot be evaluated until a LAR (to use offsite borrow sources) is submitted. If Southern 

submits a LAR to use an offsite source, the staff would conduct an environmental review as part 

of its determination on that LAR. . 

4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

The NRC staff’s assessment of the land-use impacts related to the construction of the planned 

new transmission lines and ROW to serve proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 4.1.2 

of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, impacts to land use were 

considered to be MODERATE.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts on the transmission line ROW. During its 

review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that no new and significant 

information was available related to construction impacts on the transmission line ROW by 

reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant 

information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable 

regulations and reference documents. Based on this review, the staff determined that the 

conclusion presented in Section 4.1.2 of the ESP EIS that the impacts would be MODERATE 

remains bounding and valid.

4.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessment of meteorological and air quality construction-related impacts, 

including dust generation during ground clearing and emissions from construction equipment 

and workers’ vehicles, was provided in Section 4.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the 

staff’s analysis, construction-related impacts to meteorology and air quality were considered to 

be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts on meteorology and air quality. During its 

review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new 

and significant information related to meteorology and air quality by reviewing Southern’s ER, 

auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other 

information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-4 March 2011

documents. The review identified new information related to potential changes in construction 

traffic as well as changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone that 

warranted further review.

During the September 2009 site audit, Southern indicated that a traffic study had been 

completed in July 2009 (Neel-Schaffer 2009). The traffic study uses different workforce and 

shift assumptions than were used in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a); however, the staff determined 

that these assumptions are reasonable and the results remain consistent with the ESP EIS. In 

addition to the vehicle traffic analyzed in the traffic study, Southern has indicated the potential 

need for additional truck deliveries if more backfill material is needed than could be obtained 

onsite (Southern 2010b). Southern stated that traffic impacts would be minimized by using 

different routes near the site for inbound and outbound trucks. Although the potential truck 

traffic would result in more air emissions, these emissions would be temporary and would be 

completed before peak construction begins (Southern 2010b). ). Therefore, the staff, after 

analyzing the new information identified in Southern’s traffic study, finds that the air quality 

conclusions reached in the ESP EIS remain unaffected because the changes have a marginal 

effect on the staff’s previous conclusions. 

As discussed in Section 2.3, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a 

revision to the NAAQS for ozone on March 12, 2008. The final rule (73 FR 16436) reduced the 

ozone standard from 0.084 ppm to 0.075 ppm. Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires 

each state to submit, within 1 year of the revised standard, its recommended designation 

(i.e., attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) for each county. On March 12, 2009, the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) issued a letter to the EPA providing its 

recommended designations. Under those recommendations, Burke County remains 

unclassified/attainment with respect to the new ozone standard (GDNR 2009a). EPA will make 

its final determination on attainment status no later than March 2011. Based upon on the staff’s 

review of new and significant information and the fact that GDNR has determined that Burke 

County will remain designated as an attainment area with respect to the NAAQS standard, the 

NRC staff determined that the new information was not significant the conclusions presented 

in the ESP EIS remain valid.

4.3 Water-Related Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessment of the water-related impacts associated with construction of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site were provided in Section 4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, construction-related impacts of hydrological alterations 

and on water use and water quality were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a) and RAI responses (Southern 2010c), Southern provided new 

information on the proposed intake structure design, as described in Section 3.2.2. Changes to 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-5 NUREG-1947

the design (Southern 2010c) do not substantially modify the width of the intake canal or the 

length of the canal extending beyond the existing river bank. The impacts of hydrological 

alterations resulting from construction activities would thus remain localized and temporary 

as concluded in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).In support of its recent requests to amend the 

ESP site safety analysis report, Southern provided new information regarding additional onsite 

borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill material, including three new borrow areas 

in previously undeveloped portions of the VEGP site (Southern 2010d, e). The NRC staff, as 

part of its review of hydrological alterations associated with the three new borrow areas, relied 

on the environmental assessments supporting the amendments to the ESP (NRC 2010a, b). 

Southern stated in its May 24, 2010, submittal that these borrow areas are included in their 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction stormwater. 

Southern also indicated that all excavations would be redressed according to the site-specific 

Erosion Sedimentation and Control Plan of the NPDES permit. Additionally, Southern stated 

that,the excavations would neither intersect the water table nor require dewatering. Just as 

important, the NPDES permit along with the recently acquired Clean Water Act Section 401 

certification, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)an individual Department of the Army

Clean Water Act Section 404/Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, will ensure impacts

from the additional excavations are minimized. Based on the above, the NRC staff determined 

that the conclusions reached in the ESP EIS with respect to surface water and groundwater 

remains valid for excavations from the new borrow areas (NRC 2010a, b).

During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review 

of potential new and significant information regarding water-related impacts of construction 

by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant 

information, examining other information available at the site audit (including permits for 

groundwater withdrawal and dewatering of the surficial aquifer during construction) and 

provided by Southern subsequent to the site audit, reviewing information submitted as part 

of Southern’s ESP license amendment requests, and considering applicable regulations 

and reference documents. Beyond the information identified by Southern and discussed 

above, the staff’s review identified no additional information requiring further staff consideration. 

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS, that 

impacts would be SMALL, remain valid.

4.4 Ecology 

This section provides information on terrestrial and aquatic resource impacts associated with 

construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Topics discussed are terrestrial 

and aquatic resource impacts at the VEGP site and in the vicinity of the site (Sections 4.4.1 

and 4.4.2).
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-6 March 2011

4.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessment of the potential construction impacts to terrestrial resources, 

including impacts to Federal and State-listed threatened and endangered species, was provided 

in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Terrestrial-resource-related impacts 

of construction, including impacts on Federal and State-listed species that are discussed in the 

ESP EIS include wildlife habitat removal during ground clearing, direct and indirect impacts to 

wetlands during construction, wildlife displacement and mortality related to construction 

activities and increased traffic, avian collisions with tall structures during construction, and noise 

from construction activities. Based on the staff’s analysis, construction-related impacts to 

terrestrial resources were considered to be SMALL in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The 

construction-related impacts on terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the new transmission line 

were considered to be SMALL to MODERATE because of the uncertainty regarding the actual 

transmission line route, as well as the uncertainty regarding the distribution of State-protected 

species along and within the ROW. 

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant

information regarding construction-related impacts on terrestrial resources. During its review of 

the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new and 

significant information related to terrestrial resources by reviewing Southern’s ER, reviewing 

information submitted as part of the ESP LAR activities to obtain backfill from additional onsite 

borrow areas, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, 

examining other information available at the site audit, considering applicable regulations and 

reference documents, and contacting the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

(SCDNR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and GDNR (NRC 2010c, d, e; SCDNR 2009; 

GDNR 2009b, c; FWS 2010a, b). This review identified new information related to constructionrelated impacts to wildlife habitat, wetlands, and Federal and State-listed species that warranted 

additional staff analysis. 

Information relating to additional proposed onsite borrow areas was submitted by Southern on 

March 12, 2010, as part of the new and significant evaluation for the COL (Southern 2010a). 

Southern also submitted information pertaining to these borrow areas in subsequent submittals 

supporting its LAR to obtain backfill material from areas not previously identified in the ESP 

(Southern 2010e, f). 

The borrow areas requested under Amendment 1 were located in onsite areas whose 

disturbance had already been evaluated in the ESP EIS, thus staff’s Amendment 1 EA 

concluded that terrestrial resource impacts associated with these locations would be consistent 

with the impacts previously evaluated in the ESP EIS and found not to be significant (NRC 

2010b). With respect to the borrow locations requested under Amendment 2, which were not 

previously evaluated in the ESP EIS, the NRC staff described and evaluated the associated 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-7 NUREG-1947

potential impacts on terrestrial resources within these areas in the Amendment 2 EA issued in 

June 2010 (NRC 2010a ). Accordingly, as described further below, the staff incorporates the 

description and analysis in the Amendment 2 EA by reference in this SEIS.

As discussed in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), approximately 225 ha (556 ac) would be disturbed 

during construction of proposed Units 3 and 4, including 131 ha (324 ac) that would be 

permanently disturbed and an additional 94 ha (232 ac) that could be temporarily disturbed. 

Southern updated the estimated acreage needed for construction of proposed Units 3 and 4 and 

currently estimates that approximately 353 ha (873 ac) would be disturbed by construction of 

the proposed Units 3 and 4, including approximately 153 ha (379 ac) that could be permanently 

disturbed for facilities and onsite infrastructure; 92 ha (227 ac) that would be temporarily 

disturbed for parking, laydown areas, and spoils piles; and 108 ha (267 ac) that have been

cleared and excavated for backfill material (Southern 2009a, b; 2010a, c, d). 

The additional 22 ha (55 ac) impacted for permanent facilities would result in a change in habitat 

types impacted for some facilities. An additional 1.2 ha (3.0 ac) of planted pines, previously 

disturbed areas, and open fields would be cleared during construction of permanent facilities. 

An estimated 21 ha (52 ac) of hardwood habitat would be lost to permanent structures and 

facilities, representing an increase from the 2 ha (5 ac) that was estimated in the ESP EIS. This 

additional acreage is a fragmented mosaic of hardwood remnants interspersed among planted 

pine and previously disturbed areas. The updated onsite hardwood disturbance estimates are 

still a small fraction (less than 0.1 percent) of the total acres of hardwood habitat available 

(31,669 ha [78,253 ac]) within 16 km (10 mi) of the site (USGS 2001).

Hardwood habitats have much greater plant species and structural diversity than upland fields, 

planted pine forests, and previously disturbed areas, and are thus assumed to be much more 

important as wildlife habitat. However, as noted above, the updated onsite hardwood habitat 

lost to permanent structures and facilities represents a small percentage of the total available 

hardwood habitat available onsite and in the vicinity of the VEGP site. In addition, as discussed 

in the Amendment 2 EA issued in June 2010 (NRC 2010a), approximately 108 ha (267 ac) in 

three locations composed of planted longleaf (Pinus palustris), loblolly (P. taeda), and slash 

pines (P. elliottii) will be cleared to obtain backfill material. The areas would be stabilized with 

permanent vegetation when land-disturbing activities have been completed. Southern has 

committed to replanting all the areas in longleaf pine, if possible. Two sandhills species, the 

southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis) and the sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus 

michauxii), both of which are listed as State-threatened by GDNR, were found in one of the 

proposed borrow areas. The NRC staff discussed the loss of sandhills habitat with GDNR. 

GDNR indicated that there is a general concern for the loss of sandhills habitat. However, 

sandhills habitat quality in the areas being affected by obtaining the additional backfill material

authorized by the ESP amendments is considered to be marginal compared to the quality of 

sandhills habitat located on the northern section of the VEGP site, which would not be disturbed 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-8 March 2011

(NRC 2010e, GDNR 2009d). Southern has voluntarily collaborated with GDNR and the Georgia 

Plant Conservation Alliance to mitigate impacts to the southeastern pocket gopher and the 

sandhills milkvetch. In the Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 EAs, issued in May and June 

2010, the staff also described, among other matters, the applicable stormwater permitting 

provisions and the best management practices Southern intends to follow for erosion and 

sediment control (NRC 2010a, b). In the Amendment 2, EA the staff also evaluated the impacts 

to habitat from relocation of the State-threatened species associated with obtaining the 

additional backfill material and determined that there would not be any destabilizing effect on 

terrestrial resources. With respect to the EAs for ESP Amendments 1, 2, and 3, the staff 

determined that approval of the ESP amendments would have no significant impact (NRC 

2010a, b, f).

On September 30, 2010, Southern received an individual Department of the Army Clean Water 

Act Section 404/Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit for the VEGP site (USACE 2010). 

This permit authorizes impacts to 3.75 ha (9.23 ac) of jurisdictional wetland area, which

represents approximately 5 percent of the 69 ha (170 ac) of wetlands that occur on the VEGP 

site. As discussed in the ESP EIS, Southern originally estimated that approximately 8.5 ha 

(21.0 ac) of wetlands would be directly affected by Units 3 and 4 construction activities (NRC 

2008a). The updated wetlands information reflects a decrease in the amount of wetland habitat 

that would be impacted during construction. On March 3, 2011, Southern provided an update to

the NRC regarding a change in its September 30, 2010 Department of the Army permit. This 

amendment gave Southern permission to acquire additional wetland credits from other 

approved banks. The compensatory mitigation will consist of the purchase of 45.53 and 24.87 

wetland mitigation credits from Phinizy Swamp Mitigation Bank and Brushy Creek Mitigation 

Bank, respectively; both are approved U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) mitigation banks 

(Southern 2011). No new information was identified regarding potential impacts to wetlands 

within the new transmission line right-of-way. To satisfy the remainder of the wetland mitigation 

requirements, Southern will purchase the wetland mitigation credits at the Margin Bay Mitigation 

Bank or the Wilhelmina Morgan Mitigation Bank; both of these banks are also USACE approved 

mitigation banks in the secondary service area. Accordingly, the staff’s conclusion in the ESP 

EIS with respect to impacts to wetlands remains bounding. 

During its review, the NRC staff also identified new information related to onsite and offsite 

infrastructure alterations in connection with how the large reactor components and other 

materials would be delivered to the site.

Southern submitted a letter to the NRC in February 2010 stating that large components and 

other construction materials would be transported to the VEGP site via rail, using the NorfolkSouthern rail line from Savannah, Georgia, to Waynesboro, Georgia, where the line connects 

with the spur to VEGP (Southern 2010g). The letter states that there would be no substantive 

changes made to either the Norfolk-Southern rail line or to the private spur line to VEGP to 

support the shipment of an estimated 70 components and pieces of heavy equipment that will 

require special cars or size considerations. Some routine track maintenance, (e.g., replacement 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-9 NUREG-1947

of cross ties and/or ballast) may be necessary, but no land disturbing activities or modifications 

of bridges, overpasses, or other structures would be needed. Southern stated that 

modifications would be needed for the onsite rail yard and rail spur to support storage and 

unloading of equipment and materials delivered by rail. The rail yard is located in an area 

previously disturbed by construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 and is within the current disturbance 

footprint.

Based on the information in Southern’s February 2010 letter (Southern 2010g) and in the 

information received in Southern’s RAI response (Southern 2010c), which indicates that no 

significant land-disturbing activities will be needed to support rail transport and delivery of large 

components to the site, the staff does not expect either the transportation of reactor 

components to the site or modifications to the onsite rail yard and spur to adversely impact 

terrestrial resources, including threatened and endangered species.

The combined loss of sandhills habitat, hardwood forest and bottomland wetlands, planted pine 

habitat, and open field habitat during the construction of Units 3 and 4 and the clearing of the 

new borrow areas for backfill material would reduce available habitat for wildlife, including two 

State-threatened species, the southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch. However, 

Georgia is currently working to restore sandhills habitat across the state, which includes planting 

longleaf pine. Southern has committed to replant the disturbed onsite borrow areas in longleaf 

pine, if possible (Southern 2010h). In addition, the areas that have been disturbed are of 

marginal quality compared to the remaining higher quality habitat available onsite. Planted pine, 

open field, and bottomland hardwood wetland habitats are available in other locations onsite 

and in the region. Furthermore, as explained in the Amendment 2 EA, the potential losses to 

the southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch are isolated and will not jeopardize the 

stability or viability of any of the remaining populations in Georgia. These populations occur in 

different locations throughout the state and each population is not dependent on the success of 

others. Therefore, and for the reasons discussed above and in more detail in the Amendment 2 

EA (NRC 2010a), construction activities associated with the proposed action are not expected 

to destabilize terrestrial resources, including the State-threatened southeastern pocket gopher 

and sandhills milkvetch.

As part of the NRC’s responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the NRC 

staff prepared a (BA) documenting potential impacts on the Federally listed threatened or 

endangered species as a result of the limited site preparation activities at the VEGP site 

(including construction of the onsite portion of the new 500-kV transmission line). The BA was 

submitted to FWS on January 25, 2008 (NRC 2008b), and FWS concurred with the findings on 

September 19, 2008 (FWS 2008).

In a letter dated January 7, 2010, NRC requested that the FWS Field Office in Brunswick, 

Georgia, provide information regarding Federally listed species and critical habitat that may 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-10 March 2011

have changed since the 2008 consultation (NRC 2010c). On February 12, 2010, FWS provided 

a response letter indicating listed species under FWS purview had been adequately addressed 

for limited site-preparation activities on the VEGP site (FWS 2010a). On October 20, 2010, 

FWS provided an updated list of Federally listed threatened or endangered species that can be 

expected to occur in the project area (FWS 2010b). FWS identified four Federally listed 

terrestrial plant and animal species that may occur on or in the vicinity of the VEGP site as well 

as within the vicinity of the Representative Delineated Corridor (RDC) (FWS 2010b). These 

four species are the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood stork 

(Mycteria americana), Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), and eastern indigo snake 

(Drymarchon couperi). 

In addition to the Federally listed species, FWS provided information on the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) in the response 

letter. FWS indicated there are eagle nests in Jefferson and McDuffie Counties, including one 

nest in the RDC (FWS 2010b). The location of the eagle nest in the RDC was discussed in the 

ESP EIS. Further, the impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker, wood stork, and Canby’s 

dropwort were discussed in the ESP EIS. 

The eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise were not included in the analysis in the ESP EIS. 

The eastern indigo snake was not included because it was not previously listed in FWS species 

lists for the counties within the project area (Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie or Warren Counties)

(NRC 2008a). Likewise, GDNR indicated there have been no known occurrences of the gopher 

tortoise in the project area (GDNR 2009b, c). 

The information discussed in this section focuses on species not previously considered in the 

ESP. This includes the eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise, both identified by FWS in its 

recent letter as species that can be expected, to occur in the project area. FWS noted that the 

gopher tortoise is not a Federally listed species in Georgia; however, it is under review by FWS 

(FWS 2010b). Sandhills habitat that could support the gopher tortoise and the eastern indigo 

snake is present in the project area (GDNR 2009b). Therefore, these species are discussed 

below.

NRC submitted a biological assessment (BA) to FWS on February 24, 2011 to document 

potential impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species resulting from 

operation of Units 3 and 4 and ancillary facilities, as well as construction and operation of the 

proposed transmission line ROW. This BA is included in Appendix F. A BA documenting 

potential impacts on the Federally listed threatened or endangered species as a result of the 

site preparation and preliminary construction of the nonsafety-related structures, systems, or 

components on the VEGP site was submitted to FWS on January 25, 2008 (NRC 2008b), and 

FWS concurred with the findings on September 19, 2008 (FWS 2008) Appendix F.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-11 NUREG-1947

The eastern indigo snake was Federally listed as threatened by FWS in 1978 (43 FR 4026). 

In its October 20, 2010, letter to NRC, FWS noted that there are no documented occurrences 

of the eastern indigo snake on the VEGP site or in the RDC ; however, FWS recommends that 

any pedestrian surveys of sandhill habitats, especially those with gopher tortoise burrows, 

should include cursory surveys to determine the presence of the eastern indigo snake 

(FWS 2010b). The eastern indigo snake is not documented in Burke County or any of the 

counties crossed by the proposed transmission line ROW. Suitable habitat may occur in the 

RDC, and gopher tortoise burrows are in the vicinity. However, because the project area is 

outside the historic and current range of the eastern indigo snake and because no further 

impacts to sandhills habitat are projected to occur on the VEGP site, the staff determined that it 

is unlikely that either building activities at the VEGP site or the construction of the proposed 

transmission line will adversely affect this species.

There are no known Federally threatened or endangered terrestrial species on the VEGP site 

and/or in the RDC, with the exception of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). As 

explained in the ESP EIS and Amendments 1 and 2 of the EA, while an alligator has previously 

been observed in Mallard Pond on the VEGP site (See Figures 3-1 and 3-2), alligators appear 

to be relatively common in the Savannah River near and on the VEGP site, and construction 

impacts on alligators would be negligible because any displacement would be temporary and 

ample habitat exists in the region. Furthermore, there are no adequate nesting and foraging 

locations for the Federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker in the additional onsite areas 

that have been and would be disturbed. Details on the 21 ha (52 ac) currently enrolled in the 

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor Agreement acreage that would be impacted are 

discussed in the EA for ESP Amendment 2 (NRC 2010a); Southern intends to retain the this 

area under the agreement and to replant it in longleaf pine, if possible, once the areas have 

been stabilized and closed out. 

As noted above, the October 20, 2010, FWS letter included information on the gopher tortoise 

and the bald eagle. The gopher tortoise is a Georgia state-threatened species and is currently 

under review by the FWS to be listed as a Federally threatened species (FWS 2010b). There 

are no known populations of the gopher tortoise on the VEGP site as well as within the RDC 

(GDNR 2009c; FWS 2010b). Southern submitted a draft Candidate Conservation Agreement 

with Assurances (CCAA) for the gopher tortoise at the VEGP site. This CCAA is currently under 

review by FWS (SERPPAS 2010). In light of the CCAA and because no further impacts to

sandhills habitat are projected to occur on the VEGP site, the staff considers it unlikely that the

gopher tortoise will be affected onsite. The draft CCAA does not include the offsite portions of 

the proposed transmission line. In the October 20, 2010, letter to NRC, FWS recommended

that tortoise surveys be included in surveys that are conducted where sandhills habitat exists. 

FWS stated that there are several areas within the RDC that have sandhills habitat that may 

contain gopher tortoises (FWS 2010b). Georgia Power Company (GPC) would site the 

transmission line ROW in accordance with Georgia Code Title 22, Section 22-3-161 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-12 March 2011

(Ga. Code Ann. 2004). GPC’s procedures for implementing this code include consultation 

with GDNR as well as an evaluation of impacts to special habitats (including wetlands) and 

threatened and endangered species. Impacts to State-protected species are likely to be 

minimal provided that adequate surveys are conducted prior to commencement of transmission 

line construction and that consultation with GDNR is initiated, as needed. However, without 

proper surveys, consultation, and appropriate mitigation, the impact could be greater than 

negligible in the RDC, which is consistent with the staff’s analysis in the ESP EIS. 

The bald eagle, a state-threatened species, was Federally delisted under the Endangered 

Species Act in August 2007. There are bald eagle nests in Jefferson and McDuffie counties in 

Georgia, and one known location of an active nest within the RDC (FWS 2010b). Potential 

impacts to the bald eagle were discussed in the ESP EIS. For example, as noted in the ESP 

EIS, GPC would ensure that the new transmission line ROW would not come within 180 m (600 

ft) of this known bald eagle nesting site (GPC 2007). 

NRC received comments on the COL draft SEIS from the U.S. Department of Interior 

expressing concern about avian collisions with tall structures and transmission lines and what 

mitigative measures GPC will use to minimize impacts (see Appendix F). The ESP EIS 

included an analysis of construction-related avian collisions with structures, including 

transmission lines in Section 4.4.1.2. However, additional information on the mitigation 

measures to minimize impacts to avian species is provided below.

GPC has developed an Avian Protection Program that includes guidelines for siting new 

transmission lines. When siting new transmission lines, substations, or other GPC facilities, 

available information on migratory and resident bird populations will be taken into account to 

ensure that the lines or facilities will have as little adverse impact as practicable on these bird 

species (GPC 2006).

The Avian Protection Plan states that, in areas where agencies are concerned about the safety 

of protected birds, consideration of appropriate siting and placement will reduce the likelihood of 

collisions. When possible, areas with known bird concentrations will be avoided, and vegetation 

or topographic characteristics that would naturally lead to shielding the birds from collision 

would be used. If this practice is not possible, installing visibility devices also may reduce the 

risk of collision. Examples of these devices are marker balls or other line-visibility devices 

placed in varying configurations, depending on the line or location. The effectiveness of these 

devices has been validated by Federal and State agencies in conjunction with Edison Electric 

Institute (GPC 2006).

When designing power transmission lines in high bird-use areas or on Federal land, GPC 

construction standards for transmission, distribution, and substation equipment and facilities will 

reflect the most appropriate and practicable “raptor-safe” specifications for new construction 

consistent with available information. The objective is to provide a spacing of 1.5 m (60 in.) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-13 NUREG-1947

between energized conductors and grounded hardware, or to insulate energized hardware if 

such spacing is not possible. The design standards are consistent with raptor-safe 

specifications recommended by Federal wildlife agencies (GPC 2006).

No critical habitat for threatened or endangered species is present on the VEGP site as well as 

within the RDC. Other than the consideration of the indigo snake discussed above, the new 

information did not reveal impacts that may affect Federally listed species or critical habitat in a 

manner not previously considered in the ESP EIS. There are no anticipated adverse impacts to 

Federally listed species as a result of construction on the VEGP site, including within the RDC. 

4.4.2 Summary of Terrestrial Impacts

In summary, the staff has reviewed the COL application and subsequent submittals, has 

performed an independent review of potential new and significant information related to 

terrestrial resources, has reviewed information submitted in conjunction with the ESP license 

amendments, has audited Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, 

has examined information provided at the site audits, has considered applicable regulations and 

reference documents, and has contacted the GDNR, SCDNR, and FWS. 

Southern is required to comply with conditions of the NPDES construction storm water general 

permit issued by GDNR’s Environmental Protection Division, and Southern has committed to 

using best management practices to minimize impacts from erosion. Southern has voluntarily 

mitigated impacts to the southeastern pocket gopher and the sandhills milkvetch, both of which 

are State-threatened species. Southern also has committed to replant longleaf pine in areas 

that would be disturbed, if possible (Southern 2010f). Longleaf pine is a fundamental 

component of sandhills habitat and a species ideally suited to the soil type and regional 

topography.

Based on the total acres of habitat that would be disturbed for the proposed project and 

Southern’s efforts to mitigate impacts to State-threatened species in connection with the use of 

onsite borrow areas, the NRC staff concludes that site preparation and construction activities 

related to building VEGP Units 3 and 4 could have a MODERATE impact on local terrestrial 

resources through the loss of habitat and the displacement of localized populations of two Statethreatened species, the southeastern pocket gopher and the sandhills milkvetch, but would not 

have a destabilizing effect either on wildlife habitats or on the populations of these two Statelisted species in Georgia.

The staff also reviewed the information provided above regarding construction-related impacts 

on terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the new transmission line ROW. This review included

consideration of the new information on eastern indigo snake and the gopher tortoise. Although 

sandhills habitat that could support these species is present, neither species is known to occur 

in the RDC. Because of the uncertainty regarding the actual transmission line route, as well as 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-14 March 2011

the uncertainty regarding the distribution of wetlands and State-protected species along and 

within the ROW, the staff’s conclusion that these impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE

remains bounding and valid.

Southern indicated in a new and significant information evaluation (Southern 2010b) that it may 

subsequently seek to obtain engineering grade backfill materials from an existing, permitted, 

offsite borrow source. Southern stated that it has not made a final decision on whether to 

submit an ESP LAR to the NRC to use this borrow source, and will not make that determination 

until it determines whether the already-approved onsite sources will be sufficient for its 

construction needs. The staff recognizes that the use (or possible expansion) of an offsite 

borrow source could have adverse impacts to terrestrial resources; however, because the 

extent to which such an offsite source would be disturbed or expanded, if it is even needed at 

all, is not presently known, the potential significance of those ecological impacts cannot be 

evaluated until a LAR for use of offsite borrow sources is submitted. If Southern submits a LAR 

to use an offsite source, the staff would conduct an environmental review as part of its 

determination on that LAR. 

4.4.3 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessment of the aquatic ecology related impacts, including the impacts to 

aquatic biota in onsite ponds and streams from soil-disturbing activities, to aquatic biota in the 

Savannah River from construction of the cooling water intake structure, the barge structure, 

and the discharge structure, and from construction of the proposed transmission line, was 

provided in Section 4.4.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The impacts to important species, 

including Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species, were discussed in 

Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3.2 of the ESP EIS. Based on the staff’s analysis in the ESP EIS, 

construction-related impacts to the aquatic biota in the onsite water bodies and the Savannah 

River were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction related impacts on aquatic ecology. The NRC staff 

independently reviewed Southern’s ER, audited Southern’s process for identifying new and 

significant information, examined other information available at the site audit, and discussed 

potential construction impacts with resource agencies (i.e., FWS, SCDNR, and GDNR; see 

Appendix F). Southern subsequently provided new information on three additional onsite 

borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill material via license amendment (Southern 

2010d, e, f). Based on the information provided by Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP 

EIS, the staff concluded in the LAR EAs for Amendments 1 and 2 (NRC 2010a, b) that site 

preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow locations are similar to 

those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP EIS, and that the aquatic 

resource impacts of activities which would be conducted at the borrow areas are consistent with 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-15 NUREG-1947

the impacts previously examined and found not to be significant. Accordingly, the staff 

incorporates by reference its analysis in the LAR EAs (NRC 2010a, b). 

As part of the NRC’s responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the staff 

prepared a BA in connection with the Vogtle ESP review, documenting potential impacts on the 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) as a result of preconstruction activities including 

constructing the intake and discharge systems and modifying the barge slip for the proposed 

Units 3 and 4. That BA, which was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service on 

January 25, 2008 (NRC 2008b), concluded that the proposed action is not likely to adversely 

affect the shortnose sturgeon. The NMFS concurred with that determination (NMFS 2008). In a 

letter dated September 3, 2010, NRC confirmed with NMFS that the ESP stage consultation 

encompassed the proposed actions included in the COL application (NRC 2010g). 

On October 6, 2010, NMFS published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904) a proposed rule for 

listing the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments of the Atlantic sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. In the 

ESP proceeding, the NRC staff determined that impacts to the Atlantic sturgeon would be 

SMALL. The staff has determined that the project has not been modified in a way that would 

cause an effect to the Atlantic sturgeon not previously considered in the ESP proceeding. 

Nevertheless, because of the listing proposal, the staff compiled information in a conference 

consultation letter to NMFS on March 2, 2011. A copy of this letter is provided in Appendix F. 

None of the information compiled by the staff for the Atlantic sturgeon resulted in a change to 

the conclusions in Chapter 4 of the ESP EIS because none of the contemplated shoreline 

construction activities will prevent the Atlantic sturgeon from migrating past the site. 

On September 30, 2010, Southern received an individual Department of the Army Clean Water 

Act Section 404/Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit for the VEGP site (USACE 2010). 

This permit authorizes impacts to 224 m (734 ft) of stream (the Georgia side of the Savannah 

River), which is equivalent to 0.57 ha (1.42 ac) of open water. In addition, it authorizes impacts 

to 0.03 ha (0.07 ac) of ephemeral stream in the southeast corner of the site near the debris 

basins discussed in Section 4.4.1.1 and 4.4.2.2 of the ESP EIS. Compensatory mitigation will 

consist of the purchase of 2224 stream mitigation credits from the Bath Branch Mitigation Bank, 

an approved USACE mitigation bank that services the project area (USACE 2010). Southern 

also received a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the GDNR dated June 1, 2010

(USACE 2010). Although the amount of affected shoreline described in the Department of the 

Army permit represents an increase over the 155 m (510 ft) of shoreline disturbance cited in the 

ESP EIS, it remains a small fraction of the shoreline that bounds the VEGP site and a small 

fraction of the shoreline habitat on this stretch of the Savannah River. Accordingly, the staff 

determined that this change does not alter its impact conclusion in the ESP EIS.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-16 March 2011

The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further analysis in the 

SEIS. Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain valid.

4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of 

constructing the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site. Topics discussed are the 

socioeconomic impacts at the VEGP site and in the 80-km (50-mi) region of the site with an 

emphasis on Burke, Columbia, and Richmond Counties (Section 4.5).

4.5.1 Physical Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessment of the physical impacts, including noise, odor, vehicle exhaust 

emissions, aesthetics, and dust, were provided in Section 4.5.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). 

Based on the staff’s analysis and Southern’s representation that it would undertake mitigation

measures, construction-related physical impacts on workers and the local public, buildings, 

roads, and aesthetics were considered to be SMALL, with the exception of a MODERATE 

impact on aesthetics as a result on construction of new transmission lines. 

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related physical impacts on workers and the local public, 

buildings, roads, and aesthetics. During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff 

independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to physical 

impacts by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and 

significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering 

applicable regulations and reference documents.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS that 

impacts would be SMALL, with the exception of MODERATE aesthetic impacts related to 

transmission lines, remain bounding and valid.

4.5.2 Demography

The NRC staff’s assessment of the demographic impacts was provided in Section 4.5.2 of the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis described in the ESP EIS, the regional 

impacts from the in-migration of workers as a result of construction activities were projected to 

be SMALL in most of the region, but MODERATE in Burke County. Based on information from 

Southern, the ESP EIS estimated that approximately 2500 construction workers would be 

expected to in-migrate into the region. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-17 NUREG-1947

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related demographic impacts on the 80-km (50-mi) region. 

During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of 

potential new and significant information related to demographic impacts by reviewing 

Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, 

examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations 

and reference documents. This review identified new information related to the need for 

additional onsite and offsite backfill material that warranted evaluation. As explained in the 

Amendment 1 and 2 EAs (NRC 2010a, b), backfill activities would occur concurrently with other 

site preparation activities and would not require additional workers beyond the workforce 

evaluated in the ESP EIS. The staff analyzed the environmental impacts associated with onsite 

backfill activities in two EAs, both of which resulted in findings of no significant impact (NRC 

2010a, b). Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the LAR EAs. The 

staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further analysis in the 

SEIS. 

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.

4.5.3 Economic Impacts to the Community

The staff’s assessment of the economic and tax-related impacts was provided in Section 4.5.3

of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis described in the ESP EIS, 

construction impacts to the regional economy were considered to be SMALL, with the exception 

of a possible MODERATE and beneficial impact in Burke County.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related economic impacts to the community. During its 

review of the COL application, the staff performed an independent review of potential new and 

significant information related to economic impacts by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing 

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information 

available at the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and 

discussions with Burke County officials. This review identified new information related to the 

local unemployment rate that warranted additional evaluation.

As shown in Table 2-1, unemployment rates for Burke, Richmond, and Columbia Counties and 

statewide in Georgia have risen recently. This development is consistent with the current 

economic slowdown throughout the United States and is not unique to the VEGP region. In the 

short term, higher unemployment could lead to an increased demand for social services, a 

decrease in income tax to the state, and to an extent, a decrease in sales tax to the counties. 

However, construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 could alleviate these impacts by providing 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-18 March 2011

jobs to unemployed individuals either directly at the site or through multiplier-induced, indirect 

jobs described in Section 4.5.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Construction of the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 would also provide additional tax revenue for Burke County that would provide 

funding for any additional social services needed due to the higher unemployment. In the long 

term, by the time construction peaks, unemployment will likely have had time to adjust and 

adverse impacts from decreased tax revenue or increased social service demands will have 

subsided. Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the 

ESP EIS remain valid.

4.5.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessment of the infrastructure and community-service impacts was provided 

in Section 4.5.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s ESP analysis, the 

infrastructure and community-service impacts from the relocation of workers as a result of 

construction activities were projected to be SMALL in most of the region with two exceptions. 

The staff found in the EIS that there remains a possibility of a MODERATE impact on 

transportation during peak construction if mitigation strategies are not implemented and a 

MODERATE impact on housing and public services if the less-populated counties see a larger 

than expected number of in-migrating construction workers. 

During the September 2009 site audit, Southern indicated that a traffic study had been 

completed in July 2009 (Neel-Schaffer 2009). The traffic study uses different workforce and 

shift assumptions than were used in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a); however, the staff determined 

that these assumptions are reasonable and the results remain consistent with the ESP EIS. 

The traffic study is based on assumptions that 25 percent of workers will carpool during both the 

day shift, which will consist of 75 percent of the construction workforce, and the nightshift, 

which will consist of the remaining 25 percent of the workforce. The traffic study does not 

account for outage workers or truck deliveries. The two scenarios used in the traffic study 

are the construction ramp-up in January 2011 and the peak construction stage in March 2013. 

Approximately 1200 construction workers are expected to be present in January 2011. 

Assuming 75 percent of the workers are on the day shift, 25 percent on the night shift, and that 

25 percent of workers would carpool, approximately 675 vehicles will be on the day shift and 

225 on the night shift. Approximately 4300 construction workers are expected to be present in 

March 2013 with approximately 2419 vehicles on the day shift and 806 vehicles on the night 

shift. In the January 2011 projections, most intersections near VEGP would range from a level 

of service (LOS) of A to an LOS of C. However, the eastbound and westbound sections of the 

intersection of River Road and Hancock Road would have LOS D and LOS F ratings, 

respectively. LOS A is the best rating, corresponding to no wait times at an intersection, and 

LOS F is the worst rating, corresponding to long wait times at an intersection. According to the 

new traffic study, intersection ratings during the peak construction period occurring in 2013 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-19 NUREG-1947

would include as many as five LOS F ratings, with considerable wait times at several 

intersections.

Recommendations from the traffic study for the 2011 scenario were minor improvements such 

as restriping affected lanes. The traffic study’s recommendations to Southern for the 2013 

scenario were more extensive, proposing several additional turn lanes, as well as rerouting 

existing plant traffic and the realignment of Ebenezer Church Road with the entrance to the 

VEGP gate. Staggering construction shifts also would alleviate traffic congestion on heavily 

impacted intersections.

In addition to the vehicle traffic analyzed in the traffic study, Southern has indicated the potential 

need for additional truck deliveries if additional backfill material is needed that would be 

obtained offsite. In its analysis of the impact of the truck deliveries, Southern assumed all 

deliveries would be made during the 10-hour day shift coinciding with Units 1 and 2 operations 

shift change, but not during the Units 3 and 4 construction shift change. Southern also 

assumed deliveries would consist of approximately 250 trucks a day. Each truck is the 

equivalent of 3.5 vehicles on the road by Georgia Department of Transportation definitions. 

The additional 250 truck deliveries are equivalent to 875 vehicles a day (which equals 

87.5 vehicles one way per hour during the 10 hour shift). The additional 87.5 vehicles one way 

an hour are within the design capacity limits for the roads near the VEGP site even during the 

current shift changes for the existing Units 1 and 2. Design capacity limits on Georgia roads are 

1700 (2-lane roadway) and 2000 (4-lane roadway) vehicles each way per hour. Georgia 

capacity limits were used for analysis on South Carolina roads too. Impacts would be 

minimized by using different routes near the site for inbound (SR 23) and outbound (SR 56) 

trucks. Deliveries are expected to last 7 months and would be completed before the peak of 

construction begins (Southern 2010b).

Although the July 2009 traffic study uses different (more conservative) assumptions than the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the impacts and recommendations are similar. In the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008a), the NRC staff concluded that impacts to transportation would be SMALL to 

MODERATE for local highways and River Road in the vicinity of VEGP. The 2009 traffic study 

commissioned by Southern and the potential additional backfill truck deliveries further support 

the MODERATE impact on River Road and other nearby intersections. The traffic study and 

potential additional backfill truck deliveries confirm that traffic impacts will noticeably alter the 

local roads during shift changes, but the recommendations also demonstrate that, by 

implementing mitigating measures, the impacts could be managed. Therefore, the NRC staff 

determined that the MODERATE conclusion presented in the ESP EIS with respect to 

transportation impacts remains valid.

In regard to other infrastructure and community-service impacts, there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts in the region within an 80-km (50-mi) radius 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-20 March 2011

of the VEGP site. During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified 

that no new and significant information was available related to infrastructure and communityservice impacts by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new 

and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and 

considering applicable regulations, reference documents, and discussions with county officials. 

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.

4.5.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts

As described in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), adverse socioeconomic impacts resulting from 

construction of proposed Units 3 and 4 range from SMALL to MODERATE, and beneficial 

impacts range from SMALL to MODERATE. For the reasons described above, these 

conclusions remain valid.

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 

The NRC staff’s assessment of the construction-related impacts to historic and cultural 

resources, including sites that are listed or eligible for listing under the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), was provided in Section 4.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). 

Based on the staff’s analysis, construction-related impacts to historic and cultural resources 

were considered to be MODERATE.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts to historic and cultural resources. During its 

review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new 

and significant information related to historic and cultural resources by reviewing Southern’s ER, 

auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other 

information available at the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference 

documents, and contact with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Advisory 

Council, and Tribes (see Appendix C for complete listing). 

This review identified new information related to the presence of a historic cemetery on the 

VEGP site (New South Associates 2007) and mitigation for impacts to a site eligible to the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which warranted further staff consideration. 

Southern has installed a fence around the cemetery, determined that the planned construction 

actions will not impact the site, and has consulted with the SHPO regarding protection and 

mitigation of the site. Archaeological site 9BK416 is a large multicomponent prehistoric site and 

is described the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Archaeological site 9BK416 is eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-21 NUREG-1947

Southern signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Georgia SHPO for “... the 

preservation of the remaining balance of site 9BK416 from physical disturbance and 

performance of additional archaeological surveys as directed by the SHPO” (GHPD 2010). In 

the MOU, Southern states, “The proposed project will disturb approximately 2.5 acres of the 

estimated 29 total acres of site 9BK416. The disturbance constitutes approximately 8.5 percent 

of the total estimated site and results from the installation of the river water intake piping, an 

electrical duct bank and associated ROW clearings. Based on consultation and supporting field 

surveys, the SHPO determined the proposed project will impact site 9BK416, but will not 

adversely impact the site.” The new information provides further indication that Southern will 

protect historic and cultural resources on the VEGP site, or mitigate impacts in coordination with 

the SHPO. As a result of these protective measures proposed by Southern and consultation 

with the SHPO, the staff concludes that the identification of the historic cemetery and the signed 

MOU does not change its conclusion that the construction activities will alter but not destabilize 

the cultural resources in the vicinity of the VEGP site.

The staff’s review also identified new information related to Southern’s use of backfill from 

three additional onsite borrow areas as authorized by amendment of the ESP (Southern 2010e). 

All of the new borrow areas are within the VEGP site and also are within the area of potential 

effect for the cultural resource analysis included in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The known 

cultural resources located within the additional borrow areas were recommended as not eligible 

for inclusion in the NRHP. The Georgia SHPO concurred with this finding by letter (GDNR 

2007). In June 2010, NRC consulted with the SHPO regarding the use of the onsite borrow 

areas and the SHPO “... agreed with NRC that the backfill operations will have no effect to 

properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places...” 

(GDNR 2010). The staff, incorporates in completing its analysis for the SEIS, relied on the 

results of its Environmental Assessments completed for a few amendments related to the ESP

by reference in this SEIS (NRC 2010a). As a result of the cultural resources analysis, field 

investigations, procedures Southern has in place for unanticipated cultural resources 

discoveries, and the consultation with the SHPO, the NRC staff concludes that the use of the 

additional onsite backfill areas (Southern 2010e) will not change its conclusions in the ESP EIS. 

Further, the staff found that while the construction activities will likely alter cultural resources in 

the vicinity of the VEGP site, the resource will not not destabilized. 

Southern indicated in a new and significant information evaluation (Southern 2010b) that it may 

subsequently seek to obtain engineering grade backfill materials from an existing, permitted, 

offsite borrow source. Southern stated that it has not made a final decision on whether to 

submit an ESP LAR to the NRC to use this borrow source, and will not make that determination 

until it determines whether the already-approved onsite sources will be sufficient for its 

construction needs. The staff recognizes that the use (or possible expansion) of an offsite 

borrow source could have adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources; however, because 

the extent to which such an offsite source would be disturbed or expanded, if it is even needed 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-22 March 2011

at all, is not presently known, the potential significance of those historic and cultural resource

impacts cannot be evaluated until an LAR is submitted. If Southern submits an LAR to use an 

offsite source, the staff would conduct an environmental review as part of its determination on 

that LAR.

Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain valid.

4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts 

The NRC staff’s assessment of environmental justice impacts, including environmental 

pathways, socioeconomic impacts, and subsistence and special conditions, was provided in 

Section 4.7.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, construction impacts 

to environmental justice were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts on environmental justice. During its review 

of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new and 

significant information related to environmental justice by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing 

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information 

available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents. 

This review identified new information related to the impacts on traffic that warranted evaluation. 

As described in Section 4.5.4, Southern has completed a new traffic study and has indicated the 

potential for additional truck deliveries for offsite backfill. In regards to the new study, the 

assumptions are different, but the conclusions are similar and still lead to a MODERATE impact 

on roads near the VEGP site and a SMALL impact elsewhere. As stated in the traffic study, 

Southern plans to mitigate potentially adverse impacts via roadway and traffic control 

improvements. With respect to the potential need for offsite backfill, the hypothetical truck 

delivery routes identified by Southern would likely run through a small number of additional 

minority or low-income communities north of the VEGP site in South Carolina. However, the 

delivery routes would not be concentrated in minority or low-income communities nor are there

likely to be noticeable adverse impacts (such as from traffic or air emissions) to these 

communities because the additional vehicles related to deliveries would remain within the 

design capacity of the roads. Therefore the staff determined that the SMALL conclusion 

presented in the ESP EIS with respect to environmental justice impacts remains valid.

Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-23 NUREG-1947

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

The NRC staff provided a description of the nonradiological health impacts for construction of 

the proposed Units 3 and 4 in Section 4.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Physical impacts of 

construction on public and occupational health, including dust, vehicle emissions, noise, and 

transportation of materials and personnel, were summarized. Public and occupational health is 

discussed in Section 4.8.1, while the impacts of transporting construction materials and 

construction personnel to the VEGP site are discussed in Section 4.8.2.

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health

The NRC staff’s assessment of the public and occupational health-related impacts, including air 

quality, site-preparation and construction worker health, and noise impacts, were provided in 

Section 4.8.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, construction-related 

impacts to public and occupational health were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts on public and occupational health. During 

its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there was no 

new and significant information related to public and occupational health by reviewing 

Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, 

examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations 

and reference documents. Subsequently, Southern also provided new information on three 

additional onsite borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill material via license 

amendment (Southern 2010e). Based on the information provided by Southern and the NRC 

analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in its EA for Amendment 2 (NRC 2010a) that site 

preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow locations are similar to 

those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP EIS, and that the 

nonradiological health impacts on workers and the public from activities conducted at the borrow 

areas are consistent with the impacts previously examined and found not to be significant. 

Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the LAR EAs (NRC 2010a, b). 

The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further analysis in the 

SEIS. 

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-24 March 2011

4.8.2 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction 

Personnel to the VEGP Site

The NRC staff’s assessment of the nonradiological impacts associated with transporting 

construction materials and personnel to and from the VEGP site was presented in Section 4.8.2 

of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). These impacts include the damage, injuries, and fatalities 

associated with vehicular accidents. Based on the staff’s analysis, the transportation-related 

impacts on human health were considered to be SMALL. 

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern provided no new or significant information related to 

transportation accidents. During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff 

independently verified that there was no new and significant information related to transportation 

of construction materials and personnel through its evaluation of Southern’s process for 

identifying new and significant information, additional information provided by Southern at the 

site audit, and the staff’s independent review of available information. However, subsequent to 

the site audit, Southern determined that it would need to obtain backfill material from onsite 

borrow areas other than those previously specified in the ESP site safety analysis report. 

Accordingly, Southern submitted LARs to obtain approval for the use of backfill from additional 

onsite borrow areas. The NRC staff evaluated the nonradiological impacts associated with truck 

transport of backfill material from these additional locations (NRC 2010a) and determined that 

the additional truck shipments would not significantly increase the nonradiological impacts 

presented in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its 

analysis in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a). 

Additionally, Southern indicated in a new and significant information evaluation (Southern 

2010b) that it may subsequently seek to obtain engineering grade backfill materials from an 

offsite borrow source. Although Southern has not made a final decision on whether to submit 

an ESP LAR to do so, and thus a final plan is not before the NRC, the NRC staff conducted an 

evaluation of the nonradiological impacts of transporting backfill material from offsite borrow 

areas to the VEGP site, to assess whether such a development could potentially affect the 

staff’s conclusions in the ESP EIS regarding nonradiological impacts associated with building 

Units 3 and 4.

The nonradiological impacts of transporting backfill material from offsite borrow areas to the 

VEGP site were calculated using the same general approach and data that were used in the 

ESP EIS and in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a). To calculate nonradiological impacts, 

shipping distances are multiplied by unit rates (i.e., accidents, injuries, and fatalities per unit 

distance). The bases and assumptions for these calculations are listed below:
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-25 NUREG-1947

• The NRC staff assumed that a total of 611,644 m3 (800,000 yd3) of backfill would be 

transported by truck from a nearby borrow source to the power-block area of the Units 3 and 

4 site (Southern 2010b).

• Southern assumed that shipment capacities for backfill material are approximately 15 m3

 

(20 yd3) per truck load (Southern 2010a).

• The NRC staff assumed that the average one-way shipping distance for backfill material to 

be about 96.6 km (60 mi) based on information provided by the Southern (Southern 2010b). 

This distance was doubled to account for the empty return trip.

• Accident, injury, and fatality rates for transporting building materials were taken from 

Table 4 in ANL/ESD/TM-150, State-level Accident Rates for Surface Freight Transportation: 

A Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 1999). Rates for the State of Georgia were used 

for backfill material shipments. The data provided in Saricks and Tompkins (1999) are 

representative of heavy-truck accident rates. 

• The DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration evaluated the data underlying the 

Saricks and Tompkins (1999) rates, which were taken from the Motor Carrier Management 

Information System, and determined that the rates were under-reported. Therefore, the 

accident, injury, and fatality rates from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) were adjusted using 

factors derived from data provided by the University of Michigan Transportation Research 

Institute (UMTRI 2003). The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute data 

indicate that accident rates for the period from 1994 to 1996, which are the same data used 

by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), were under-reported by about 39 percent. Injury and 

fatality rates were under-reported by 16 percent and 36 percent, respectively. As a result, 

the accident, injury, and fatality rates were increased by factors of 1.64, 1.20, and 1.57, 

respectively, to account for the apparent under-reporting. These adjustments were applied 

to the construction materials, which are transported by heavy truck shipments similar to 

those evaluated by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), but not to commuter traffic accidents.

The estimated nonradiological impacts of transporting backfill materials to the power-block 

area of the VEGP site from an offsite source are approximately 8.5 accidents, 4.1 injuries, and 

0.2 fatalities. The estimated total annual nonradiological fatalities related to transporting backfill 

material represents about a 2.4 percent increase above the average 9.8 traffic fatalities per year 

that occurred in Burke County, Georgia, from 2004 to 2008 (DOT 2010). Even when considered 

in combination with the minor increase in traffic fatality risk analyzed in the ESP EIS, this

increase remains small relative to the current traffic fatality risks in the area surrounding the 

proposed VEGP site.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-26 March 2011

Based on this review and on information analyzed in the Amendment 2 EA for additional onsite 

borrow areas (NRC 2010a), the NRC staff determined that the conclusions related to the 

nonradiological impacts of transporting construction materials and personnel to and from the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

4.8.3 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

The NRC staff concluded in the ESP EIS that nonradiological health impacts to construction and

operational workers at the VEGP site and to the local population from fugitive dust, occupational 

injuries, noise, and transport of materials and personnel would be SMALL. During its review of 

the COL application, the NRC staff independently examined information related to public and 

occupational health by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new 

and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, considering 

the information provided in conjunction with the Amendment 2 LAR (Southern 2010e) and 

information regarding the potential LAR for use of offsite backfill, and considering applicable 

regulations and reference documents.

Based on this review and information in the EA (NRC 2010a), the staff determined that the 

conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain bounding and valid.

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts 

The NRC staff provided a description of the radiological health impacts for construction of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site in Section 4.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The 

sources of radiation exposure for construction workers included exposures from direct radiation, 

gaseous radioactive effluents, and liquid radioactive waste discharges from routine operations 

at the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 during construction of proposed Units 3 and 4. For the 

purposes of this discussion, construction and site-preparation workers were assumed to be 

members of the public; therefore, the dose estimates were compared to the dose limits for the 

public, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20, Subpart D. 

Southern noted that all major construction activities are expected to occur outside the protected 

area boundary for the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 but inside the restricted area boundary

(Southern 2008a). The impact of direct radiation exposure is discussed in Section 4.9.1, 

gaseous effluents in Section 4.9.2, and liquid effluents in Section 4.9.3, while total dose to site 

preparation workers is discussed in Section 4.9.4.

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures

The NRC staff’s assessment of direct radiation exposures was provided in Section 4.9.1 of the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, construction-related impacts resulting 

from direct radiation exposure were considered to be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-27 NUREG-1947

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts resulting from direct radiation exposure. 

During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there 

was no new and significant information related to direct radiation exposure by reviewing 

Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, 

examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations, 

reference documents, and recent data on direct radiation sources that have become available 

since issuance of the VEGP ESP (Southern 2006, 2007, 2008b, 2009c). Southern 

subsequently provided new information on three additional borrow areas from which it sought to 

obtain backfill material via license amendment (Southern 2010e). Based on the information 

provided by Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in its EA

(NRC 2010a) that site preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow 

locations are similar to those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP 

EIS, and that the radiological health impacts of direct radiation exposure of workers conducting

activities at the borrow areas are consistent with the impacts previously examined and found not 

to be significant. Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the Amendment

2 EA (NRC 2010a). As discussed in Section 2.5 of this SEIS, the data and analysis showed that 

direct radiation exposure rates remained within trends indentified in the ESP EIS. Also, in the 

COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that a new low-level waste (LLW) storage area 

had been developed northwest of the existing Unit 2 cooling tower to accommodate wastes from 

the existing units as well as Units 3 and 4. Because of the distance between the LLW storage 

area and the proposed construction area, Southern determined and the staff agrees that the 

LLW storage area would provide a negligible contribution to direct radiation dose to construction 

workers.

In addition, at certain times during construction, Southern would receive, possess, and use 

specific radioactive byproduct, source, and special nuclear material in support of construction 

and preparations for operation. These sources of low-level radiation are required to be 

controlled by the applicant’s radiation protection program and have very specific uses under 

controlled conditions. The dose to construction workers from these sources of byproduct, 

source, and special nuclear material is expected to result in a negligible contribution to this 

estimate of construction worker doses in the ESP EIS.

The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further analysis in the 

SEIS. Based 2 EA (NRC 2010a), the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the 

ESP EIS remain valid.

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents

The NRC staff’s assessment of radiation exposures resulting from gaseous effluents was

provided in Section 4.9.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-28 March 2011

construction-related impacts resulting from radiation exposure to gaseous effluents were 

considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts resulting from radiation exposure to gaseous 

effluents. During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified 

that there was no new and significant information related to gaseous effluents by reviewing 

Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, 

examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations, 

reference documents, and recent data on gaseous effluents that have become available since 

issuance of the VEGP ESP (Southern 2006, 2007,2008b, 2009c). Southern subsequently

provided new information on three additional borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill 

material via license amendment (Southern 2010e). Based on the information provided by 

Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in its EA (NRC 2010a) that 

site preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow locations are similar to 

those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP EIS, and that the 

radiological health impacts of exposure of workers to gaseous effluents while conducting

activities at the borrow areas are consistent with the impacts previously examined and found not 

to be significant. Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the Amendment 

2 EA (NRC 2010a). The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted 

further analysis in the SEIS. As discussed in Section 2.5 of this SEIS, the data and analysis 

showed that radiation exposure rates resulting from gaseous effluents remained within trends 

identified in the ESP EIS.

Based on this review and information in the EA (NRC 2010a), the staff determined that the 

conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents

The NRC staff’s assessment of radiation exposures resulting from liquid effluents was provided 

in Section 4.9.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, constructionrelated impacts resulting from radiation exposure to liquid effluents were considered to be 

SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts resulting from radiation exposure to liquid 

effluents. During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified 

that there was no new and significant information related to liquid effluents by reviewing 

Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, 

examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations, 

reference documents, and recent data on liquid effluents that have become available since 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-29 NUREG-1947

issuance of the VEGP ESP (Southern 2006, 2007, 2008b, 2009c). Southern subsequently

provided new information on three additional borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill 

material via license amendment (Southern 2010e). Based on the information provided by 

Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in its EA (NRC 2010a) that 

site preparation and construction activities at the additional onsite borrow locations are similar to 

those that have been previously analyzed and documented in the ESP EIS, and that the 

radiological health impacts of exposure of workers to liquid effluents while conducting activities 

at the borrow areas are consistent with the impacts previously examined and found not to be 

significant. Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its analysis in the Amendment 2 EA

(NRC 2010a). The staff has not identified any additional new information that warranted further 

analysis in the SEIS. As discussed in Section 2.5 of this SEIS, the data and analysis showed 

that radiation exposure rates resulting from liquid effluents remained within trends identified in 

the ESP EIS.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain valid.

4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation Workers

The NRC staff’s assessment of total dose to site-preparation workers was provided in 

Section 4.9.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Here, the term site preparation workers refers to 

workers performing either preconstruction or construction activities. Based on the staff’s 

analysis, construction-related impacts resulting from total dose to site-preparation workers were 

considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts resulting from total dose to site-preparation 

workers. During its initial review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified 

that there was no new and significant information related to total dose to site-preparation 

workers by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and 

significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering 

applicable regulations, reference documents, and recent data on direct radiation sources and 

radiological effluents that have become available since issuance of the ESP (Southern 2006, 

2007,2008b, 2009c). Southern subsequently provided new information on three additional

borrow areas from which it sought to obtain backfill material via license amendment (Southern 

2010e). Based on the information provided by Southern and the NRC analysis in the ESP EIS, 

the staff concluded in its EA (NRC 2010a) that site preparation and construction activities at the 

additional onsite borrow locations are similar to those that have been previously analyzed and 

documented in the ESP EIS, and that the radiological health impacts of exposures of workers 

while conducting activities at the borrow areas are consistent with the impacts previously 

examined and found not to be significant. Accordingly, the staff incorporates by reference its 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-30 March 2011

analysis in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a). The staff has not identified any additional new 

information that warranted further analysis in the SEIS. As discussed in Section 2.5 of this 

SEIS, the data and analysis showed that total dose to site preparation workers remained within 

trends identified in the ESP EIS.

Based on this review and information in the EA (NRC 2010a), the staff determined that total 

dose to site-preparation workers at the VEGP site remained within the limits specified in Federal 

environmental radiation standards – 10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I; and 

40 CFR Part 190 – and that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts

The NRC staff concluded in the ESP EIS that radiological health impacts to construction 

workers at the VEGP site would be SMALL. During its review of the COL application, the staff 

independently examined information related to radiological exposure by reviewing Southern’s 

ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other 

information available at the site audit, considering information Southern submitted in conjunction 

with the Amendment 2 LAR for additional onsite borrow sources, and considering applicable 

regulations, reference documents, and recent data on direct radiation sources and radiological 

effluents that have become available since issuance of the VEGP ESP (Southern 2006, 2007,

2008b, 2009c).

Based on this review and information in the Amendment 2 EA (NRC 2010a), the staff 

determined that total dose to construction workers at the VEGP site remained within the limits 

specified in Federal environmental radiation standards – 10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I; and 40 CFR Part 190 – and that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain 

valid.

4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During 

Site-Preparation Activities and Construction

The staff’s assessment of the measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during sitepreparation and construction were addressed in Section 4.10 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). 

Part 10 of Southern’s COL application includes a draft Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for 

the site, which identifies proposed conditions, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping for 

environmental data during construction. The draft EPP provided with the COL application is 

substantively similar to the EPP attached as Appendix G to ESP-004 (NRC 2009).

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding measures and controls to limit adverse impacts, but that it remains 

committed to the mitigation measures described in Section 4.10 of the ESP EIS. During its 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-31 NUREG-1947

review of the COL application, the NRC staff identified an MOU between the Georgia SHPO and 

Southern (GHPD 2010) that related to measures and controls to limit adverse impacts to cultural 

resources. Additionally, the staff identified new information (Southern 2010e) indicating that 

prior to developing the additional onsite backfill borrow sources associated with its second ESP 

LAR, Southern implemented rare plant and animal relocation programs in an attempt to 

minimize impacts (NRC 2010a). The NRC staff discussed these measures in the EA for 

Amendment 2 and incorporates that discussion by reference in this SEIS. With respect to the 

COL review, the NRC staff performed an independent analysis by reviewing Southern’s ER, 

auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other 

information available at the site audit, information submitted in conjunction with the ESP LARs, 

and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

With respect to historic and cultural resources, the MOU between the SHPO and Southern is for 

the preservation of the remaining balance of site 9BK416 from physical disturbance and 

performance of additional archaeological surveys as directed by the Georgia Historic 

Preservation Division (GHPD). The proposed project would disturb approximately 1 ha (2.5 ac) 

of the estimated 11.7 ha (29 ac) of site 9BK416. The SHPO determined that based on 

consultation and supporting field surveys the proposed project would impact site 9BK416, but 

not adversely impact the site (GHPD 2010). As described in Section 4.6, the staff considered 

these measures and controls in reaching its impact conclusion.

As noted above, regarding rare species, Southern implemented voluntary programs to relocate 

the southeastern pocket gopher and the sandhills milkvetch prior to development of a new 

borrow source in an area with populations of both of these species. These efforts have resulted 

in the relocation of both southeastern pocket gophers and sandhills milkvetch plants to an area 

on the northern part of the VEGP site. The relocation programs were developed in consultation 

with GDNR.

Based on this review, with the addition of the MOU and the species relocation programs, the 

staff determined that the measures and controls identified to limit adverse impacts during site 

preparation activities and construction presented in the ESP EIS remain valid, and also that 

Southern’s proposed EPP is appropriate. If the COLs are issued, the staff would include the 

EPP as part of the licenses.

4.11 Site Redress Plan 

Southern submitted a revised site redress plan as part of its ESP application (Southern 2008c), 

and the NRC staff described and evaluated that plan in Section 4.11 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a). The purpose of the site redress plan was to ensure that the VEGP site would be 

returned to an environmentally stable and aesthetically acceptable condition if the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 were not fully developed to generate electricity. The site redress plan is 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-32 March 2011

applicable specifically to those actions allowed under the LWA that was issued concurrently with 

the ESP in August 2009 (NRC 2009).

In its COL ER (Southern 2009a), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding the current site redress plan. In October 2009, Southern submitted an 

application for a second LWA that, if approved by the NRC, would allow for additional 

construction-related activities to be conducted prior to issuance of the COLs for Units 3 and 4. 

The second LWA, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10(d), would authorize installation of 

reinforcing steel, sumps, drain lines, and other embedded items along with placement of 

concrete for the nuclear island foundation base slab. The second LWA application indicates 

that the existing site redress plan would be applicable to the additional LWA activities. During 

its review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that no new and 

significant information was available related to the site redress plan by reviewing Southern’s ER, 

auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other 

information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference 

documents. In its ER submitted in support of the second LWA request, Southern explained 

why, in each resource area evaluated in Chapter 4 of the ESP EIS, the requested LWA activities 

would involve no additional impacts beyond those presented in the ESP EIS (Southern 2010h). 

The staff reviewed and independently assessed Southern’s evaluation of the LWA impacts. 

In the ESP EIS, the staff examined the construction activities requested in Southern’s ESP LWA 

application and determined that the environmental impacts of those activities would be a small 

proportion of the impacts of the combined construction and site preparation activities. The staff 

determined that the LWA impacts would be bounded by the analysis of those overall impacts, 

and would be SMALL. As Southern’s ER in support of its second LWA explains, that is also true 

of the subset of construction activities requested in the second LWA, in that they represent a 

small proportion of the planned construction and preconstruction activities and would occur 

entirely within the footprint of the nuclear island. Accordingly, the ESP conclusion regarding the 

impacts of the ESP LWA reinforces a conclusion that construction impacts specifically 

attributable to the October 2009 LWA request would likewise be SMALL.

Based on this review, the staff verified that the site redress plan discussed in the ESP EIS 

would adequately redress the impacts of the activities requested under the second LWA in the 

event construction is terminated by Southern or its successor, the COL application is withdrawn 

by Southern or denied by the NRC, or the second LWA is revoked by the NRC. As a result, the 

staff’s conclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10(c) that the LWA activities requested in the 

October 2009 submittal would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that 

could not be redressed is bounding and valid. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-33 NUREG-1947

4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts

Impact level characterizations identified by the NRC staff during the evaluation of the ESP 

application were documented in Table 4-7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). In addition to impact 

characterizations, environmental impacts categories were listed in Table 4-7 along with the 

specific measures and controls Southern proposed to implement in connection with those 

impact categories. For the reasons stated in this chapter, the NRC staff’s review of information 

available during the site audit and from other information sources did not identify any 

information that would change the impact characterization for any of the categories in Table 4-7 

of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), with the exception of the impact level for onsite terrestrial 

resources, which changed from SMALL to MODERATE for reasons described in Section 4.4.1 

of this SEIS. The staff determined that the activities associated with the second LWA are a 

small subset of the overall construction activities that would occur entirely within the footprint of 

the nuclear island. Therefore, impacts from the activities requested in the second LWA would 

be SMALL for all resource areas.

4.13 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.”

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operation.”

50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 

“Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended.”

43 FR 4026. January 31, 1978. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Listing of 

the Eastern Indigo Snake as a Threatened Species.” Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

72 FR 49352. August 28, 2007. “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power 

Plants; Final Rule.” Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.” Federal 

Register, Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-34 March 2011

75 FR 61904. October 6, 2010. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Listings for Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) in the Southeast.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 1992. 16 USC 668 et seq.

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Clean Water Act (CWA). 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also called the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act [FWPCA]).

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Ga. Code Ann. 22-3-161. 2004. “Selection of route for electric transmission line; settlement 

negotiations with property owners.” Georgia Code Annotated. 

Georgia Historic Preservation Division (GHPD). 2010. Letter from D. Crass, GHPD, to T.C. 

Moorer, Southern, “Memorandum of Understanding - Archaeological Site 9BK416 Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Expansion Burke County, Georgia, HP-060428-001.” January 20, 

2010. Accession No. ML100500302. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007. Letter from K. Anderson-Cordova, 

GDNR, to M.D. Notich, NRC, “Early Site Permit – Draft EIS, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Expansion, Burke County, Georgia, HP-060428-001.” December 27, 2007. 

Accession No. ML080070095.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009a. Letter from C.A. Couch, Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, to A.S. Meiburg, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. “Recommended Designations of Ozone Non-Attainment Areas in 

Georgia.” March 12, 2009. Accession No. ML100601088. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009b. E-mail from Matt Elliott, GDNR, to 

Mallecia Sutton, NRC. December 16, 2009. Accession No. ML093500211.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009c. E-mail dated December 21, 2009 

and letter dated December 17, 2009 from Katrina Morris, GDNRto Mallecia Sutton, NRC, 

regarding Natural Heritage Database occurrences within the VEGP Boundary and the 

Transmission Line Macrocorridor. 

Accession No. ML100490042.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009d. Sandhills Inventory. 

Accession No. ML101690125. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-35 NUREG-1947

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2010. E-mail from Elizabeth Shirk (GDNR, 

Historic Preservation Division) to Mallecia Sutton, NRC. June 17, 2010. 

Accession No. ML101940268.

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2006. Avian Protection Program for Georgia Power 

Company, Rev 1. March 14, 2006. Accession No. ML063000228. 

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2007. Corridor Study - Thomson Vogtle 500-kV Transmission 

Project. Atlanta, Georgia. Accession No. ML070460368.

MACTEC. 2007. Burke County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed February 4, 2010 at 

http://www.burkechamber.org/burke-county/department-profile.php?Department_ID=6. 

Accession No. ML100600797.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.

Neel-Schaffer. 2009. Traffic Study, Plant Vogtle Construction of Two New Units. July 2009. 

Accession No. ML101940362.

New South Associates. 2007. A Determination of Boundaries and Surface Features for Historic 

Cemetery on Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia. May 14, 2007. Not for public disclosure 

per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Supplemental Staff Guidance to 

NUREG-1555, “Environmental Standard Review Plan,” for Cultural and Historic Reviews 

(Accession No. ML10055073013).

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1889. 33 USC 403, Section 10.

Saricks C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight 

Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

Illinois. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009. E-mail from Julie Holling, 

SCDNR, Data Manager, to Mallecia Sutton, NRC, December 15, 2009. Columbia, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML093491132.

Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). 2010. Candidate 

Conservation Agreement for the Gopher Tortoise First Annual Report: October 1, 2008 – 

September 30, 2009. February 2010. Accessed at 

www.serppas.org/.../GTCCA%20First%20Annual%20Report%202008-2009.pdf on November 

15, 2010.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-36 March 2011

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2006. Annual Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report for January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant – 

Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML061240254.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Annual Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report for January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant – 

Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Package Accession No. ML071220467. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008a. Vogtle Early Site Permit 

Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 4, Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Package Accession No. ML081020073.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008b. Annual Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report for January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant – 

Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML081290295.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008c. Vogtle Early Site Permit 

Application: Part 4. Site Redress Plan. Revision 4, Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Accession No. ML081020073.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009. 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009b. Vogtle Units 3 and 4 Revised 

Disturbance Table. Accession No. ML101960587. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009c. Annual Radioactive Effluent 

Release Report for January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant – 

Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 

and NPF-81. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML091260689.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010a. Supporting Information for 

Environmental Report Review. March 12, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML100750038.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010b. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-37 NUREG-1947

Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, New and Significant Information Evaluation For 

the Transportation of Backfill From an Offsite Source.” Letter ND-10-1389. July 16, 2010. 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML102010031. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010c. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application, Response to Request for Additional Information 

Letter on Environmental Issues.” Letter ND-10-0023. January 8, 2010. Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML100120479.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010d. Letter from M. Smith, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Amendment Request, Revised Site 

Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of Backfill.” Letter ND-10-0960. May 13, 

2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101340649.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010e. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Amendment Request, Revised Site 

Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of Backfill, Part 2.” Letter ND-10-1005. May 

24, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101470212. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010f. Letter from B.L. Ivey, Southern, 

to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4

Combined License Application, Post New and Significant Audit Supporting Information.” Letter 

ND-10-0923. May 10, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession Nos. 

ML101320256 and ML101310333. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010g. Letter from Charles R. Pierce, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Applications, Large 

Component Transportation Method Decision.” February 19, 2010. Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML100550033. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010h. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application, Environmental Report to Support Revision 1 to 

Part 6, LWA Request.” Letter ND-10-227. February 5, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Accession No. ML100470600.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Letter from Carol Bernstein (USACE Chief, 

Coastal Branch) to Thomas Moorer (Southern), “Subject: Signed Department of the Army 

Permit for the expansion of the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.” SAS-2007-01837.
Environmental Impacts of Construction

NUREG-1947 4-38 March 2011

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Letter from Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D., Regional 

Administrator to William Burton, NRC, “A Biological Assessment for the Shortnose Sturgeon for 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit Application.” August 11, 2008. Accession 

No. ML082480450.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2010. Traffic Safety Facts, Burke County, Georgia, 

2004-2008. Accessed June 1, 2010 at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd30/ncsa/STSI/13_GA/2008/Counties/Georgia_Burke%20County_2008.HTM. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Athens, 

Georgia to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. Re: USFWS Log# 08-FA0473. September 19, 2008. Accession No. ML082760694. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Athens, Georgia, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Re: USFWS 

Log# 2009-1387. February 12, 2010. Accession No. ML100500426. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Athens, Georgia, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Re: USFWS Log# 

2010-1254. October 20, 2010. Accession No. ML103010076. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. National Land Cover Database Zone 55 Land Cover 

Layer. Accessed on February 11, 2010 at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php. Accession 

No. ML100601081.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from NRC to FWS dated January 

25, 2008. Subject: Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Designated Critical Habitat for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit 

Application. Accession No. ML080100512.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008c. Letter from W. Burton, NRC, to D. 

Bernhart, NMFS, “Subject: Biological Assessment for the Shortnose Sturgeon for the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit Application.” January 25, 2008. Accession No.

ML080070538 and ML080100588. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction

March 2011 4-39 NUREG-1947

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site, Docket No. 52-011, Early Site Permit and Limited 

Work Authorization. Early Site Permit No. ESP-004. Washington. D.C. 

Accession No. ML092290157.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP 

Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization EA and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Docket No. 52-011, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101670592. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP 

Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization EA and Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Docket No. 52-011, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101380114.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Letter from NRC to FWS dated January 

7, 2010. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML092600684.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010d. Site Audit Summary. Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML101550095. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010e. GDNR Conference Call Summaries, May 

26-June 3, 2010. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML101670079. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010f. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site 

Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101660076. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2010g. Letter from G. Hatchett, NRC, to D. Bernhart, 

NMFS, “Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 Combined 

License Application.” September 3, 2010. Accession No. ML102320162.

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 2003. Evaluation of the

Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash File, Phase One. UMTRI, Ann Arbor,

Michigan.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010h. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application, Notification of Approved Change to Environmental 

Permit SAS-2007-01837.” Letter ND-11-0424. March 3, 2011. Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML110660152. 

March 2011 5-1 NUREG-1947

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation

In Chapter 5 of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008a), 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff provided a description of the 

environmental impacts of operating the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant (VEGP) site. The applicant, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), 

evaluated the potential new and significant information that could affect impacts of operation. 

The NRC staff reviewed Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, but 

also conducted its own independent review to verify whether new and significant information 

had been identified. The results of that review are presented in the following sections. 

Sections 5.1 through 5.10 discuss the potential operational impacts on land use, meteorology 

and air quality; water use and quality; terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; socioeconomics; 

historic and cultural resources; environmental justice; nonradiological health effects; radiological 

health effects; and postulated accidents. Applicable measures and controls that would limit the 

adverse impacts during the 40-year operating period for the proposed Units 3 and 4 are 

described in Section 5.11. A summary of the operational impact is presented in Section 5.12. 

The references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 5.13.

5.1 Land-Use Impacts 

The NRC staff’s assessment of the land-use impacts related to the operation of proposed 

Units 3 and 4 and the planned new transmission line right-of-way was provided in Section 5.1 of 

the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, impacts to land use were considered 

to be SMALL.

In the environmental report (ER) included in its combined license (COL) application (Southern 

2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant information regarding impacts of 

the operation of Units 3 and 4 and the planned new transmission line right-of-way (ROW) on 

land use. During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that no 

new and significant information was available related to the land-use impacts of operating Units 

3 and 4 and the planned new transmission line ROW by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing 

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information 

available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in Section 5.1 of the 

ESP EIS remain bounding and valid.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-2 March 2011

5.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessment of meteorology and air-quality impacts, including impacts from the 

cooling tower plumes and emissions from the operation of auxiliary generators and boilers, was

provided in Section 5.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, operationrelated impacts to meteorology and air quality were considered to be SMALL. 

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding construction-related impacts on meteorology and air quality. During its 

review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new 

and significant information related to meteorology and air quality by reviewing Southern’s ER, 

auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other 

information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference 

documents. During this review, the staff identified new information related to changes to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone that warranted further review.

As discussed in Chapter 2.3, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a 

revision to the NAAQS for ozone on March 12, 2008. The final rule (73 FR 16436) reduced the 

ozone standard from 0.084 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) requires each state to submit, within 1 year of the revised standard, its 

recommended designation (i.e., attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) for each county. 

On March 12, 2009, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) issued a letter to 

EPA providing GDNR’s recommended designations; Burke County remains unclassified/ 

attainment for the new ozone standard (GDNR 2009). EPA will make its final determination 

regarding attainment status no later than March 2011.

Based on this review and the fact that Burke County has been proposed to remain in 

attainment, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008a) remain bounding and valid.

5.3 Water-Related Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessment of the water-related impacts associated with operation of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 5.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on 

the staff’s analysis, operations-related impacts of hydrological alterations on water use and 

water quality were considered to be SMALL.

During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of 

potential new and significant information regarding water-related impacts of operation by 

reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant 

information, examining other information available at the site audit (including permits for 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-3 NUREG-1947

groundwater withdrawal and dewatering of the surficial aquifer during construction), and 

considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009) and request for additional information (RAI) responses 

(Southern 2010), Southern provided new information on the proposed intake structure design, 

as described in Section 3.2.2. These design changes would have no impact on water use and 

water quality during operation and therefore do not change the assessment of operationsrelated impacts described in the ESP EIS.

As described in Section 3.2.1, during its review, the staff identified information on the total 

effluent discharge to the Savannah River that warranted further staff analysis in the SEIS. The 

discharge estimate is 2000 L/s (31,695 gpm) (Southern 2010), which is 3 percent more than the 

value of 1941 L/s (30,761 gpm) used in the ESP EIS to evaluate water-quality impacts of 

operations. The NRC staff performed an independent assessment of the thermal effluent

plume’s extent using a total discharge of 2000 L/s (31,695 gpm) and assuming the same 

conservative conditions described in ESP EIS Section 5.3.3. The extent of the thermal plume 

was estimated as the 2.8°C (5.0°F)-above-ambient isotherm using CORMIX Version 6.0 

(Doneker and Jirka 2007). The 3-percent increase in discharge resulted in an increase in the 

estimated thermal plume extent from 29.6 m (97 ft) to 33.6 m (110 ft) in length and from 4.6 m 

(15 ft) to 5.2 m (17 ft) in width. The extent of the 2.8°C (5.0°F)-above-ambient isotherm is 

shown in Figure 5-1. Because the estimated extent of the thermal plume remains small in 

relation to the width of the river, the 3 percent increase in the discharge does not result in a 

change to the staff’s impact conclusion in the ESP EIS. 

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusion presented in the ESP EIS, that 

impacts would be SMALL, remains valid.

5.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems

5.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessments of the potential operational impacts to terrestrial resources, 

including impacts to Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species, were 

provided in Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Terrestrial-resource-related 

impacts of operations that are discussed in the ESP EIS include impacts on vegetation related 

to cooling tower drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity; bird collisions with cooling towers 

and transmission lines; cooling tower noise; shoreline habitat; transmission line ROW

management; electromagnetic fields; transmission line ROW maintenance on floodplains and 

wetlands; and Federal and State-listed species. Based on the staff’s analysis, operationsrelated impacts to terrestrial resources were considered to be SMALL.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-4 March 2011

Figure 5-1. Extent of the 2.8°C (5.0°F)-Above-Ambient Isotherm Created by the Proposed 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Discharge Pipe in the Combined Effluent Analysis 

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding operations-related impacts on terrestrial resources. During its review of 

the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant 

information related to terrestrial ecology by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s 

process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at 

the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and contacting 

representatives of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), and GDNR (see Appendix F).
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-5 NUREG-1947

In a letter dated January 7, 2010, NRC requested that the FWS Field Office in Brunswick, 

Georgia, provide information regarding Federally listed species and critical habitat that may 

have changed since the 2008 consultation (NRC 2010a). On October 20, 2010, FWS provided 

an updated list of Federally listed threatened or endangered species that can be expected to 

occur in the project area (FWS 2010). FWS identified four Federally listed terrestrial plant and 

animal species that may occur on or in the vicinity of the VEGP site as well as within in the 

vicinity of the Representative Delineated Corridor (RDC) (FWS 2010). These four species are 

the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the wood stork (Mycteria americana), the 

Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), and the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). 

Impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker, wood stork, and Canby’s dropwort are discussed in 

the ESP EIS.

In addition to the Federally listed species, FWS provided information on the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) in the response 

letter FWS indicated there are eagle nests in Jefferson and McDuffie Counties, including one 

nest in the RDC (FWS 2010). The location of the eagle nest in the RDC also was discussed in 

the ESP EIS.

The eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise were not included in the analysis in the ESP EIS. 

The eastern indigo snake was not included because it was not previously listed in FWS species 

lists for the counties within the project area (Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, or Warren Counties) 

(NRC 2008a). Likewise, GDNR indicated there are no known occurrences of the gopher 

tortoise in the project area (GDNR 2009).

The information discussed in this section focuses on species not previously considered in the 

ESP EIS. This includes the eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise, both identified by FWS in 

its October 20, 2010 letter as species that can be expected to, but not known to, occur in the 

project area. FWS noted that the gopher tortoise is not a Federally listed species in Georgia; 

however, FWS is reviewing its status (FWS 2010). Sandhills habitat that could support the 

gopher tortoise and the eastern indigo snake is present in the project area (GDNR 2009). 

Therefore, these species are discussed below.

NRC submitted a biological assessment (BA) to FWS on February 24, 2011 to document 

potential impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species resulting from 

operation of Units 3 and 4 and ancillary facilities, as well as construction and operation of the 

proposed transmission line ROW. This BA is included in Appendix F. A BA documenting 

potential impacts on the Federally listed threatened or endangered species as a result of the 

site preparation and preliminary construction of the nonsafety-related structures, systems, or 

components on the VEGP site was submitted to FWS on January 25, 2008 (NRC 2008b), and 

FWS concurred with the findings on September 19, 2008 (FWS 2008).
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-6 March 2011

The eastern indigo snake was Federally listed as threatened by FWS in 1978 (FWS 1978). The 

eastern indigo snake is not documented in Burke County or any of the counties crossed by the 

proposed transmission line ROW. Suitable habitat may occur in the RDC, and gopher tortoise 

burrows, which are used by the eastern indigo snake, are in the vicinity. However, the project 

area is outside the historic and current range of the eastern indigo snake. Therefore, the NRC 

staff determined it is unlikely that operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 and operation of the 

proposed transmission line will affect this species.

As noted above, the October 20, 2010, FWS letter included information on the gopher tortoise 

and the bald eagle (FWS 2010). The gopher tortoise is a Georgia state threatened species, and 

currently is under review by the FWS to be listed as Federally threatened (FWS 2010). There 

are no known populations of the gopher tortoise on the VEGP site or within the RDC (GDNR 

2009; FWS 2010). Southern submitted a draft Candidate Conservation Agreement with 

Assurances (CCAA) for the gopher tortoise at the VEGP Site. This CCAA currently is under 

review by FWS (SERPPAS 2010). In light of the CCAA, and because no further impacts to 

sandhills habitat are projected to occur on the VEGP site, the staff considers it unlikely that the 

gopher tortoise will be affected onsite. The draft CCAA does not include the offsite portions of 

the proposed transmission line. In its October 20, 2010, letter to NRC, FWS recommends that 

tortoise surveys be included in surveys that are conducted where sandhills habitat exists. FWS 

also states that there are several areas within the RDC that have sandhills habitat that may 

contain gopher tortoises (FWS 2010). The impact on the gopher tortoise in the ROW due to 

ROW maintenance activities is not known because of the uncertainty of the final routing of the 

transmission line. However, there are no known tortoise locations within the RDC, and Georgia 

Power Company (GPC) has established maintenance practices and procedures to protect 

sensitive areas and species along existing transmission line ROWs. Therefore, the staff has 

determined the impacts to the gopher tortoise would likely be minimal.

The bald eagle, a State-threatened species, was Federally delisted under the Endangered 

Species Act in August 2007. There are bald eagle nests in Jefferson and McDuffie Counties in 

Georgia, and one known location of an active nest in McDuffie County in the vicinity of the 

proposed new transmission line ROW (FWS 2010). Potential impacts to the bald eagle were 

discussed in the ESP EIS. For example, as noted in the ESP EIS, the proposed 180-m (600-ft) 

buffer around the known bald eagle nest site would minimize any potential impacts from 

transmission line maintenance.

NRC received comments on the COL draft SEIS from the U.S. Department of Interior 

expressing concern about avian collisions with tall structures and transmission lines and what 

mitigative measures GPC will use to minimize impacts (see Appendix F). In Sections 5.4.1.2 

and 5.4.1.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), NRC included an analysis of operation-related avian 

collisions with structures, including cooling towers and transmission lines. However, additional 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-7 NUREG-1947

information on the mitigation measures to minimize impacts to avian species during operation is 

provided below.

As discussed in the ESP EIS, the natural draft cooling towers associated with the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 would be 180-m (600-ft) high (NRC 2008a). The VEGP site is located adjacent to 

the Savannah River, and although migratory birds pass through the vicinity of the site, it is not 

located on a major American flyway. No formal bird collision surveys have been conducted at 

the VEGP site; however, the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for VEGP Units 1 and 2 

stipulates that any excessive bird-impact events be reported to NRC within 24 hours (Southern 

1989). No excessive bird-impact events have been reported onsite. The conclusion presented 

in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS)

(NRC 1996) for nuclear power plant license renewals is that bird collisions with natural draft 

cooling towers are of small significance at all operating nuclear plants, including those with 

multiple cooling towers. Consequently, the incremental number of bird collisions, if any, 

associated with the operation of the two new natural draft cooling towers for the proposed Units 

3 and 4 at the VEGP site, would be minimal.

Avian mortalities resulting from collisions with conductors, guy wires, and overhead ground 

(static) wires have not been specifically documented on GPC system components, but are 

known to occur on other utilities and communication systems. GPC has installed spiral vibration 

dampers to increase visibility on some of the transmission lines, especially along the coastal 

areas where the wood stork is known to nest and forage (GPC 2006). As noted above, of the 

EPP for the existing Units 1 and 2 stipulates that any excessive bird-impact events be reported 

to NRC within 24 hours (Southern 1989). Transmission line and ROW maintenance personnel 

have not reported bird deaths attributed to collisions or contact with Unit 1 and 2 transmission 

lines (Southern 2008).

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993) notes that factors appearing to influence 

the rate of avian impacts with structures are diverse and related to bird behavior, weather, and 

the attributes of the structure. Structure height, location, configuration, and lighting all appear to 

play a role in avian mortality. Weather, such as low cloud ceilings, advancing weather fronts, 

and fog also contribute to this phenomenon. Larger birds, such as waterfowl, are more prone to 

collisions with transmission lines, especially transmission lines that cross wetland areas used by 

large concentrations of birds (EPRI 1993).

EPRI (1993) documents electrocution of large birds, particularly eagles, as a source of mortality 

that could be significant to listed species. Electrocutions do not normally occur on lines where

voltages are greater than 69 kV because the distance between lines is too great to be spanned 

by birds (EPRI 1993). The voltage of the proposed new transmission line is greater than 69 kV; 

therefore, bald eagles and other large bird populations should not be noticeably affected by 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-8 March 2011

transmission-line electrocutions. GPC has implemented an Avian Protection Program to 

monitor and address the impacts of transmission lines on birds.

The addition of the proposed transmission line likely would present new opportunities for bird 

collisions. However, the additional number of bird collisions, if any, would not be expected to 

cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. Any impact events would be 

coordinated with GPC’s Environmental Field Services and, if necessary, coordination also would 

involve FWS (GPC 2006). Consequently, the incremental number of bird collisions posed by 

the operation of the new transmission line for the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site is 

anticipated to be negligible.

Based on the review of the new information presented above regarding operation-related 

impacts on terrestrial resources, the staff determined that the conclusion presented in the ESP 

EIS, that operational impacts would be SMALL, remains bounding and valid.

5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessments of aquatic-ecology-related impacts were provided in Section 5.4.2 

and 5.4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The staff assessed impacts to onsite streams and 

ponds and to the Savannah River from operation of the cooling-water system, including impacts 

from entrainment and impingement resulting from the operation of the intake system; impacts 

from operation of the discharge including thermal, chemical, and physical impacts; and impacts 

from transmission-line maintenance. Impacts to important species, including Federally and 

State-listed threatened and endangered species, also are discussed in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 

of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, operations-related impacts to the 

aquatic resources were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding operations-related impacts on aquatic biota. However, Southern indicated

that there would be a 3 percent increase in the discharge flow. As explained in Section 5.3 of 

this SEIS, using the same conservative assumptions employed in the ESP EIS analysis, this 

change would result in only a small increase in the size of the thermal plume as defined by the 

2.8°C (5.0°F)-above-ambient isotherm − from 29.6 m (97 ft) to 33.6 m (110 ft) in length and from 

4.6 m (15 ft) to 5.2 m (17 ft) in width. The NRC staff reviewed this information and determined 

that consistent with the reasoning identified by the ESP EIS analysis, the thermal plume would 

remain small compared to the width of the Savannah River at that location, and it still would not 

impede fish passage up and down the river. Accordingly, this minor change would not affect the 

conclusion in the ESP EIS related to the impacts to aquatic biota from thermal discharges 

resulting from operation of two additional units. In addition to independently reviewing the ER, 

the NRC staff audited Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, 

examined other information available at the site audit, and discussed potential operational 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-9 NUREG-1947

impacts with resource agencies (i.e., FWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], 

SCDNR, and GDNR; see Appendix F for the consultation letters).

During the site audit, Southern informed the NRC staff that the design and location of the 

cooling water intake structure for proposed Units 3 and 4 had changed. As a result, the staff 

requested further information on the design and location to determine whether any of these 

changes might affect the entrainment and/or impingement of aquatic organisms. In response to 

requests for additional information from the NRC staff, Southern (2010) indicated the intake 

structure would be located 46 m (150 ft) upstream of its previously designated location. The 

staff determined that this new location would not alter the basis for the staff’s analysis and 

conclusion in the ESP EIS because the orientation of the mouth of the intake canal in relation to 

the river (perpendicular) has not changed, and because the new location of the intake canal is in 

habitat similar to that in the previous location (on a straight portion of the river and in the same 

floodplain). In addition, Southern described the changes to the intake design (Southern 2010) 

and indicated that no changes had been made to the water withdrawal rates, through-screen 

velocities, traveling screen mesh size, or to the hydraulic zone of influence, which are the main 

factors that would impact the entrainment or impingement rate of aquatic biota during operation 

of the cooling water intake structure. As a result, the staff determined there was no change to 

the impact on aquatic biota from entrainment or impingement as discussed in the ESP EIS.

As part of the NRC’s responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the staff 

prepared a BA in connection with the Vogtle ESP review, documenting potential impacts on the 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) as a result of construction of two new units at the 

VEGP site. That BA was submitted to NMFS (NRC 2008c). In its response (NMFS 2008), 

NFMS stated its conclusion that the proposed action, including the risk of sturgeon impingement 

with the intake structure and the potential effect from thermal discharge and chemical effluents, 

is not likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. The staff has determined that the 

project has not been modified in a way that was not previously considered in the ESP EIS or 

that would cause an effect to the shortnose sturgeon. In a letter dated September 3, 2010, the 

NRC confirmed with NMFS that the ESP stage consultation encompassed the proposed actions 

included in the COL application (NRC 2010b).

On October 6, 2010, NMFS published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904) a proposed rule for 

listing the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments of the Atlantic sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. In the 

ESP proceeding, the staff determined that impacts to the Atlantic sturgeon would be SMALL. 

The NRC staff has determined that the project has not been modified in a way that would cause 

an effect to the Atlantic sturgeon that was not previously considered in the ESP proceeding. 

Nevertheless, because of the listing proposal, the staff compiled information regarding the 

Atlantic sturgeon distribution and life history in a conference consultation letter to NMFS on 

March 2, 2011. A copy of this letter is provided in Appendix F. None of the information 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-10 March 2011

examined by the staff resulted in a change to the conclusions in Chapter 5 of the ESP EIS

because it remained fully consistent with the staff’s assessment that the species’ demersal eggs

and migratory behavior of larval sturgeon, as well as the design features of the intake structure 

and the anticipated extent of the thermal plume, would all minimize the potential impacts of plant 

operation to the Atlantic sturgeon. 

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS and 

the hearing proceedings remain valid.

5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessments of the socioeconomic-related impacts, including physical impacts, 

demographic impacts, economic impacts, and infrastructure and community-service impacts, 

were provided in Section 5.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, 

operations-related impacts to socioeconomics were considered to be SMALL, with the following 

three exceptions: (1) a MODERATE impact associated with the aesthetics of the transmission 

lines, (2) a MODERATE beneficial impact on the economy of Burke County, and (3) a LARGE 

beneficial property tax impact in Burke County.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding operations-related impacts on socioeconomics. During its review of the 

COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant 

information related to socioeconomics by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process 

for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site 

audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and contacts with county 

officials.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts 

The NRC staff’s assessment of impacts from operation of Units 3 and 4 to historic and cultural 

resources was provided in Section 5.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s 

analysis, operational impacts related to historic and cultural resources were considered to be 

SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding operations-related impacts on historic and cultural resources. During its 

review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and 

significant information regarding operational impacts related to historic and cultural resources by 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-11 NUREG-1947

reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant 

information, examining other information available at the site audit, considering applicable 

regulations and reference documents, and contact with the Georgia State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Tribes (see Appendix C for the 

complete listing). The staff notes that, as described in Section 4.6, Southern has signed a 

memorandum of understanding with the Georgia SHPO (GHPD 2010). This action further 

indicates that Southern will protect historic and cultural resources on the VEGP site or mitigate 

impacts in consultation with the Georgia SHPO. 

Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain valid.

5.7 Environmental Justice

The NRC staff’s assessment of the environmental justice-related impacts, including health and 

environmental impacts, socioeconomic impacts, and subsistence and special conditions, was

provided in Section 5.7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, operationsrelated environmental justice impacts were considered to be SMALL. 

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding operations-related impacts on environmental justice. During its review of 

the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant 

information related to environmental justice by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s

process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at 

the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents. 

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

The NRC staff’s assessment of the nonradiological health impacts for operation of the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site was provided in Section 5.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). 

Health impacts to the public from the cooling system, noise generated by operations, 

electromagnetic fields, other occupational health concerns, and transporting operations and 

outage workers were summarized. Health impacts from the same sources also were evaluated 

for workers at the proposed Units 3 and 4.

The NRC staff concluded in the ESP EIS that nonradiological health impacts to the public and 

the workers from the cooling system (e.g., exposure to thermophilic organisms), noise 

generated by unit operations, acute effects of electromagnetic fields at the higher power levels, 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-12 March 2011

occupational health-related impacts (e.g., falls, electric shock, etc.), and transporting operations 

and outage workers to/from the two additional units would be SMALL.

In the ESP EIS, the staff did not reach a conclusion on the chronic effects of electromagnetic 

fields. The staff found that available information was not sufficient to cause the staff to consider 

the potential impacts of electromagnetic fields as significant to the public.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding operations-related impacts to nonradiological health. During its review 

of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant 

information by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and 

significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering 

applicable regulations and reference documents, including recent data from the U.S. Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2009), Georgia Department of Human Resources 

(GDHR 2009), and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(SCDHEC 2008, 2009, 2010).

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

The NRC staff’s assessment of the radiological health impacts resulting from normal operation 

of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site was provided in Section 5.9 of the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008a). The discussion included the estimated radiation dose to a member of the public 

and to the biota in the vicinity of the VEGP site. Estimated doses to workers at the proposed 

units also were discussed.

This section considers whether new and significant information has been identified relative to 

the radiological health impacts during operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4. Exposure 

pathways are discussed in Section 5.9.1, radiological doses to members of the public are 

discussed in Section 5.9.2, impacts to members of the public are discussed in Section 5.9.3, 

occupational doses to workers are discussed in Section 5.9.4, impacts to biota other than 

members of the public are discussed in Section 5.9.5, and radiological monitoring is discussed 

in Section 5.9.6.

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways

The staff provided a summary of exposure pathways considered in its assessment of 

radiological impacts of normal operations in Section 5.9.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-13 NUREG-1947

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding the exposure pathways considered in the analyses. During its review of 

the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant 

information related to exposure pathways by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s 

process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at 

the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and reviewing the 

most recent offsite dose calculation manual for the existing Units 1 and 2. Although the new 

dairy being developed near Girard, Georgia, (approximately 9.6 km [6 mi] south of the VEGP 

site) is not considered in the analysis because it is greater than 8 km (5 mi) from the existing 

and proposed units, milk from the dairy will be monitored by Southern for radionuclides. 

Monitoring of milk from local dairies is carried out as part of the radiological monitoring program 

for the existing Units 1 and 2. Southern staff indicated during the site audit, and the NRC staff 

verified, that no previous samples had indicated the presence of radionuclides. The new dairy 

in Girard, Georgia, will become the nearest dairy being monitored.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the exposure pathways considered in the ESP 

EIS remain bounding and valid.

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public

The NRC staff’s assessment of radiation doses to members of the public was provided in 

Section 5.9.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding the radiation doses to members of the public. During its review of the 

COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant 

information related to radiation doses to members of the public by reviewing Southern’s ER, 

auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other 

information available at the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference 

documents, and reviewing the most recent offsite dose calculation manual for the existing 

Units 1 and 2.

For the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), radiological impacts were determined using data from 

Revision 15 of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design (Westinghouse 2005) with expected 

direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radiological effluent rates. The Southern ESP 

application referenced Revision 15 of the AP1000 standard reactor design, and Revision 15 is 

certified by rule in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, Appendix D. Prior 

to publication of the ESP EIS, Westinghouse submitted Revision 16 (Westinghouse 2007) to the 

AP1000 reactor design to the NRC for review. The staff noted this submission in the ESP EIS, 

but did not update the analyses with respect to radiological impacts because the staff review of 

Revision 16 was not complete. Subsequently, Westinghouse submitted Revision 17 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-14 March 2011

(Westinghouse 2008) to the AP1000 reactor design. Although Revision 17 remains under a 

separate design certification review pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52, the NRC staff has considered 

the impact of this latest revision in its evaluation of potential impacts for normal operations in 

this SEIS. For normal operations, the staff has not found any changes in estimated direct 

radiation, gaseous radiological effluent releases, or liquid radiological effluent releases based on 

data in Revisions 15, 16, and 17.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that a new low-level waste (LLW) storage 

area had been developed northwest of the existing Unit 2 cooling tower to accommodate wastes 

from the existing units as well as Units 3 and 4. Because of the distance between the LLW 

storage area and the proposed construction area, Southern determined and the staff agrees 

that the LLW storage area would provide negligible contribution to direct radiation dose to 

construction workers. Likewise, because of distances, occupancy factors, and the lack of 

effluents from the facility, doses to members of the public, operations personnel, and other biota 

would also be negligible.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiation doses to members of the public 

described in the ESP EIS remain valid.

5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public

The NRC staff’s assessment of the estimated impacts to members of the public was provided in 

Section 5.9.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), including to a maximally exposed individual near 

the VEGP site and a population dose (collective dose to the population within 80 km [50 mi]) in 

the vicinity of the VEGP site. Based on the NRC staff’s analysis, operation-related health

impacts to individual members of the public and the population resulting from radiation exposure

were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding the impacts to members of the public. During its review of the COL 

application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information 

related to impacts to members of the public by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s 

process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at 

the site audit, considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and reviewing the 

most recent offsite dose calculation manual for the existing Units 1 and 2.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiation doses to members of the public 

described in the ESP EIS remain valid.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-15 NUREG-1947

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers

The staff’s assessment of the estimated impacts to occupational workers was provided in 

Section 5.9.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, operation-related

health impacts to occupational workers resulting from radiation exposure were considered to be 

SMALL.

In its COL ER, Southern indicated that there is no new and significant information regarding the 

impacts to occupational workers. During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff 

independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to impacts to 

members of the public by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying 

new and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and 

considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiation doses to occupational workers 

described in the ESP EIS remain valid.

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public

The NRC staff’s assessment of the estimated impacts to biota other than members of the public 

was provided in Section 5.9.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, 

operation-related health impacts to biota from radiation exposure were considered to be 

SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding the impacts to biota. During its review of the COL application, the NRC 

staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to impacts to 

biota by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and 

significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, considering 

applicable regulations and reference documents, and reviewing the most recent offsite dose 

calculation manual for the existing Units 1 and 2.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiation doses to biota other than members 

of the public described in the ESP EIS remain valid.

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring

In Section 5.9.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the NRC staff provided a summary of radiological 

monitoring performed at and near the VEGP site.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding radiological monitoring. During its review of the COL application, the NRC 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-16 March 2011

staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to 

radiological monitoring by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying 

new and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, 

considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and reviewing the most recent 

offsite dose calculation manual for the existing Units 1 and 2.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the radiological monitoring described in the ESP 

EIS remains valid.

5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

The NRC staff’s assessment of the environmental impacts of postulated design basis accidents 

and severe accidents for AP1000 reactors at the VEGP ESP site was provided in Section 5.10 

of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Based on the staff’s analysis, the environmental impacts of 

design-basis and severe accidents were considered to be SMALL. 

The Southern ESP application referenced Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design Control Document 

for the AP1000 standard reactor design (Westinghouse 2005). Revision 15 is certified by rule in 

10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. Prior to publication of the ESP EIS, Westinghouse submitted 

Revision 16 to the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2007) for NRC staff 

review. The staff noted this submission in the ESP EIS, but did not update the accident 

analyses because the staff review of Revision 16 was not complete. Subsequently, 

Westinghouse submitted Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 

2008). Consequently, Southern updated its review of potential impacts for postulated accidents 

based on Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document, which is under separate review 

by the NRC staff pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52. 

The term “accident,” as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event not addressed in 

Section 5.9 that results in release of radioactive materials into the environment. The focus of 

this review is on events that could lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits 

for normal operations. Normal release limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, 

Table 2.

5.10.1 Design Basis Accidents

The NRC staff’s review of Design Basis Accidents (DBAs) was provided in Section 5.10.1 of the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The review of environmental impacts of postulated accidents in the 

ESP EIS assumed the location of two new nuclear units at the VEGP ESP site. The calculation 

approach used by Southern for its COL application is consistent with the approach described in 

the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) and is summarized below. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-17 NUREG-1947

Southern evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate that an 

AP1000 reactor could be constructed and operated at the VEGP site without undue risk to the 

health and safety of the public (Southern 2008). These evaluations used a set of DBAs that are 

representative for the AP1000 reactor design and site-specific meteorological data. The set of 

accidents covers events that range from a relatively high probability of occurrence with relatively 

low consequences to a relatively low probability with high consequences.

The DBA analyses in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) assumed that the postulated releases would 

occur from the location on an imaginary border of an area surrounding all release points for the 

two proposed units that would result in the greatest doses at the exclusion area and low 

population zone boundaries. The units proposed in the COL application are situated entirely 

within the area assumed in the ESP application, so the previous exclusion area boundary and 

low-population zone distances remain valid for the COL application. The staff evaluated 

potential consequences of DBAs following procedures outlined in regulatory guides and 

standard review plans. Potential consequences of accidental releases depend on 

characteristics of the specific radionuclides released, radionuclide release rates, and 

meteorological conditions. Methods for evaluating potential accidents are based on guidance in 

Regulatory Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000).

Based on the ESP review and having found no new and significant information applicable to this 

analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the atmospheric dispersion factors (χ/Qs) for the VEGP

site are still applicable for evaluating potential environmental consequences of postulated DBAs 

for Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2008) at the VEGP

site.

Table 5-1 lists the set of DBAs considered and presents estimates of the environmental 

consequences of each accident in terms of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), which is the 

sum of the committed effective dose equivalent from inhalation and the effective dose 

equivalent from external exposure. The DBAs listed in the table are the same as those being 

considered in the design certification and those that were considered in the ESP review. The 

NRC staff independently reviewed the calculation of the consequences of the DBAs in 

Revision 17 of the AP1000 Design Control Document and found the calculations to be correct. 

There are no environmental criteria related to the potential consequences of DBAs. 

Consequently, the review criteria used in the staff’s safety review of DBA doses are included 

in Table 5-1 to illustrate the magnitude of the calculated environmental consequences (TEDE

doses). In all cases, the calculated TEDE values are considerably smaller than the TEDE 

doses used as safety review criteria. Further, in no case is the consequence estimate 

significantly different than the corresponding estimate presented in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). 

Therefore, the staff determined that the conclusion in the ESP EIS that the environmental 

consequences of DBAs for an AP1000 reactor at the VEGP site are SMALL remains valid.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-18 March 2011

Table 5-1. DBA Doses for an AP1000 Reactor at the VEGP Site (Southern 2009a)

Accident

Standard Review 

Plan Section(b)

TEDE in rem(a)

Exclusion Area 

Boundary

Low-Population 

Zone

Safety Review 

Criterion

Main steam line break 15.0.3

 Pre-incident iodine spike 0.07 0.03 25(c)

 Equilibrium iodine activity 0.08 0.08 2.5 (d)

Loss-of-coolant accident 15.0.3 3.6 1.5 25(c)

Steam generator tube rupture 15.0.3

 Pre-incident iodine spike 0.16 0.04 25(c)

Equilibrium iodine activity 0.08 0.02 2.5 (d)

Locked rotor 15.0.3

 No feedwater 0.06 0.01 2.5 (d)

 Feedwater available 0.04 0.02 2.5 (d)

Failure of small lines carrying primary 

coolant outside containment

15.0.3 0.15 0.03 2.5 (d)

Rod ejection accident 15.0.3 0.27 0.17 6.3 (d)

Fuel handling 15.0.3 0.38 0.07 6.3 (d)

(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide rem by 100.

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007).

(c) 10 CFR 52.79(a)(2) and 10 CFR 100.21.

(d) Standard Review Plan criterion.

5.10.2 Severe Accidents

The staff’s analysis of the potential consequences of severe accidents was provided in 

Section 5.10.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The staff concluded that the probability-weighted 

consequences of the severe accidents for an AP1000 reactor at the VEGP ESP site were 

SMALL and that the issue was resolved.

Southern conducted a search for new information related to severe accidents and states that 

there have been no significant changes in either the reactor-specific or site-specific information 

used in the severe accident consequence assessment (Southern 2009). The NRC staff has 

reviewed the process that Southern used to search for new information and has conducted its 

own search. The staff concurs that there is no new and significant information related to the 

site-specific input to the severe accident consequence assessment in Section 5.10.2 of the 

ESP EIS.

The NRC staff evaluated the significance of the new information related to the AP1000 design. 

Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) for Revision 15 of the 

AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2005) and concluded that the PRA remained
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-19 NUREG-1947

valid for a proposed Revision 16 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 

2007); the PRA is unchanged for Revision 17 (Westinghouse 2008). The NRC staff also

evaluated the current PRA using DC/COL-ISG-3, Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information to 

Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications, (NRC 2008c), and concluded 

that the PRA submitted with Revision 15 is a conservative and acceptable basis for evaluating 

severe accident consequences for the current revision.

Because the NRC staff is not aware of any new and significant site-specific or reactor-specific 

information, the NRC staff determined that its conclusion set forth in Section 5.10.2 of the ESP 

EIS that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents at the VEGP site would be 

SMALL remains valid.

5.10.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

The NRC staff provided a review of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) for 

Revision 15 of the AP1000 reactor design at the VEGP site in Section 5.10.3 of the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008a). The staff found that the VEGP site characteristics are within the site 

characteristics considered in the severe accident design mitigation alternatives (SAMDA) review 

conducted for certification of the AP1000 design (10 CFR 52, Appendix D). Consequently, 

further SAMDA review was precluded by rule. The other attributes of the SAMA review, namely 

procedures and training, were also addressed in the ESP EIS.

In its COL ER, Southern states that there is no new and significant information related to 

postulated accidents (Southern 2009). However, the NRC staff notes that the ER did contain an 

update of information on DBAs associated with the proposed revision to the AP1000 design. In 

the previous section of this SEIS, the staff reviewed the information used in the severe accident 

consequence assessment included in the staff’s ESP EIS and determined that the revised 

reactor design did not change any of the input to the severe accident consequence assessment. 

Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA for Revision 15 and concluded that the PRA remains 

valid for a proposed revision of the design control document (Westinghouse 2007); the PRA is 

unchanged for Revision 17. Furthermore, the NRC staff evaluated the current PRA using 

DC/COL-ISG-3 (NRC 2008c) and concluded that the PRA submitted with Revision 15 is a 

conservative and acceptable basis for evaluating strategies for mitigating severe accidents. 

Therefore, the NRC staff considers the PRA for Revision 15 of the design control document to 

be an adequate basis for a SAMDA analysis for an application referencing Revision 17. 

Consequently, the NRC staff incorporates, by reference, the environmental assessment 

accompanying the design certification rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D (NRC 2005).
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-20 March 2011

Because there is no new and significant information related to either the site-specific data used 

in the ESP EIS to conclude that the characteristics of the VEGP site are bounded by those 

considered in the generic SAMDA review or to the AP1000 PRA, the NRC staff reaffirms and 

adopts the ESP EIS conclusions that there are no cost-effective SAMDAs for an AP1000 at the 

VEGP site.

Other attributes of the SAMA review, namely procedures and training, have been addressed by 

Southern’s statement that “...appropriate administrative controls on plant operations would be 

incorporated into the plants’ management systems as part of its baseline....” (Southern 2008). 

Further, the staff notes that, pursuant to regulatory requirements, procedures and training, 

programs are being developed. The staff has a reasonable expectation that risk mitigation 

measures will be considered when procedures would be in place and training would be 

completed prior to loading fuel. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that SAMAs were 

appropriately considered in the ESP EIS.

5.10.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

In the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the staff evaluated the environmental impacts from DBAs and 

severe accidents for an AP1000 at the VEGP site and considered SAMAs. Based on the 

information provided by Southern and NRC’s own independent review, the staff concluded 

that the potential environmental impacts (risks) from postulated accidents from the operation 

of the proposed AP1000 reactors would be SMALL and that additional mitigation is not 

warranted. Staff from Southern and NRC have considered new information, including changes 

to the certified AP1000 reactor design, and determined that there is no new and significant 

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that ESP EIS conclusions related to DBAs, severe 

accidents, and SAMAs remain valid.

5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During 

Operation

The staff’s assessment of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during operation are 

provided in Section 5.11 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a).

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during construction, but 

did indicate that it remains committed to the mitigation measures included in Section 5.11 of the 

ESP EIS. During its independent review of the COL application, the NRC staff evaluated new 

and significant information related to the measures and controls by reviewing Southern’s ER, 

auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other 

information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference 

documents. As discussed in Section 5.6, a memorandum of understanding (GHPD 2010) has 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-21 NUREG-1947

been signed between Southern and the Georgia SHPO concerning protection of archaeological 

site 9BK416. The staff determined that this agreement constitutes a new measure and control.

Additionally, Part 10 of the COL application includes a draft EPP for the site, which identifies 

proposed conditions, monitoring, reporting, and record keeping for environmental data during 

operations.

Based on its review, the staff determined that, with the addition of the Memorandum of 

Understanding that was identified, the measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during 

operation as presented in the ESP EIS remain valid, and also that Southern’s proposed EPP is 

appropriate. If the COL is issued, the staff will include the EPP as part of the license.

5.12 Summary of Operation Impacts 

Impact level categories identified during the evaluation of the ESP application are documented 

in Table 5-19 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). These levels are designated as SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE as a measure of their expected adverse impacts. The NRC staff’s 

review of information available during both site audits and from other information sources did 

not identify any information that would change the designation for any of the categories in 

Table 5-19 of the ESP EIS.

5.13 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100 “Reactor Site 

Criteria.”

73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.” Federal 

Register, Environmental Protection Agency.

75 FR 61904. October 6, 2010. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Listings for Two Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) in the Southeast.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 1991. 16 USC 668 et seq.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-22 March 2011

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2009. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases — 

United States, 2007.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 56(53). July 9, 2009. Atlanta, 

Georgia. Accession No. ML100470938.

Clean Air Act (CAA). 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Doneker, R.L. and G.H. Jirka. 2007. Cormix User Manual, A Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone Model 

and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface Waters. 

EPA#823/K-07-001. Accessed at http://www.cormix.info. (No-cost site, but registration 

required.)

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility 

Structure, International Workshop, September 13-16, 1992, Miami, Florida. EPRI TR-103268, 

Palo Alto, California.

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 USC 1531 et seq.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009. E-mail dated December 21, 2009 

and letter dated December 17, 2009 from Katrina Morris, GDNR, to Mallecia Sutton, NRC, 

regarding Natural Heritage Database occurrences within the VEGP Boundary and the 

Transmission Line Macrocorridor. Accession No. ML100490042.

Georgia Historic Preservation Division (GHPD). 2010. Letter from D. Crass, GHPD, to T.C. 

Morrer, Southern, “Memorandum of Understanding, Archaeological Site 9BK416 Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Expansion, Burke County, Georgia,” Southern Company, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Accession No. ML100500302.

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2006. Avian Protection Program for Georgia Power 

Company, Rev 1. March 14, 2006. Accession No. ML063000228. 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008. 2006

South Carolina Annual Report on Reportable Conditions. Columbia, South Carolina. Accession 

No. ML100481115.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009. Epi Notes 

Disease Prevention and Epidemiology Newsletter XXVI(2), Columbia, South Carolina. 

Accession No. ML100470958.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2010. Epi Notes 

Disease Prevention and Epidemiology Newsletter XXVII(1):Winter 2010, Columbia, South 

Carolina. Accession No. ML100470979.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-23 NUREG-1947

Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). 2010. Candidate 

Conservation Agreement for the Gopher Tortoise First Annual Report: October 1, 2008 – 

September 30, 2009. Accessed at 

www.serppas.org/.../GTCCA%20First%20Annual%20Report%202008-2009.pdf on November 

15, 2010.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 1989. Environmental Protection Plan, 

Appendix B to the Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and Facility Operating License 

No. NPF-81, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. Southern Nuclear, Docket 

Nos. 50-424 and 50-425. March 31, 1989. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML012350369.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4, Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Package Accession No. ML081020073. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,

Units 3 and 4, COL Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 1, August 23, 2009, 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application, Response to Request for Additional Information 

Letter on Environmental Issues,” January 8, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML100120479. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Letter from Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D., Regional 

Administrator to William Burton, NRC, dated August 11, 2008, “A Biological Assessment for the 

Shortnose Sturgeon for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit Application.” 

Accession No. ML082480450.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1978. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

Listing of the Eastern Indigo Snake as a Threatened Species.” Federal Register 43:4026.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Athens, 

Georgia to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. Re: USFWS 

Log# 08-FA-0473. September 19, 2008. Accession No. ML082760694.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010. Letter from S. Tucker, FWS, Athens, Georgia, to 

G.P. Hatchett, NRC, Washington, D.C., “Re: USFWS Log# 2010-1254.” October 20, 2010. 

Accession No. ML103010076. 
Environmental Impacts of Operation

NUREG-1947 5-24 March 2011

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Alternative Radiological Source Terms for 

Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.183, 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Environmental Assessment Relating to the 

Certification of the AP1000 Standard Plant Design. Docket No. 52-006. Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML053250292.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Standard Review Plan for the Review of 

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from NRC to FWS dated January 

25, 2008. Subject: Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Designated Critical Habitat for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit 

Application. Accession No. ML080100512.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008c. Letter from W. Burton, NRC, to D. 

Bernhart, NMFS, “Subject: Biological Assessment for the Shortnose Sturgeon for the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit Application.” dated January 25, 2008. Accession 

Nos. ML080070538, ML080100588. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008c. Interim Staff Guidance, Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications. 

DC/COL-ISG-3, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML081430675.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Letter from G.P. Hatchett, NRC, to S. 

Tucker, FWS, “Request for a List of Protected Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 Combined License Applications,” January 7, 

2010. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML092600684.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

March 2011 5-25 NUREG-1947

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Letter from G.P. Hatchett, NRC, to D. 

Bernhart, NMFS, “Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 

4 Combined License Application.” September 3, 2010. Accession No. ML102320162. 

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML053480403.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2007. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 16, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML071580939.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML083230168.

March 2011 6-1 NUREG-1947

6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

In Chapter 6 of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP) 

environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff provided a description of the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle 

and solid waste management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the 

decommissioning of two new nuclear units at the VEGP site. Fuel cycle impacts and solid 

waste management are discussed in Section 6.1. Transportation impacts are discussed in 

Section 6.2. Decommissioning impacts are discussed in Section 6.3. The list of references 

cited is in Section 6.4.

6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management

The NRC staff’s assessment of fuel cycle and solid waste-management-related impacts was 

provided in Section 6.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staff’s analysis, 

environmental impacts were considered to be SMALL.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) stated in the environmental report (ER) 

included in its combined license (COL) application that there is no new and significant 

information regarding fuel cycle and solid-waste management-related environmental impacts 

(Southern 2009a). During its review of the COL application, the staff independently verified that 

there is no new and significant information related to fuel cycle and solid-waste management by 

reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant 

information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable 

regulations and reference documents, including Southern’s response to the staff’s request for 

additional information regarding the proposed solid-waste-management system (Southern 

2009b). However, because of additional information submitted by Southern regarding its lowlevel waste (LLW) disposal options and associated contingency plans, the staff assessed the 

significance of this information for its analysis in the ESP EIS of the environmental impacts of 

the uranium fuel cycle regarding LLW management. 

The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (i.e., LLW, high-level waste [HLW], and 

transuranic waste) are specified in Table S–3 (Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Subpart 51.51(b)). For LLW disposal at land burial facilities, the Commission notes in 

Table S–3 that there would be no significant radioactive releases to the environment.

Southern indicated in its response to the staff’s request for additional information (ND-09-1540) 

that the Barnwell LLW disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, no longer accepts Class-B 

and Class-C wastes from sources in states outside of the Atlantic Compact (Southern 2009b). 

By the time Units 3 and 4 begin operations, Southern stated that it expects to enter into an 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1947 6-2 March 2011

agreement with an NRC-licensed facility that would accept LLW from VEGP. If that expectation 

is not met, Southern indicated it could implement measures to limit the generation of Class-B 

and Class-C wastes, extending the capacity of the onsite Auxiliary Building to store such 

wastes. Southern noted that it also could construct additional storage facilities onsite and has 

indicated that such facilities would be designed and operated to meet the guidance standards in 

Appendix 11.4-A of NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis 

Reports for Nuclear Power (NRC 1987). Finally, Southern indicated that it could enter into an 

agreement with a third-party contractor to process, store, own, and ultimately dispose of LLW 

from VEGP. Because Southern indicates that it would choose one or a combination of these 

options, the staff considered the environmental impacts of each of these three options.

Table S–3 addresses the environmental impacts expected if Southern enters into an agreement 

with an NRC-licensed facility for disposal of LLW, and Table S–4 addresses the environmental 

impacts from transportation of LLW as discussed in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The use of thirdparty contractors was not explicitly addressed in Tables S–3 and S–4; however, such third-party 

contractors are currently licensed by the NRC and are required to comply with 10 CFR Part 20 

dose limits. The impacts from onsite storage or use of a third-party contractor are therefore 

expected to be similar, and the additional environmental impacts are not significant compared to 

the impacts described in Tables S–3 and S–4. 

The measures to reduce the generation of Class-B and Class-C wastes described by Southern, 

such as mixing spent resins to limit radioactivity concentrations, could increase the volume of 

LLW, but would not increase the total curies of radioactive material in the waste. The volume of 

waste would still be bounded by or very similar to the estimates shown in Table S–3, and the 

environmental impacts would not be significantly different.

When applicable criteria are met, the NRC’s regulations (10 CFR 50.59) allow licensees 

operating nuclear power plants to construct and operate additional onsite LLW storage facilities 

without seeking approval from the NRC. Licensees are required to evaluate the safety and 

environmental impacts before constructing the facility and make those evaluations available to 

NRC inspectors. A number of nuclear power plant licensees have constructed and operate 

such facilities in the United States, including Southern, which currently maintains an onsite LLW 

storage area for VEGP Units 1 and 2. These facilities have available storage capacity for 6 to 

8 years of accumulated waste and adequate room for expansion (Southern 2008). Typically, 

these facilities are constructed near the power block inside the security fence on land that has 

already been disturbed during initial plant construction. Therefore, the impacts on 

environmental resources (e.g., land use and aquatic and terrestrial biota) of such additional 

storage would be very small. All of the NRC (10 CFR Part 20) and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR Part 190) dose limitations would apply both for public and 

occupational radiation exposure and the radiation doses continue to be below 0.25 mSv/yr

(25 mrem/yr), which is the dose limit stated in 40 CFR Part 190. The NRC staff concludes that 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

March 2011 6-3 NUREG-1947

doses to members of the public within the NRC and EPA regulations are a small impact. 

Therefore, the staff concludes the environmental impacts from any additional or expanded LLW 

storage facilities that Southern might construct and operate would be SMALL.

In addition, NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report, assessed the impacts of LLW storage onsite at 

currently operating nuclear power plants and concluded that the radiation doses to offsite 

individuals from interim LLW storage are insignificant (NRC 1996). The types and amounts of 

LLW generated by the proposed Units 3 and 4 would be very similar to those generated by 

currently operating nuclear power plants, and the construction and operation of these interim 

LLW storage facilities would be very similar to the construction and operation of the currently 

operating facilities.

The Commission notes that HLW and transuranic waste are to be buried at a repository, such 

as the proposed geologic HLW repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and that no release to 

the environment is expected to be associated with such disposal because it has been assumed 

that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the spent fuel are released to the 

atmosphere before the disposal of the waste. In NUREG-0116, Environmental Survey of the 

Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle (NRC 1976), which 

provides background and context for the Table S–3 values established by the Commission, the 

staff indicates that HLW and transuranic waste will be buried and will not be released to the 

environment.

As part of the Table S–3 rulemaking, the staff evaluated, along with more conservative 

assumptions, this zero-release assumption associated with waste burial in a repository, and the 

NRC reached an overall generic determination that fuel cycle impacts would not be significant. 

In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the NRC’s position that the zero-release assumption 

was reasonable in the context of the Table S–3 rulemaking to address generically the impacts of 

the uranium fuel cycle in individual reactor licensing proceedings (Baltimore Gas and Electric 

Company vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 1983).

Furthermore, in the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23(a), the 

Commission has made the generic determination that “... if necessary, spent fuel generated in 

any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 

60 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or 

renewed license) of that reactor in a combination of storage in its spent fuel storage basin and 

at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations. Further, the Commission 

believes there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mined geologic repository capacity will be 

available to dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel generated in 

any reactor when necessary.” In addition, 10 CFR 51.23(b) applies the generic determination in 

section 51.23(a) to provide that “... no discussion of any environmental impact of spent fuel 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1947 6-4 March 2011

storage in reactor facility storage pools or independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSI) 

for the period following the term of the....reactor combined license or amendment....is required 

in any....environmental impact statement....prepared in connection with the ....issuance or 

amendment of a combined license for a nuclear power reactor under parts 52 or 54 of this 

chapter.”

In the context of operating license renewal, Sections 6.2 and 6.4 of NUREG-1437, Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final 

Report (NRC 1996), provide additional descriptions of the generation, storage, and ultimate 

disposal of LLW, mixed waste, and spent fuel from power reactors, concluding that 

environmental impacts from these activities are SMALL. For the reasons stated above, the 

NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of radioactive waste storage and disposal 

associated with Units 3 and 4 would be minor, and that the conclusions presented in the ESP 

EIS remain valid.

6.2 Transportation Impacts

The staff’s assessment of the impacts to public health from transporting unirradiated fuel, spent 

fuel, and radioactive waste to and from the VEGP site was provided in Section 6.2 of the ESP 

EIS (NRC 2008). The staff concluded in the ESP EIS that the radiological and nonradiological 

impacts on human health would be SMALL. 

Southern indicated in its COL ER (Southern 2009a) that there is no new and significant 

information regarding transportation-related impacts. During its review of the COL application, 

the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information regarding 

transportation-related impacts. This was performed by reviewing Southern’s ER and supporting 

documentation, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, 

examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations 

and updates to reference documents cited in this SEIS. 

The NRC staff notes that, on March 3, 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy submitted a motion 

to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to withdraw with prejudice its application for a 

permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (DOE 2010). The motion was 

subsequently denied by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (NRC 2010). Regardless of the 

final outcome of this proceeding, the staff concludes that transportation impacts are roughly 

proportional to the distance from the reactor site to the repository site, in this case Georgia to 

Nevada. The distance from the VEGP site to any new planned repository in the contiguous 

United States would be no more than double the distance from the VEGP site to Yucca 

Mountain. Doubling the environmental impact estimates from the transportation of spent reactor 

fuel, as presented in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008), would provide a reasonable bounding estimate 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

March 2011 6-5 NUREG-1947

of the impacts for NEPA purposes. The staff concludes that the environmental impacts of these 

doubled estimates would still be SMALL.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

regarding transportation-related impacts remain valid.

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts

The NRC staff’s assessment of the decommissioning-related impacts was provided in 

Section 6.3 of the ESP EIS. Based on the staff’s analysis, these environmental impacts were 

considered to be SMALL.

Southern indicated in its COL ER (Southern 2009a) that there is no new and significant 

information regarding decommissioning-related impacts. During its review of the COL 

application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information 

related to decommissioning by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for 

identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site 

audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.

6.4 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

Protection against Radiation.”

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

75 FR 81032. December 23, 2010. “Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary 

Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Company vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. June 6, 1983. 

United States Reports, Vol. 460, p. 1034.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1947 6-6 March 2011

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2008. 10 CFR 50.59 Screening/Evaluation. 

Activity/Document No. RER A071430001, Version No. 1.0, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession 

No. ML102100523.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009b. Response to NRC RAI Letter 

No. 039 on the VEGP Units 3 & 4 COL Application Involving the Solid Waste Management 

System, ND-09-1540. September 23, 2009, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. 

ML092680023.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2010. In the Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (HighLevel Waste Repository), Docket No. 63-001. U.S. Department of Energy’s Motion to 

Withdraw. March 3, 2010, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML100621397.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing

and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to

WASH-1248), Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report. NUREG-1437 Vol. 1, 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the 

Matter of U.S. Department of Energy (High Level Waste Repository), Memorandum and Order 

(Granting intervention to Petitioners and Denying Withdrawal Motion), June 29, 2010, 

Washington D.C. Accession No. ML101800299.
March 2011 7-1 NUREG-1947

7.0 Cumulative Impacts

In Chapter 7 of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP) 

environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff provided a description of the potential cumulative impacts that could result from 

construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4. The discussions in the ESP EIS 

included past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, and the geographical area over 

which the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions could contribute to cumulative 

impacts. This chapter of the supplemental EIS (SEIS) provides new information relative to 

cumulative impacts. Land use, air quality, water use and quality, terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems, socioeconomics and historic and cultural resources, nonradiological health, 

radiological impacts, severe accidents, fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning are 

discussed in Sections 7.1 through 7.10 of this chapter. The staff’s conclusions are summarized 

in Section 7.11, and references are listed in Section 7.12.

7.1 Land Use 

The NRC staff’s assessment of the cumulative land-use impacts related to the construction and 

operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 7.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008). Based on its analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff determined that cumulative land-use 

impacts would be SMALL. 

In the environmental report (ER) included in its combined license (COL) application (Southern 

2009), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) indicated that there is no new and 

significant information regarding cumulative impacts related to the construction and operation of 

the proposed Units 3 and 4. During its review of the COL application, the NRC staff 

independently verified that there is no new and significant information related to the cumulative 

land-use impacts of constructing and operating Units 3 and 4 by reviewing Southern’s ER, 

information submitted in support of ESP license amendment requests, auditing Southern’s 

process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at 

the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents. Based on this 

review, the staff determined that the conclusion presented in Section 7.1 of the ESP EIS 

remains valid.

7.2 Air Quality

The NRC staff’s assessment of cumulative air-quality impacts from criteria air pollutants was 

provided in Section 7.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Permitted air-emission sources in the 

vicinity of the VEGP site include the Allen B. Wilson Combustion Turbine Plant (Plant Wilson) 

located on the VEGP site and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1947 7-2 March 2011

Carolina. In addition, a mixed-oxide nuclear fuel facility has been proposed for development on 

the Savannah River Site. Based on the staff’s analysis, cumulative impacts to air quality were 

considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding cumulative impacts on air quality. During its review of Southern’s COL 

application, the NRC staff performed an independent review of potential new and significant 

information related to meteorology and air quality by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing 

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information 

available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents. 

This review identified new information related to potential changes in construction traffic as well 

as changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone that warranted 

further staff analysis.

As discussed in Section 2.3, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a 

revision to the NAAQS for ozone on March 12, 2008. The final rule (73 FR 16436) reduced the 

ozone standard from 0.084 ppm to 0.075 ppm. Section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each state to submit, within one year of the revised standard, its recommended 

designation (i.e., attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified) for each county. On 

March 12, 2009, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) issued a letter to the 

EPA providing its recommended designations; Burke County remains unclassified/attainment for 

the new ozone standard (GDNR 2009). EPA will make its final determination on attainment 

status no later than March 2011. Based on this review and the fact that GDNR has determined 

that Burke County will remain in attainment, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions 

presented in the ESP EIS remain bounding and valid.

In Section 4.2, it was noted that Southern has indicated the potential need for additional truck 

deliveries if more backfill material is needed than could be obtained onsite; this would result in 

additional truck traffic to and from the site (Southern 2010a). Traffic impacts would be 

minimized by using different routes for inbound and outbound trucks. Although the potential 

truck traffic would result in more air emissions, these emissions would be temporary and would 

be completed before the peak of construction begins (Southern 2010a). The staff therefore 

expects the air quality conclusions presented in the ESP EIS related to construction traffic would 

remain valid. 

In November 2009, the Commission issued Commission Order CLI-09-21 (NRC 2009), which 

provided guidance to the NRC staff to “... include consideration of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions under the 

National Environmental Policy Act.” Although the staff considered greenhouse gas emissions in 

the ESP EIS and the issue therefore is not new, the staff has nevertheless re-examined its 

previous analysis to show conformance with the Commission’s instructions in CLI-09-21.
Cumulative Impacts

March 2011 7-3 NUREG-1947

While there are some carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with the construction and 

operation of a nuclear power plant, the life-cycle contributions are dominated by emissions 

associated with the uranium fuel cycle. These emissions primarily result from the operation of 

fossil-fueled power plants that provide the electricity needed to manufacture the fuel. Published 

estimates of life-cycle CO2 emission rates from operating nuclear power plants worldwide 

average around 0.066 metric tons(a) (0.073 short tons) of CO2 for each megawatt hour (MWh) 

generated, with a large fraction of these emissions associated with the fuel cycle (Sovacool 

2008). For comparison, a coal-fired power plant emits about 1.02 metric tons (1.12 short tons(b

For consistency with Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51, the NRC staff has estimated the fuel cycle 

CO2 emissions as 0.05 metric tons (0.055 short tons) of CO2 per MWh generated. For a 

1000 MW nuclear power reactor, the resulting annual CO2 emission rate is approximately 

447,000 metric tons (492,733 short tons). For context, 

)

) 

of CO2 for each MWh generated (EPA 2009a).

Table 7-1 compares this value to other 

CO2 emission estimates, including other sources of base-load power generation.

Table 7-1. Comparison of Annual CO2 Emission Rates

Source Metric Tons per Year Short Tons per Year

Global Emissions 28,000,000,000(a) 30,865,000,000

United States 6,000,000,000(a) 6,614,000,000

1000 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant 8,939,000(b) 9,854,000

1000 MW Natural-Gas-Fired Power Plant 4,511,000(b) 4,973,000

1000 MW Nuclear Power Plant(c) 447,000 492,733

Average U.S. Passenger Vehicle 5(d) 5.5

(a) EPA 2009b 

(b) EPA 2009a 

(c) Including emissions from fuel cycle processes and operations; 90 percent capacity factor.

(d) EPA 2009c

As discussed in the state-of-the-science report issued by the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program (GCRP), it is the “... production and use of energy that is the primary cause of global 

warming, and in turn, climate change will eventually affect our production and use of energy. 

The vast majority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, about 87 percent, come from energy 

production and use....” Approximately one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions result from 

generating electricity and heat (GCRP 2009).

 

(a) The published emission estimates are reported in terms of grams (g) of CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWh). 

The metric tons and short-ton (U.S.) values shown in this section are conversions from the published 

values.

(b) The published emission estimates are reported in terms of metric tons. The short-ton (U.S.) values 

shown in this section are conversions from the published values.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1947 7-4 March 2011

For the following reasons, it is difficult to evaluate cumulative impacts of a single or combination 

of greenhouse gas sources.

• The impact is global rather than local or regional.

• The impact is not particularly sensitive to location of the release point. 

• The magnitude of individual greenhouse gas sources related to human activity, no matter 

how large compared to other sources, are small when compared to the total mass of 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

• The total number and variety of greenhouse gas sources are extremely large, and they are 

located everywhere.

These points are illustrated by the magnitude and comparison of annual CO2 emission rates 

listed in Table 7-1. 

Evaluation of cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions requires the use of a global 

climate model. The GCRP report (GCRP 2009) provides a synthesis of the results of numerous 

climate modeling studies. The NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of greenhouse 

emissions around the world as presented in the GCRP report are the appropriate basis for its 

evaluation of cumulative impacts. Based on the impacts set forth in the GCRP report, the staff 

concludes that the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are significant at the global 

level. The staff further concludes that the cumulative impact level would be significant, either 

with or without the greenhouse gas emissions of the proposed project.

Consequently, the NRC staff has determined that the proper approach to addressing the 

cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases, including CO2, is to recognize that they are important 

contributors to climate change and that the carbon footprint is a relevant factor in evaluating 

energy alternatives. Among the viable energy generation sources for base-load power listed in 

Table 7-1, the CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants (including the associated fuel cycle 

processes and operations) are considerably less than emissions from natural-gas-fired and 

coal-fired power plants, and the staff considers these emissions and their impacts to be SMALL 

both in isolation and cumulatively when compared to these other viable sources of base-load 

energy. Accordingly, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in Section 7.2 of the 

ESP EIS remain valid.

7.3 Water Use and Quality 

The NRC staff’s assessment of the water-related cumulative impacts of the proposed Units 3 

and 4, the existing Units 1 and 2, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site directly 

across the Savannah River from the VEGP site, and other water users in the region was 

provided in Section 7.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). The staff considered saltwater intrusion in 
Cumulative Impacts

March 2011 7-5 NUREG-1947

the State of Georgia, tritium that has been found in the unconfined aquifer, and contamination in 

the environment surrounding the Savannah River Site. Based on the staff’s analysis, 

cumulative impacts to water use and water quality were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding cumulative impacts on water use and water quality. During its review of 

the COL application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant 

information related to water use and water quality by reviewing Southern’s ER, information 

submitted in support of ESP license amendment requests, auditing Southern’s process for 

identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site 

audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain valid.

7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem 

The NRC staff’s cumulative impact assessment of the terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the 

VEGP site and the proposed transmission line right-of-way was provided in Section 7.4 of the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staff’s analysis, cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources

were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources. During its review of the COL 

application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information 

related to the cumulative impact assessment of terrestrial resources by reviewing Southern’s 

ER, reviewing information submitted as part of the license amendment request (LAR) activities 

to obtain backfill from additional onsite borrow areas, auditing Southern’s process for identifying 

new and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, 

considering applicable regulations and reference documents, and contacting the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), and the South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 

The land that would be disturbed for permanent structures and land that has been cleared for 

additional backfill material is composed of hardwood forest and bottomland wetlands, planted 

pine, sandhills, and open field habitats. The sandhills habitat that has been disturbed is of 

marginal quality compared to the remaining higher quality sandhills habitat available onsite. 

Planted pine, open field, and bottomland hardwood wetland habitats are available in other 

locations onsite and in the region. Furthermore, as explained in the Environmental Assessment

for ESP Amendment 2 (NRC 2010), the potential losses to the southeastern pocket gopher

(Geomys pinetis) and sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii) are isolated and will not 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1947 7-6 March 2011

jeopardize the stability or viability of any of the remaining populations in Georgia. These 

populations occur in different locations throughout the state and each population is not 

dependent on the success of others. Staff did not identify new and significant information 

concerning any activities or projects in the geographic region of interest that would result in an 

adverse cumulative effect on terrestrial resources, including wildlife habitats and the Statethreatened southeastern pocket gopher and sandhills milkvetch. Based on this review, the NRC 

staff determined that, while the localized impact has increased, the conclusions presented in the 

ESP EIS, that cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources would be SMALL, remain valid.

7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem

The staff’s assessment of the cumulative impacts to aquatic resources in the Savannah River 

from upstream of the VEGP site to the mouth of the river was provided in Section 7.5 of the ESP 

EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staff’s analysis, cumulative impacts to aquatic resources were 

considered to be SMALL.

One of the sources of cumulative impact discussed in the ESP EIS and subsequent hearing 

proceedings was the potential for impacts from dredging the Federal navigation channel to 

facilitate shipment of large components to the site. In February 2010, Southern submitted a 

letter to NRC stating that large components and other construction materials would be 

transported to the VEGP site via rail using the Norfolk-Southern rail line from Savannah, 

Georgia, to Waynesboro, Georgia, where the line connects with the spur to VEGP (Southern 

2010b). The letter also states that Southern will not construct a barge slip or seek maintenance 

dredging of the Savannah River navigation channel. Thus, in the absence of these shoreline 

construction or dredging activities, the cumulative impacts to aquatic resources would not 

include any impacts from these sources and thus would be bounded by the potential impacts 

described in Section 7.5 of the ESP EIS.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding cumulative impacts on aquatic ecology. During the review of the COL 

application, the staff identified new, warranted further staff review information related to 

cumulative impacts.

On November 15, 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) published a draft General 

Re-Evaluation Report (GRR) (USACE 2010a) and a Tier II EIS (USACE 2010b) related to 

determining the feasibility of improvements to the Federal navigation project at Savannah 

Harbor. The GRR and EIS assess mitigation plans for alternative channel depths from -42 to 

-48 feet mean lower low water. The Savannah Harbor expansion project has the potential to 

result in the loss of several hundred acres of habitat for fish, including essential fish habitat for 

shortnose sturgeon and striped bass, and habitat for other fish species in the Savannah River 

estuary. Many mitigation measures are being considered in connection with this project, 
Cumulative Impacts

March 2011 7-7 NUREG-1947

including building a fish-way around the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam at Augusta, 

Georgia, which would open up an additional 32 km (20 mi) of habitat upstream of the dam 

(USACE 2010a). As explained in the ESP EIS, construction of the proposed units at the VEGP 

site would temporarily affect less than 0.6 ha (1.5 ac) of sturgeon migratory habitat (NRC 2008). 

Water withdrawal rates during operation would be less than 1 percent of Savannah River flow 

during average flow conditions, and the small zone of influence would have a negligible impact 

on pelagic spawning (NRC 2008). Furthermore, the proposed activities associated with the 

VEGP expansion would not impede the mitigation measures being considered for the Savannah 

River expansion project. Accordingly, construction and operation of the proposed VEGP units 

would not have an adverse cumulative impact on important fish species when considered 

together with the potential Savannah Harbor expansion project.

No other cumulative impacts were identified by the staff following review of Southern’s ER, 

information submitted in support of ESP license amendment requests, auditing Southern’s 

process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at 

the site audit, considering applicable reference documents, and contacts with the FWS, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, GDNR, USACE, and SCDNR.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain valid.

7.6 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, 

Environmental Justice 

The NRC staff’s assessment of the cumulative socioeconomic impacts related to the 

construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 7.6 of the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staff’s analysis, impacts to socioeconomics were 

considered to be SMALL, with the exception for a possible MODERATE impact on roads, 

housing, and public services in Burke County during construction and a LARGE beneficial 

impact from property taxes collected in Burke County during operations. Based on the staff’s 

analyses, cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources were considered to be 

MODERATE, and Environmental Justice Impacts were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding cumulative impacts related to the construction and operation of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4. During its review of the COL application, the staff reviewed Southern’s 

ER, audited Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examined other 

information available at the site audit, and considered applicable regulations, reference 

documents, and discussions with state and county officials, Georgia State Historic Preservation 

Division, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and potentially interested Tribes (see 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1947 7-8 March 2011

Appendix C for complete listing). This independent review identified new information in the 

areas of historic and cultural resources and socioeconomics that warranted further staff review.

As described in Section 4.6 of this SEIS, the staff identified a historic cemetery located on the 

VEGP site outside the proposed construction footprint. Southern has installed a fence around 

the cemetery, determined that the planned construction actions would not impact the site, and 

has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding protection and 

mitigation of the site. As a result of these protective measures proposed by Southern and 

consultation with the SHPO, the staff concludes that the identification of the historic cemetery 

does not change its conclusion regarding the cumulative impacts to historic and cultural 

resources in the vicinity of the VEGP site. The staff evaluated new proposed onsite borrow 

areas as a result of the LAR (Southern 2010b). The impacts to historic and cultural resources 

associated with the new proposed onsite borrow areas are previously described in Section 4.6. 

There are no NRHP eligible properties located in the vicinity of the proposed onsite borrow 

areas. As a result of the cultural resources analysis, field investigations, procedures Southern 

has in place for unanticipated cultural resources discoveries, and the consultation with the 

SHPO, the staff concludes that the proposed new onsite borrow areas do not change its 

conclusions regarding cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources in the vicinity of the 

VEGP site.

This independent review also identified new information related to funding provided by the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which warranted further staff consideration. 

A significant amount of the ARRA funding that could have potential socioeconomic impacts on 

Columbia and Richmond Counties in Georgia has been allocated to the nearby Savannah River 

Site. The ARRA funding has saved and created thousands of jobs at the Savannah River Site, 

which is near the VEGP site (DOE 2009). However, ARRA is not a renewable source of 

funding, and ARRA-related employment will diminish before construction of the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 peaks; therefore, the staff does not expect any increase in cumulative impacts. 

The NRC staff’s independent review found no new and significant information regarding 

environmental justice.

Section 4.5 of this SEIS described the possibility of Southern needing additional backfill material 

delivered by truck from an offsite source, thus adding additional vehicles to the roadways 

(Southern 2010a). Traffic impacts would be minimized by using different routes for inbound and 

outbound trucks. As discussed in Section 4.5, although the truck deliveries would increase the 

amount of traffic on the roadways, the increases would remain within the design capacities of 

the roads, and the increased traffic would be temporary and completed before the peak of 

construction begins (Southern 2010a). Based on this review, the staff determined that the 

conclusions presented in the ESP EIS remain valid.
Cumulative Impacts

March 2011 7-9 NUREG-1947

7.7 Nonradiological Health 

The NRC staff’s assessment of cumulative nonradiological, health-related impacts was provided 

in Section 7.7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staff’s analysis, cumulative impacts to 

nonradiological health were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding cumulative impacts on nonradiological health. During its review of the 

COL application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information 

related to nonradiological health by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for 

identifying new and significant information, examining other information available at the site 

audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents. However, subsequent 

to the site audit, Southern determined that it would need to obtain backfill material from onsite 

borrow areas other than those previously specified in the ESP site safety analysis report. 

Accordingly, Southern submitted license amendment requests to obtain approval of the use of 

backfill from additional onsite and offsite borrow areas. The NRC staff evaluated the 

nonradiological impacts associated with truck transport of backfill material from these additional 

locations (NRC 2010) and determined that the additional truck shipments would not significantly 

increase the nonradiological impacts presented in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Furthermore, in 

Section 4.8.2 of this SEIS, the staff examined the potential increase in traffic fatality risk in the 

event Southern were to need to obtain additional backfill material from an offsite source. As 

explained in Section 4.8.2, even when considered in combination with the minor increase in 

traffic fatality risk analyzed in the ESP EIS, this increase remains small relative to the current 

traffic fatality risks in the area surrounding the proposed VEGP site.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain valid.

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation 

The NRC staff’s assessment of cumulative radiological, health-related impacts was provided in 

Section 7.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staff’s analysis, cumulative impacts to 

radiological health were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding cumulative impacts on radiological health. During its review of the COL 

application, the staff independently verified that there is no new and significant information 

related to radiological health by reviewing Southern’s ER, information submitted in support of 

ESP license amendment requests, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and 

significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering 

applicable regulations and reference documents.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1947 7-10 March 2011

In Section 6.1 of this SEIS, the staff analyzed the potential environmental impacts of additional 

onsite or offsite storage of low-level radioactive waste, if it becomes necessary for Southern to 

implement one or more of the contingency options it has described. For the reasons described 

in those sections, implementation of those contingencies would not result in doses in excess of 

the applicable 10 CFR Part 20 limits, and thus any cumulative impacts would be SMALL.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.

7.9 Severe Accidents

The NRC staff’s assessment of cumulative, severe-accident-related impacts was provided in 

Section 7.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the staff’s analysis, cumulative impacts of 

severe accidents were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding cumulative impacts related to severe accidents. During its review of 

the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and significant 

information related to radiological health by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s 

process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information available 

at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents.

Based on this review, the staff determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.

7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

The NRC staff’s assessment of impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation, and 

decommissioning was provided in Section 7.10 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Based on the 

staff’s analysis, cumulative impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation, and 

decommissioning were considered to be SMALL.

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information regarding cumulative impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation, and 

decommissioning. During its review of the COL application, the staff independently verified 

that there is no new and significant information related to the fuel cycle, transportation, and 

decommissioning by reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying 

new and significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and 

considering applicable regulations and reference documents.
Cumulative Impacts

March 2011 7-11 NUREG-1947

Based on this review, the NRC determined that the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

remain bounding and valid.

7.11 NRC Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

The NRC staff considered the potential impacts resulting from constructing and operating the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 together with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions in the VEGP site area. The staff summarized its conclusions in Section 7.11 of the ESP 

EIS and found that all potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation 

generally would be SMALL, and additional mitigation was not warranted. The staff’s review of 

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information results from the VEGP site

audit, and contacts with various Federal, State, and Tribal agencies identified no information 

that would change these cumulative impact designations.

7.12 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for the 

Protection Against Radiation.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final 

Standard.” Federal Register, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Public Law 111-5.

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq,

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009. Letter from C.A. Couch, Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, to A.S. Meiburg, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. “Recommended Designations of Ozone Non-Attainment Areas in 

Georgia.” March 12, 2009. Accession No. ML100601088. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009. 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1947 7-12 March 2011

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010a. Letter from C.R. Pierce,

Southern, to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, New and Significant Information Evaluation For 

the Transportation of Backfill From an Offsite Source.” Letter ND-10-1389. July 16, 2010. 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML102010031.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010b. Letter from Mr. Charles R. 

Pierce, Southern to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, Large Component Transportation Method 

Decision.” Letter ND-10-0261. February 19, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML100550033. 

Sovacool, B.K. 2008. “Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical 

Survey.” Energy Policy 36(2008):2940–2953.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010a. Draft General Re-Evaluation Report for Savannah 

Harbor Expansion Project. Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina. 

Dated 15 November 2010. Accessed January 6, 2010 at 

http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/shexpan/SHEPreport.html. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010b. Draft Tier II Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South 

Carolina. Accessed January 6, 2010 at 

http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/shexpan/SHEPTierII.html. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009. “Recovery and Reinvestment.” Accessed January 7, 

2010, at http://www.energy.gov/recovery/. Accession No. ML100601103. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Air Emissions. Accessed January 12, 

2010, at http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html. 

Accession No. ML100600773. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Global Greenhouse Gas Data. 

Accessed January 22, 2010, at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. 

Accession No. ML100221499.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Accessed January 22, 2010 at 

http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/42f05004.htm. Accession No. ML100600790.
Cumulative Impacts

March 2011 7-13 NUREG-1947

U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds, Cambridge University Press, 

New York.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Memorandum and Order, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, Combined License Application for William States Lee Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2, and Tennessee Valley Authority, Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plan, Units 3 and 4, 

CLI-09-21, November 3, 2009. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML093070689.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site 

Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML101670592. 

March 2011 8-1 NUREG-1947

8.0 Need for Power

A discussion of the need for power from proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Chapter 8 of

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP) environmental impact 

statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). This section describes the need for power assessment for the 

proposed units. The discussion in the ESP EIS is organized into four major subsections that 

provide details on the power system, power demand, power supply, and the assessment of 

need for power.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) indicated in its combined licenses (COL) 

environmental report (ER) that there is no new and significant information regarding need for 

power (Southern 2009). During its review of the COL application, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff performed an independent review of potential new and significant 

information related to need for power that included reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing 

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examining other information 

available at the site audit, and considering applicable regulations and reference documents 

including the Georgia Power Company (GPC) Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) (GPC 2010) 

which was approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) on July 13, 2010 

(GPSC 2010a). 

A certification for construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 was approved by GPSC in March 

2009 (GPSC 2009) and was amended in June 2010 (GPSC 2010b) with additional information 

concerning the need for power and other issues after the original certification was remanded 

back to the GPSC by the Fulton County Superior Court. In its June 2010 decision, GPSC 

specifically found that:

• There will be a need for new base-load generation in Georgia during the 2016 to 2017 

timeframe. 

• Demand side management programs do not eliminate the need for new base-load 

generation. 

A certification is issued if GPSC finds there is a need for new capacity and the resource being 

used is economical and reliable. That GPSC has found that a need for power exists and 

decided to issue the Certification further supports the conclusions presented in the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008) that a need for power in the region of interest exists. Based on this review, the 

staff determined that the conclusions regarding need for power presented in the ESP EIS 

remain valid.
Need For Power

NUREG-1947 8-2 March 2011

8.1 References 

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2010. Integrated Resource Plan. Georgia Public Service 

Commission. Docket No. 31081. Accessed March 10, 2010 at 

ftp://www.psc.state.ga.us/Dockets/31081/125981.zip. Accession No. ML100760714. 

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2009. Docket No. 27800. Georgia Power’s 

Application for the Certification of Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle and Updated Integrated 

Resource Plan. Amended Certification Order. March 17, 2009. Accession No. ML100600818.

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2010a. Docket 31081. Georgia Power 

Company’s Application for Approval of its 2010 Integrated Resource Plan, Docket 31082. 

Georgia Power Company’s application for the Certification of Demand-side Management 

Programs for its 2010 Integrated Resource Plan. July 13, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Accession No. ML101960367

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2010b. Docket No. 27800. Georgia Power’s 

Application for the Certification of Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle and Updated Integrated 

Resource Plan. Order on Remand. June 17, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Accession No. ML101960603

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report, Revision 1, September 23, 2009. 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.
March 2011 9-1 NUREG-1947

9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

The environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action were evaluated in Chapter 9 

of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). This chapter 

discusses new and significant information, where applicable, concerning alternatives to the 

proposed action. Topics discussed are the no-action alternative (Section 9.1), energy 

alternatives (Section 9.2), system design alternatives (Section 9.3), Southern’s region of interest 

(ROI) and site selection process (Section 9.4), and evaluation of alternative sites (Section 9.5). 

9.1 No-Action Alternative

For purposes of a combined license (COL) application, the no-action alternative refers to a 

scenario in which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would deny Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company’s (Southern’s) application for COLs and a second limited work 

authorization (LWA). Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of new nuclear 

generating units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) ESP site in accordance with 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, including performance of the LWA 

construction activities requested pursuant to 10 CFR 50.10(d), would not occur. There would be 

no environmental impacts at the VEGP site associated with not issuing the COLs, except the 

impacts associated with (1) any activities not within the definition of construction at 

10 CFR 51.4, (2) activities authorized by the LWA included in the ESP (NRC 2009) issued to 

Southern and conducted prior to the time the COLs are denied, and/or (3) activities performed 

under the second LWA that Southern requested in conjunction with its COL application (if the 

second LWA were granted by the NRC prior to denial of the COLs) and conducted prior to the 

time the COL requests are denied. At the same time, the benefits associated with the proposed 

action would not occur. If the Commission approved the COLs but denied the requested LWA, 

the construction activities associated with the LWA would still occur, but at a somewhat later 

time. In that scenario, the benefits of the LWA – for example, potentially earlier completion of 

construction and, accordingly, earlier commencement of power production – would not be 

realized.

If the COL requests (including the second LWA request) are denied, the power will still be 

needed as discussed in Chapter 8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). As described in Section 9.2 of 

the ESP EIS, Southern would have a variety of options for meeting power needs including 

constructing a new nuclear power plant at another site, constructing a coal-fired or natural-gasfired plant at the VEGP site or at another site, and pursuing one or more of the other energy 

alternatives discussed in Section 9.2. There would be environmental impacts associated with 

each of these options that would occur at the site of implementation.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1947 9-2 March 2011

9.2 Energy Alternatives

In Section 9.2 of the ESP EIS, the NRC staff evaluated alternative energy sources (NRC 2008). 

Based on its analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded in Section 9.2.5 of the ESP EIS that 

from an environmental perspective, none of the viable energy alternatives would be clearly 

preferable to construction of a new base-load nuclear power generation plant. The basis for this 

conclusion is summarized in Table 9-4 in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008).

During its review of Southern’s COL application, the NRC staff performed an independent 

review of potential new and significant information related to energy alternatives by reviewing 

Southern’s environmental report and supporting information, responses to requests for 

additional information (Southern 2010), auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and 

significant information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering 

applicable regulations and reference documents. This review identified the following new 

information that warranted further review:

• Georgia Power Company (GPC) expects to achieve approximately 900 

MW(e) of demand reduction by 2013 through the implementation of 

existing and new demand-side management (DSM) programs. This load 

reduction represents more than 5 percent of GPC’s current load (GPC 

2010). The 900 MW(e) is already accounted for (partly as a load 

reduction and partly as a capacity resource) in GPC’s Integrated 

Resource Plan (IRP) and is therefore not available to offset the need for 

two new nuclear generating units that would generate base-load power.

• Southern has no plans to reactivate any retired power plants in its ROI.

The staff determined that the new DSM information does not have the potential to change the 

staff’s conclusion in Section 9.3.5 of the ESP EIS. The reasons for this determination are (1) 

the additional 900 MW(e) attributable to DSM programs is accounted for in GPC’s IRP (GPC 

2010) and is, therefore, not available to offset the need for two new nuclear generating units that 

would generate base-load power and (2) none of Southern’s retired power plants would be 

available to offset the need for the new nuclear units.

On June 3, 2010, EPA issued a rule tailoring the applicability criteria that determine which 

stationary sources and modification to existing projects become subject to permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Title V programs of the Clean Air Act (75 FR 31514). According to the Tailoring Rule, GHGs are 

a regulated new source review (NSR) pollutant under the PSD major source permitting program 

if the source (1) is otherwise subject to PSD (for another regulated NSR pollutant) and (2) has a 

GHG potential to emit equal to or greater than 75,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent (“carbon 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

March 2011 9-3 NUREG-1947

dioxide equivalent” adjusting for different global warming potentials for different GHGs). Such 

sources would be subject to best available control technology (BACT). The use of BACT has 

the potential to reduce the amount of GHGs emitted from stationary source facilities. The 

implementation of this rule could reduce the amount of GHGs from the values indicated in Table 

7-1 for coal and natural gas, as well as from other alternative energy sources that would 

otherwise have appreciable uncontrolled GHG emissions. The GHG emissions from the 

production of electricity from a nuclear power source are primarily from the fuel cycle and could 

be reduced further if the electricity from a fossil fuel source powering the fuel cycle was subject 

to BACT controls. The emission of GHGs from the production of electrical energy from a 

nuclear power source is orders of magnitude less than those of the reasonable alternative 

energy sources. Accordingly, the comparative relationship between the energy sources listed in 

Table 7-1 would not change meaningfully, even if the reduction of GHG emissions from the 

nuclear fuel cycle are ignored, because GHG emissions from the other energy source 

alternatives would not be sufficiently reduced to make them environmentally preferable to the 

proposed project.

In addition, as discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 7 of this COL supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS), the staff did not identify any information that would change any of the 

entries in the nuclear column of Table 9-4 in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). As discussed in 

Section 4.4.1 of this SEIS, although the staff’s conclusion with respect to magnitude of the 

onsite terrestrial impacts increased, the staff determined that the overall conclusion for Ecology

in Table 9-4 of the ESP EIS would still be the range of SMALL to MODERATE; thus, the overall 

comparison of impacts with other energy alternatives would not change. Accordingly, the staff 

affirms its conclusion in Section 9.2.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) that, from an environmental 

perspective, none of the viable energy alternatives would be clearly preferable to construction of 

a new base-load nuclear power generation plant at the VEGP ESP site.

9.3 System Design Alternatives

The information and associated impacts for this section are provided and resolved in 

Section 9.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Once-through cooling and dry or hybrid wet/dry

cooling towers were evaluated by the staff as alternatives to the proposed wet cooling tower 

design. The NRC staff concluded that none of the alternatives would be preferable to the 

proposed wet cooling towers for proposed Units 3 and 4. For the reasons discussed in earlier 

chapters of this SEIS, the new information available since completion of the ESP EIS does not 

significantly affect the impact on the environment of the proposed cooling towers as analyzed in 

the ESP EIS, and the staff concludes that those impacts remain SMALL. Accordingly, the staff 

concludes that the wet cooling tower design remains preferable to the alternatives considered in 

the ESP EIS.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

NUREG-1947 9-4 March 2011

9.4 Region of Interest and Alternative Site Selection Process 

The staff’s review of Southern’s ROI and site selection process was provided in Section 9.4 of 

the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). No additional discussion of this topic is required in a supplement to 

an ESP EIS that is prepared for a COL application (10 CFR 51.92(e)(3)).

9.5 Evaluation of Alternative Sites

The staff’s evaluation of alternative sites was provided in Section 9.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008). That review determined that none of the alternative sites would be environmentally 

preferable or obviously superior to the proposed VEGP site. No additional discussion of this 

topic is required in a supplement to an ESP EIS that is prepared for a COL application 

(10 CFR 51.92(e)(3)). 

9.6 References 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2010. Integrated Resource Plan. Georgia Public Service 

Commission. Docket No. 31081. Accessed March 10, 2010 at 

ftp://www.psc.state.ga.us/Dockets/31081/125981.zip. Accession No. ML100760714. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010. Letter from M. Smith, Southern, 

to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, 

Combined License Application, Supporting Information for Environmental Report Review.” 

Letter ND-10-0526. March 12, 2010, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession 

No. ML100750038.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

March 2011 9-5 NUREG-1947

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site, Docket No. 52-011, Early Site Permit and Limited 

Work Authorization. Early Site Permit No. ESP-004, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML0902290157.

March 2011 10-1 NUREG-1947

10.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed 

Action and the Alternative Sites

A comparison of the proposed action at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) and at three 

alternative sites was provided in Chapter 10 of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact 

statement (EIS) (NRC 2008). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff concluded 

that none of the alternative sites was environmentally preferable or obviously superior to the 

proposed VEGP ESP site. As set out at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Part 51 (10 CFR 51.92(e)(3)), no additional discussion of alternative sites is required in a 

supplemental EIS (SEIS) that is prepared for a combined license (COL) application referencing 

an ESP. 

Chapter 10 of the ESP EIS also compares the proposed action with the no-action alternative, 

which in this SEIS refers to a scenario in which the NRC would deny Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company’s (Southern’s) application for COLs and a second limited work 

authorization (LWA). As described in Section 9.1 of this SEIS, if the COLs and second LWA 

applications were denied, the construction and operation of new nuclear generating units at the 

VEGP ESP site would not occur. There would be no environmental impacts at the VEGP site

associated with not issuing the COLs, except the impacts associated with (1) activities 

conducted by Southern that are not within the definition of construction at 10 CFR 51.4, 

(2) activities performed under the LWA that was granted concurrently with the ESP, and 

conducted prior to the time the COLs were denied, and/or (3) activities performed under the 

second LWA that Southern requested in conjunction with its COL application (if the second LWA 

were granted by NRC prior to denial of the COLs). Under the no-action alternative, the benefits 

associated with the proposed action would not occur. The power would still be needed as 

discussed in Chapter 8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). Southern would have a variety of options 

for meeting power needs, as discussed in Section 9.2 of the ESP EIS. There would be 

environmental impacts associated with each of these options that would occur at the site of 

implementation.

Redress would be required for any actions performed pursuant to the first LWA and second 

LWA (if issued prior to denial of the COLs) in accordance with the Site Redress Plan in 

Appendix F of the ESP issued to Southern (NRC 2009). As discussed in Sections 4.11 and 

10.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008), the staff concluded that LWA activities would not result in any 

significant adverse impacts that could not be redressed. The NRC staff affirms this conclusion 

for activities conducted under the LWA granted with the ESP and any activities that would be 

conducted under the second LWA request if the request is granted prior to issuance of the 

COLs. There also would be impacts associated with activities performed by Southern that are 

not within the definition of construction at 10 CFR 51.4. Redress for these activities would be 

conducted according to the laws and regulations of Burke County and the State of Georgia.
Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative Sites

NUREG-1947 10-2 March 2011

10.1 References 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203;

ML082550040.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site, Docket No. 52-011, Early Site Permit and Limited 

Work Authorization. Early Site Permit No. ESP-004, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

ML092290157.
March 2011 11-1 NUREG-1947

11.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff’s conclusions and recommendations for 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP) environmental impact 

statement (EIS) were provided in Chapter 11 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). As described in 

Chapter 1 of this supplemental EIS (SEIS), Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

(Southern) evaluated, and the NRC staff independently reviewed, the potential new and 

significant information with respect to environmental impacts that could occur if combined 

licenses (COLs) and a second Limited Work Authorization (LWA) were issued to Southern for 

proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP ESP site. The results of the NRC staff review are 

presented in Chapters 1 though 10 of this SEIS. Southern’s COL application, and 

accompanying environmental report (ER) (Southern 2009), reference an ESP, so where 

appropriate, this SEIS adopts the analysis and the results of the environmental review 

conducted in support of the ESP application and incorporates by reference the analyses and 

results presented in the ESP EIS.

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

appropriate sections. During its environmental review, the NRC staff considered planned 

activities and actions that Southern indicated it and others would likely take should Southern 

receive two COLs and an LWA.

Impacts of the proposed action are summarized in Section 11.1. Unavoidable adverse 

environmental impacts, alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between shortterm uses and long-term productivity of the human environment, irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources, benefit-cost balance, and the staff conclusions and 

recommendations are described in Sections 11.2 through 11.7, respectively. The references 

cited are listed in Section 11.8.

11.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action

A summary of the impacts associated with issuance of the ESP and the first LWA was given in 

Section 11.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). This information, as supplemented by this SEIS, 

provides the basis for an informed decision concerning the environmental impacts of issuance 

of COLs and a second LWA by the NRC. In the staff’s review of new and significant information 

for the COL review, with the exception of terrestrial ecology as described in Section 4.4.1, no 

new and significant information was identified that would change any of the conclusions stated 

in the ESP EIS.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1947 11-2 March 2011

11.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

The NRC staff’s’ assessment of unavoidable adverse environmental impacts during construction 

and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 was provided in Section 11.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008). That assessment explained whether adverse impacts had been identified, listed actions 

anticipated to mitigate impacts, and noted which impacts would be unavoidable. In its COL ER 

(Southern 2009), Southern concluded that there is no new and significant information related to 

unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, but it did note there would be an increase in the 

permanently disturbed land area, from 131 ha (324 ac) to 153 ha (379 ac). The development of 

additional onsite borrow areas also increased the amount of additional land disturbance 

(Southern 2010a) from 92 ha (227 ac) to 200 ha (494 ac). These changes in land area were 

noted and evaluated by the NRC staff in Chapter 4 of this SEIS. Development of the new 

borrow areas also resulted in the loss or diminishment of populations of two State-listed species 

(the southeastern pocket gopher [Geomys pinetis] and the sandhills milkvetch [Astragalus 

michauxii]). These impacts were noted and evaluated in Section 4.4 of this SEIS.

While these land use and terrestrial resource impacts would be adverse and unavoidable, 

the staff’s review identified actions to mitigate these impacts. These mitigating actions are 

consistent with those described in Section 11.2 of the ESP EIS, and include compliance with 

the requirements of applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and local permits, and observance of 

best management practices. With respect to the impacts to the State-listed species, the staff’s 

analysis in Section 4.4.1 of this SEIS also describes Southern’s efforts to relocate the onsite 

populations of these species and to replant the disturbed areas with longleaf pine, if possible. 

These developments do not alter the staff’s conclusions in Section 11.2 of the ESP EIS, and 

in the staff’s review of new and significant information, as described throughout this SEIS, no 

other information was identified that would change the conclusions stated in Section 11.2 of 

the ESP EIS regarding unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.

If the second LWA requested by Southern were granted by NRC and the COLs subsequently 

denied, there would be some environmental impacts at the VEGP site from the conduct of those 

activities. However, the staff concluded in Chapter 10 of this SEIS that any such impacts 

related to NRC authorized activities could be adequately redressed.

11.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The proposed action for this SEIS is identified in Section 1.2. A summary of the alternatives to 

the proposed action at the ESP stage was presented in Section 11.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008). Alternatives to the proposed action discussed in this SEIS are the no-action alternative, 

energy alternatives, and system design alternatives. As described in Sections 9.2 and 9.3 of 

this SEIS, no new and significant information was identified in the areas of energy alternatives 
Conclusions and Recommendations

March 2011 11-3 NUREG-1947

or system design alternatives. Therefore, the staff determined that the conclusions regarding 

these alternatives in the ESP EIS remain valid.

The no-action alternative is discussed in Section 9.1 of this SEIS. Under the no-action 

alternative, the NRC would not issue the COLs or second LWA to Southern. There would be no 

environmental impacts associated with not issuing the COLs, except the impacts associated 

with activities not within the definition of construction at 10 CFR 50.10(a) and 10 CFR 51.4 and 

any activities performed under an LWA prior to the time the COLs were denied. At the same 

time, the benefits associated with the proposed action would not occur. If the COL application is 

denied, the power would still be needed as discussed in Chapter 8 of this SEIS. Southern 

would have a variety of options for meeting power needs, including constructing a new nuclear 

power plant at another site, constructing a coal- or natural-gas-fired plant at the VEGP site or at 

another site, and pursuing one or more of the energy alternatives discussed in Sections 9.2.1 

and 9.2.2 of the ESP EIS. There would be environmental impacts associated with each of these 

options that would occur at the site of implementation. For reasons explained in Chapter 9 of 

the ESP EIS, however, the options evaluated in Sections 9.2.1 and 9.2.3 were determined not 

to be reasonable alternatives to providing new baseload power generation capacity. 

11.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term 

Productivity of the Human Environment

The staff’s review of the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the 

long-term productivity of the environment for the ESP and first LWA application was provided in 

Section 11.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). As stated in the ESP EIS, the evaluation of the 

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

enhancement of long-term productivity for the construction and operation of proposed COL units 

can be performed by discussing the benefits of operating the units. The principal benefit is the 

production of electricity. The analysis of the benefit-cost balance was presented in Section 11.6 

of the ESP EIS. If new nuclear power plants are constructed on the VEGP site, power 

production would continue until the COLs expire or the licensee chooses to cease operation. 

Once the plants are shut down, they would be decommissioned according to NRC regulations. 

Once decommissioning is complete and the NRC license is terminated, the site would be 

available for other uses. 

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that it had identified no new and significant 

information relative to this topic. In the NRC staff’s review of new and significant information for 

the COL review, no information was identified that would change the conclusions in the ESP 

EIS, for the proposed action identified in Section 1.2 of this SEIS, regarding short-term uses and 

long-term productivity.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1947 11-4 March 2011

11.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of 

Resources 

The NRC staff’s review of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources 

associated with the proposed action at the ESP stage was provided in Section 11.5 of the ESP 

EIS (NRC 2008). As stated in the ESP EIS, irretrievable commitments of resources during

construction of the proposed new units generally would be similar to that of any major 

construction project. The staff expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities 

associated with those expected for proposed Units 3 and 4, while irretrievable, would be of 

small consequence with respect to the availability of such resources. Likewise, as stated in the 

ESP EIS, the main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of the new 

nuclear units would be uranium. However, the availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles 

of highly enriched uranium in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is 

sufficient, so the irreversible and irretrievable commitment would be of small consequence. 

In its COL ER (Southern 2009), Southern indicated that there is no new and significant 

information relative to the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources related to its 

request for COLs and a second LWA. In the NRC staff’s independent evaluation and review of 

the COL ER and Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, and 

supplemental information provided by Southern (Southern 2010b), no new and significant 

information was identified that would change the conclusions identified in the ESP EIS regarding 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

11.6 Benefit-Cost Balance 

A benefit-cost balance discussion is provided in Section 11.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008). 

Southern indicated in its COL ER (Southern 2009) that there is no new and significant 

information regarding benefits and costs related to the proposed Units 3 and 4. During its 

review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently reviewed Southern’s ER, audited 

Southern’s process for identifying new and significant information, examined other information 

available at the site audit, and considered applicable regulations and reference documents. In 

doing so, the NRC staff identified new information in the areas of project benefits and ecological 

costs that warranted further analysis in the SEIS. 

In March 2009, the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) issued a certification to 

Southern for construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 (GPSC 2009). This certification was 

amended in June 2010 (GPSC 2010) after being remanded back the GPSC by the Fulton 

County Superior Court. The amended certification (GPSC 2010) further substantiates the 

conclusions in the ESP EIS concerning the benefits of the proposed action, especially 
Conclusions and Recommendations

March 2011 11-5 NUREG-1947

concerning price stability and fuel diversity in Georgia. Specifically, the GPSC found in its 

June 2010 decision that:

• Fuel diversity is necessary to protect ratepayers from fuel cost and environmental cost risks. 

• The addition of base-load nuclear generation will preserve the diversity of fuel sources 

necessary to assure reliable and economical supply of electric power and energy for the 

Georgia retail consumers of GPSC.

• The fuel cost savings likely to result from adding nuclear base-load capacity offer substantial 

assurance of reliable and economical supply of power and energy to GPSC’s Georgia retail 

consumers. 

As described in Section 4.4.1 of this SEIS, the development of additional onsite borrow 

sources that were not considered in the ESP EIS resulted in the loss or diminishment of 

populations of two species that are listed as State-threatened by the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources. However, although the staff’s conclusion with respect to the magnitude 

of the onsite terrestrial impacts increased, the staff determined that the overall conclusion for 

Ecology in Table 11-3 of the ESP EIS would continue to be the range of SMALL to 

MODERATE. The staff did not identify any other new information in the areas of project 

benefits and environmental costs that has the potential to affect its conclusions in the EIS with 

respect to the cost-benefit analysis.

Southern has requested a second LWA along with two COLs. The second LWA would allow 

Southern to perform certain construction activities before the COLs are issued. The economic 

and environmental costs associated with the second LWA would be a small fraction of the 

overall costs of construction and operating the proposed facility. The primary benefit from 

authorizing the LWA activities in the second LWA request in advance of issuing the COLs is that 

it would enable Southern to maintain the overall project schedule of construction and operationneed dates, thereby decreasing the chance for cost overruns.

Based on this review, including consideration of the benefits and costs of the construction 

activities requested in the second LWA, the staff determined that the assessment of costs and 

benefits presented in the ESP EIS remains valid. The potential societal benefits to the local 

economy and the electricity generated appear to be larger in comparison to the overall external 

socio-environmental costs, including the increase in terrestrial ecology impact. Consequently, 

the staff continues to conclude that the construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 

4, with mitigation measures identified by the staff, would have accrued benefits that most likely 

would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs associated with constructing and 

operating two new units at the VEGP site.
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1947 11-6 March 2011

11.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

The NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the 

proposed action is that the COLs and the LWA be issued. The staff’s evaluation of the safety 

and security aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the staff’s Safety Evaluation 

Report. This recommendation is based on (1) Southern’s COL ER (Southern 2009) and 

responses to staff requests for additional information; (2) the staff’s review conducted for the 

ESP application (Southern 2008) and the assessment documented in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008); 

(3) consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies; (4) the staff’s own independent review 

of potential new and significant information available since preparation and publication of the 

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

measures identified and consideration of public comments received on the draft SEIS. Finally, 

the staff concludes that the requested LWA construction activities defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a) 

and described in the site redress plan would not result in any significant adverse environmental 

impacts that cannot be redressed.

11.8 References 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2009. Docket No. 27800. Georgia Power’s 

Application for the Certification of Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle and Updated Integrated 

Resource Plan. Amended Certification Order. March 17, 2009. Accession No. ML100600818.

Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2010. Docket No. 27800. Georgia Power’s 

Application for the Certification of Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle and Updated Integrated 

Resource Plan. Order on Remand. June 17, 2010. Accession No. ML101960603. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2008. Vogtle Early Site Permit Application. 

Part 3: Environmental Report. Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Package Accession No. ML081020073.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report, Revision 1, September 23, 2009. 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

March 2011 11-7 NUREG-1947

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010a. Letter from C.R. Pierce, Southern, 

to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, 

Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety 

Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of Backfill, Part 2.” Letter ND-10-1005. May 24, 

2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101470212. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010b. Letter from C.R. Pierce, Southern, 

to NRC, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

Combined License Application, Response to Request for Additional Information Letter on

Environmental Issues.” Letter ND-10-0023. January 8, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Accession No. ML100120479. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.

March 2011 NUREG-1947

Appendix A

Contributors to the Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Appendix A

March 2011 A-1 NUREG-1947

Appendix A

Contributors to the Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplemental environmental impact 

statement was assigned to the Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC). The statement was prepared by members of the Office of New Reactors with 

assistance from other NRC organizations and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Mallecia Sutton Office of New Reactors Environmental Project Manager

Mark Notich Office of New Reactors Co-Environmental Project Manager

Gregory Hatchett Office of New Reactors Branch Chief

Steve Shaffer

Richard Emch

Office of New Reactors

Office of New Reactors

Radiological Health

Radiological Health

Jill Caverly Office of New Reactors Hydrology

Daniel Mussatti Office of New Reactors Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, Cost-Benefit 

Balance, Need for Power

Nancy Kuntzleman Office of New Reactors Terrestrial/Aquatic Ecology

Jennifer Davis Office of Federal State Materials 

and Environmental Management 

Programs 

Cultural Resources

John Fringer Office of New Reactors Land Use, Transmission Lines, Alternatives, 

Nonradiological Health

Michelle Hart Office of New Reactors Design Basis and Severe Accidents

Brad Harvey Office of New Reactors Meteorology and Air Quality 

Norma Garcia-Santos Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards

Transportation

Lucieann Vechioli Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards

Transportation

Stan Echols Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards

Fuel Cycle

James Shephard Office of Federal, State, 

Environmental Management

Decommissioning
Appendix A

March 2011 A-2 NUREG-1947

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(a)

Michael Sackschewsky Task Leader

Kimberly Leigh Deputy Task Leader

Amanda Stegen Terrestrial Ecology

Michael Smith Radiological and Nonradiological Health, 

Decommissioning

Jeremy Rishel Meteorology and Air Quality

Michelle Niemeyer Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, Benefit-Cost 

Balance, Need for Power 

Katherine Cort Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, Benefit-Cost 

Balance, Need for Power

Lance Vail Water Use, Hydrology, Plant System Alternatives

Philip Meyer Water Use, Hydrology, Plant System Alternatives

Rebekah Krieg Aquatic Ecology

Beverly Miller Aquatic Ecology

Paul Hendrickson Energy and Site Alternatives, Land Use

Daniel Strom Radiological and Nonradiological Health, 

Decommissioning

James V. Ramsdell, Jr. Meteorology and Air Quality, Design Basis and 

Severe Accidents, Nonradiological Health

Phil Daling Transportation

Ellen Prendergast-Kennedy Cultural Resources

Tara O’Neil Cultural Resources

Andre Coleman Mapping and Spatial Analysis 

Cary Counts Technical Editing

Cornelia Brim Technical Editing

Dave Payson Technical Editing

Tomiann Parker References

Susan Gulley References, Review

Michael Parker Document Design

Elaine Schneider Graphics

Donna Austin-Workman Graphics

Rose Zanders Graphics

(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy.
March 2011 NUREG-1947

Appendix B

Organizations Contacted

Appendix B

NUREG-1947 B-1 March 2011

Appendix B

Organizations Contacted

This appendix lists the Federal, State, regional, Tribal, and local organizations that were 

contacted during the course of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff’s independent 

review of new and significant information potential environmental impacts from the construction 

and operation of new nuclear units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, 

Georgia. See Appendix B of the early site permit (ESP) environmental impact statement, dated 

August 2008, for a listing of organizations contacted during the ESP review (NRC 2008). 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Shawnee, Oklahoma 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Livingston, Texas

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Wetumka, Oklahoma 

Catawba Indian Tribe, Catawba, South Carolina

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, Ada, Oklahoma

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Elton, Louisiana

Burke County Board of Commissioners, Waynesboro, Georgia 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Social Circle, Georgia

Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, Clayton, Georgia

Kialegee Tribal Town, Wetumka, Oklahoma

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Miami, Florida
Vogtle COL Appendix B

NUREG-1947 B-2 March 2011

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Choctaw, Mississippi

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Oklahoma

Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Atmore, Alabama

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Wewoka, Oklahoma

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina

Seminole Tribe of Florida, Clewiston, Florida

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Okemah, Oklahoma 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Brunswick, Georgia

U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida

B.1 Reference 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.
Appendix C 

Chronology of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related 

to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 

Application for Combined Licenses for Units 3 and 4 

at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

March 2011 C-1 NUREG-1947

Appendix C

Chronology of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related 

to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 

Application for Combined Licenses for Units 3 and 4 

at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), and 

other correspondence related to the NRC staff’s environmental review of Southern’s combined 

license (COL) application for two AP1000 reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

(VEGP). Correspondence information pertinent to the early site permit (ESP) review of Units 3 

and 4 can be found in Appendix C of the ESP environmental impact statement dated August 

2008. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary or sensitive information, 

have been placed in the Commission’s Public Document Room, at One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Such documents are also available 

electronically from the Public Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following 

Web address: <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html>. From this site, the public can gain 

access to the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), 

which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents in the publicly available records 

component of ADAMS. The ADAMS accession number for each document is included below:

May 5, 2008 Federal Register Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for a 

Combined License (Accession No. ML081780052)

May 30, 2008 Letter from Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Sr. Vice President, Nuclear 

Development, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, regarding the 

Acceptance Review for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

Combined License Application (Accession No. ML081480138)

June 11, 2008 Federal Register Notice regarding Acceptance for Docketing of an 

Application for Combined License for Vogtle Electric Generation Plant 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML081770650)
Appendix C

NUREG-1947 C-2 March 2011

July 2, 2008 Note to File: Public Outreach Meeting on the Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application 

(Accession No. ML081850263)

July 9, 2008 Letter from NRC to Ms. Gwen Jackson, Burke County Library, regarding 

Application by Southern Nuclear Operating Company for a Combined 

License for Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

(Accession No. ML081780805)

July 16, 2008 Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, regarding the Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplement to the 

Environmental Impact Statement in Relation to the Combined License 

Application for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

(Accession No. ML081500677)

August 8, 2008 Letter from NRC to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, regarding 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit at the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site (Accession No. ML081910396)

August 11, 2008 Note to File: Summary of Public Outreach Meeting to Discuss the Review 

of the Vogtle Combined License Application 

(Accession No. ML082190977)

October 14, 2008 Trip Report – August 11 through August 12, 2008, VEGP, Units 3 and 4, 

COL Site Audit (Accession No. ML082620184)

September 21, 2009 Note to File: Audit Execution Plan for New and Significant Information 

Audit and Plant Vogtle Combined License Supplement Environmental 

Impact Statement (Accession No. ML092600338)

September 23, 2009 Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

to NRC, regarding Revision 1 to the Environmental Report for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application 

Package (Accession No. ML092740396)

September 28, 2009 Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (Accession No. ML092650823)

October 2, 2009 Letter from Mr. Michael K. Smith, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

to NRC, regarding Revision 1 to Part 6, Limited Work Authorization 

Request for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined 

License Application (Accession No. ML092960549)
Appendix C

March 2011 C-3 NUREG-1947

October 15, 2009 Letter from Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Vice President, Nuclear Development,

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, to NRC, regarding Post New and 

Significant Audit Supporting Information (Accession No. ML092960312)

October 28, 2009 Letter from NRC to Ms. Gwen Jackson, Burke County Library, regarding 

Environmental Revision 1 by Southern Nuclear Operating Company for a 

Combined License for Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant (Accession No. ML093000052)

December 7, 2009 E-mail from NRC to Ms. Julie Holling, South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources, regarding South Carolina State Threatened and 

Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

(Accession No. ML093491061) 

December 9, 2009 Letter from NRC to Dr. Dave Crass, Acting Division Director and Deputy 

SHPO, State of Georgia Historic Preservation Officer, Historic 

Preservation Division, Department of Natural Resources, regarding 

Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 COL Review, Atlanta, GA SHPO 

(Accession No. ML092600744)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Sr. Vice President, Nuclear 

Development, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, regarding Request 

for Additional Information Regarding the Environmental Review of the 

Combined License Application for Vogtle Electric General Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML093140059)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Ms. Stephanie Rolin, NAGPRA Contact, Poarch Band 

of Creek Indians initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730038)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Ms. Emma Sue Holland, United Keetoowah Band of 

Cherokee Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092740546)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Eddie Tullis, Chairperson, Poarch Band of Creek 

Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092670288)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Ms. Kathy McCoy, NAGPRA Contact, Eastern Band 

of Cherokee Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730317)
Appendix C

NUREG-1947 C-4 March 2011

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. John Zachary, Attorney-at-Law, c/o Coushatta 

Tribe of Louisiana, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730292)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Ms. Evelyn Bucktrot, Town King, Kialegee Tribal 

Town, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092740388)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Steven Terry, Land Resource Manager, 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, initiating Consultation to the 

Tribes for Vogtle COLA (Accession No. ML092740375)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Ms. Gale Thrower, NAGPRA Contact, Poarch Band of 

Creek Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092710241)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Louis McGertt, Town King, Thlopthlocco Tribal 

Town initiating, Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092740554)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. A. D. Ellis, Principal Chief, Muscogee (Creek) 

Nation, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730350)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Richard L. Allen, NAGPRA Contact, Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730092)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Ms. Gingy Nail, NAGPRA Contact, Chickasaw Nation, 

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730177)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Bill Anoatubby, Governor, Chickasaw Nation of 

Oklahoma, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730147)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Charles Thurmond, NAGPRA Contact, Georgia 

Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle 

COLA (Accession No. ML092730371)
Appendix C

March 2011 C-5 NUREG-1947

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Tarpie Yargee, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, 

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730274)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Pare Bowlegs, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, 

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092930629)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Michell Hicks, Principal Chief, Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092940250)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Dallas Proctor, Chief, United Keetoowah Band of 

Cherokee Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092740393)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Ms. Karen Kaniatobe, Director of the Cultural/

Historical Preservation Department, initiating Consultation to the Tribes 

for Vogtle COLA (Accession No. ML092730283)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Ms. Debbie Thomas, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer, NAGPRA Coordinator, Alabama- Coushatta Tribe of Texas, 

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730252)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mrs. Joyce Bear, NAGPRA Contact, Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for 

Vogtle COLA (Accession No. ML092920490)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Chadwick Smith, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation 

of Oklahoma, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730059)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Gilbert Blue, Chairperson, Catawba Indian Tribe, 

initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092730321)

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Willard Steele, Deputy THPO, Seminole Tribe of 

Florida, initiating Consultation to the Tribes for Vogtle COLA 

(Accession No. ML092920488)
Appendix C

NUREG-1947 C-6 March 2011

December 10, 2009 Letter from NRC to Mr. Kenneth Carleton, THPO/ Tribal Archaeologist, 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, initiating Consultation to the Tribes 

for Vogtle COLA (Accession No. ML092730208)

December 15, 2009 E-mail from Ms. Julie Holling, South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources, to NRC, regarding South Carolina State Threatened and 

Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

(Accession No. ML093491132)

December 15, 2009 E-mail from NRC to Mr. Matt Elliot, Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, regarding updated Georgia state-listed species information 

(Accession No. ML093491138) 

December 16, 2009 E-mail from Mr. Matt Elliot, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, to 

NRC, regarding GDNR e-mail Vogtle COL (Accession No. ML093500211) 

December 17, 2009 Letter from Ms. Katrina Morris, Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, to NRC, regarding known occurrences of natural 

communities, plants and animals of highest priority conversation status on 

or near Vogtle COL, Burke County, Georgia 

(Accession No. ML100490042)

December 23, 2009 Letter to Mr. Don Klima, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, regarding Request for Information on 

Historic Properties within the Area Under Evaluation for the VEGP, 

Units 3 and 4 COL (Accession No. ML092600785) 

December 23, 2009 Summary of Teleconference Held with Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site for a COL 

(Accession No. ML093410022)

January 7, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Sandra S. Tucker, Field Supervisor, U.S Fish and 

Wildlife Service Coastal Sub Office, regarding Request for List of 

Protected Species (Accession No. ML092600684)

January 7, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Donald Rodgers, Catawba Indian Nation, 

regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company’s Combined License Application for the Proposed Construction 

and Operation of Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in 

Waynesboro, Georgia (Accession No. ML100060777)
Appendix C

March 2011 C-7 NUREG-1947

January 8, 2010 Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

to NRC, regarding the Response to Request for Additional Information 

Letter on Environmental Issues (Accession No. ML100120479)

January 20, 2010 Letter from Dr. David Crass, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 

Historic Preservation Division, to Mr. Thomas Moorer, Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Memorandum of Understanding – Archaeological 

Site 9BK416 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Expansion, Burke County, 

Georgia, HP-060428-001 (Accession No. ML100500302)

January 28, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, regarding Issuance of the Environmental Review Schedule for 

the Combined License Application Review for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML092630002) 

January 29, 2010 Letter from Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

to NRC, regarding Replacement DVD for Letter ND-09-1673 (10/15/09) 

(Accession No. ML100300006)

February 4, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, regarding Request for Additional Information Regarding the 

Environmental Review of the Limited Work Authorization for the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML100280034)

February 5, 2010 Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

to NRC, regarding the Environmental Report to Support Revision 1 to 

Part 6, Limited Work Authorization Request, of the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application 

(Accession No. ML100470600)

February 12, 2010 Letter from Ms. Sandra Tucker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to NRC, 

regarding USFWS Log Number 2009-1387 

(Accession No. ML100500426)

February 19, 2010 Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

to NRC, regarding the Large Component Transportation Decision 

(Accession No. ML100550033)
Appendix C

NUREG-1947 C-8 March 2011

March 1, 2010 Note to File, Discussion with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Savannah District, concerning their participation in the development of the 

supplemental environmental impact statement for the combined operating 

license for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 

(Accession No. ML100570038)

March 11, 2010 Letter from Mr. Brian L. (Pete) Ivey, Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, to NRC, regarding Supplement to Environmental Report in 

Support of Revision 1 to Part 6, LWA Request 

(Accession No. ML100750657)

March 12, 2010 Letter from Mr. Michael K. Smith, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

to NRC, regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

Combined License Application Supporting Information for Environmental 

Report Review (Accession No. ML100750038)

April 6, 2010 Memorandum regarding Summary of the Environmental Site Audit 

Related to the Review of the Combined License Application for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Site (Package Accession No. ML093631157) 

April 28, 2010 Summary of Meeting to Discuss Southern Nuclear Operating Company’s 

Plans for Potential License Amendments Regarding Safety-Related 

Backfill for its Early Site Permit for the Vogtle Site 

(Accession No. ML101160362) 

May 10, 2010 Summary of Meeting with Southern Nuclear Operating Company to 

Discuss Plans to Request Exemption from Requirements of 10 CFR 50, 

Section 10(d) for its Combined License Application for the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Proposed Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML101250259)

May 10, 2010 Letter from Mr. B.L. (Pete) Ivey, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, to 

NRC, regarding Post New and Significant Audit Support Information 

(Accession No. ML101310333)

May 18, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, regarding Revision of the Environmental Review Schedule for 

the Combined License Application Review for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML101330353)

June 16, 2010 Memorandum Regarding the Site Audit Summary Concerning 

Environmental Impacts Associated with Acquisition of Additional Backfill 
Appendix C

March 2011 C-9 NUREG-1947

Material for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Combined License 

Application Review (Package Accession No. ML101550095) 

June 17, 2010 Summary of Teleconference Calls Held with the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 

Onsite Backfill Amendment (Accession No. ML101670079)

June 18, 2010 E-mail from Ms. Elizabeth Shirk, Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, Historic Preservation Division, to NRC, regarding Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Burke County, Georgia, Units 3 and 4 

Supplement (Accession No. ML101940268)

July 14, 2010 Summary of the teleconference held with Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company regarding the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 

Combined License Application (Accession No. ML 100620862) 

July 16, 2010 Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

to NRC, regarding New and Significant information evaluation for the 

transportation of backfill from an offsite source 

(Accession No. ML102010031) 

August 3, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, regarding Revision of the Environmental Review Schedule for 

the Combined License Application Review for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102100311) 

August 6, 2010 Letter from Mr. B.L. Ivey, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, COL 

Application, Part 6, Limited Work Authorization Request, Revision 2 

(Accession No. ML102220380) 

August 26, 2010 Letter from NRC to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, regarding 

Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 

Combined Licenses Application (Accession No. ML102070018) 
Appendix C

NUREG-1947 C-10 March 2011

August 26, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, regarding Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses for the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102080062)

August 27, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Gwen Jackson, Burke County Public Library, 

regarding Maintenance of Reference Materials at the Burke County 

Library for the Draft Supplemental [Environmental] Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 

4 (Accession No. ML102170028)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. A.D. Ellis, Principal Chief of the Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the 

Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application (Accession No. 

ML102000264)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Dallas Proctor, Chief of the United Keetoowah 

Band of Cherokee Indians, regarding Section 106 Consultation and 

Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000360)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Eddie Tullis, Chairperson Poarch Band of Creek 

Indians, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the 

Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000149)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Emma Sue Holland, NAGPRA Contact for the 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, regarding Section 106 

Consultation and Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments 

on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000191)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Kathy McCoy, NAGPRA Contact for the Eastern 

Band of Cherokee Indians, regarding Section 106 Consultation and 

Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000210)
Appendix C

March 2011 C-11 NUREG-1947

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. John Zachary, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, 

regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the Issuance and 

Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession 

No. ML102000219)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Evelyn Bucktrot, Town King of the Kialegee Tribal 

Town, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the 

Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000224)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Steven Terry, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 

Florida, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the 

Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000228)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Gale Thrower, NAGPRA Contact for the Poarch 

Band of Creek Indians, regarding Section 106 Consultation and 

Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000233)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Louis McGertt, Town King of the Thlopthlocco 

Tribal Town, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the 

Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000240)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Richard L. Allen, NAGPRA Contact for the 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, regarding Section 106 Consultation and 

Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000287)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Gingy (Virginia) Hail, NAGPRA Contact for the 

Chickasaw Nation, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of 

the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000331)
Appendix C

NUREG-1947 C-12 March 2011

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Bill Anoatubby, Governor of the Chickasaw Nation 

of Oklahoma, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the 

Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000335)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Charles Thurmond, NAGPRA Contact for the 

Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, regarding Section 106 Consultation 

and Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000345)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Tarpie Yargee, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, 

regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the Issuance and 

Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession 

No. ML102000349)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Pare Bowlegs, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, 

regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the Issuance and 

Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession 

No. ML102000355)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Michell Hicks, Principal Chief of the Eastern Band 

of Cherokee Indians, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification 

of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000358)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Karen Kaniatobe, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of 

Oklahoma, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the 

Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000365)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Debbie Thomas, NAGPRA Coordinator of the 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, regarding Section 106 Consultation 

and Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000367)
Appendix C

March 2011 C-13 NUREG-1947

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Joyce A. Bear, NAGPRA Contact of the 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, regarding Section 106 

Consultation and Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments 

on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000368)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Chadwick Smith, Principal Chief of the Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification 

of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000375)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Willard Steele, Seminole Tribe of Florida, 

regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the Issuance and 

Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession 

No. ML102000382)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Kenneth H. Carleton, Mississippi Band of 

Choctaw Indians, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of 

the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000384)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Stephanie Rolin, NAGPRA Contact of the Poarch 

Band of Creek Indians, regarding Section 106 Consultation and 

Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102000390)

September 2, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Carol Bernstein, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Savannah District, regarding Notification of the Issuance and Request for 

Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. 

ML102320187)

September 3, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. David Bernhart, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, regarding Notification of the Issuance and Request for 

Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. 

ML102320162)
Appendix C

NUREG-1947 C-14 March 2011

September 3, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Robert D. Perry, South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources, regarding Notification of the Issuance and Request 

for Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession 

No. ML102320174)

September 3, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Sandra Tucker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

regarding Notification of the Issuance and Request for Comments on the 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102320222)

September 21, 2010 October 7, 2010 Public Meeting Notice for the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined Licenses for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102070021)

September 27, 2010 Letter from NRC to Commissioner Andrews, Burke County, regarding an 

Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

(Accession No. ML102710050)

September 27, 2010 Letter from NRC to Commissioner Crockett, Burke County, regarding an 

Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

(Accession No. ML102710053)

September 27, 2010 Letter from NRC to Commissioner Delaigle, Burke County, regarding an 

Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

(Accession No. ML102710057)

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Commissioner Tinley, Burke County, regarding an 

Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

(Accession No. ML102710064)
Appendix C

March 2011 C-15 NUREG-1947

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Commissioner Lucious Abrams, Burke County, 

regarding an Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102700514)

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mayor Deloach, City of Waynesboro, regarding an 

Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

(Accession No. ML102710083)

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Bill Tinley, Waynesboro City Council, regarding an 

Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 

Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

(Accession No. ML102710115)

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Herman Brown, Waynesboro City Council, 

regarding an Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102710096)

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. James Jones, Waynesboro City Council, 

regarding an Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102710137)

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Richard Byne, Waynesboro City Council, 

regarding an Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102710147)

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. Willie Williams, Waynesboro City Council, 

regarding an Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102710182)
Appendix C

NUREG-1947 C-16 March 2011

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Linda Bailey, Superintendent Burke County Public 

Schools, regarding an Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102710201)

September 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Ms. Portia Lodge Washington, Waynesboro City 

Council, regarding an Invitation to a Meeting with the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission to Discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant Units 3 and 4 (Accession No. ML102710169)

October 6, 2010 E-mail from Mr. Bryant J. Celestine, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, 

to NRC, regarding the Draft SEIS (Accession No. ML102940055)

October 20, 2010 Letter from Ms. Sandra Tucker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to NRC 

regarding FWS Log #2010-1254 (Accession No. ML103010076)

October 28, 2010 Summary of Teleconference with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

Discuss Species List for the Vogtle Combined Licenses Biological 

Assessment (Accession No. ML102990317)

October 29, 2010 Letter from NRC to Mr. J.A. (Buzz) Miller, Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, regarding the Revised Review Schedule 

(Accession No. ML102310362)

November 10, 2010 Summary of the Public Meeting for the Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 (Package Accession No. ML103130518)

November 15, 2010 Letter from Mr. Heinz J. Mueller, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

to NRC, regarding Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

for Combined Licenses Vogtle, Units 3 and 4, Construction and 

Operation, Application, NUREG-1947, CEQ No. 20100351 

(Accession No. ML103370044)

November 29, 2010 Letter from Mr. Gregory Hogue, U.S. Department of the Interior, to NRC, 

regarding Comments for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4, Application for Combined 

Licenses (COLs), NUREG-1947, Burke County, Georgia 

(Accession No. ML103330069) 
Appendix C

March 2011 C-17 NUREG-1947

November 23, 2010 Letter from Mr. C. R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, to 

NRC, regarding Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (Accession No. ML103300035)

February 24, 2011 Letter from NRC to Ms. Sandra Tucker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

regarding Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Accession No. ML103410237) 

 

March 2, 2011 Letter from NRC to Mr. David Bernhart, National Fisheries Service, 

regarding Conference Consultation for the Atlantic Sturgeon 

(Accession No. ML110460152)

March 3, 2011 Letter from Mr. Charles R. Pierce, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

to NRC, regarding Notification of Approved Change to Environmental 

Permit SAS-2007-01837 

(Accession No. ML110660152) 

Appendix D 

Scoping Comments and Responses 

March 2011 D-1 NUREG-1947

Appendix D

Scoping Comments and Responses

Appendix D of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP)

environmental impact statement (EIS) details the scoping comments received under that review 

process. The ESP was granted in August 2009. The combined operating license (COL) 

application, revision 0, was submitted in March 2008, while revision 1 of the COL application 

was submitted on September 23, 2009. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.26, the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS

related to the VEGP in the Federal Register on September 28, 2009. Furthermore, 

10 CFR 51.26(d) states that scoping is not required for a supplement to an EIS prepared for a 

COL application that references an ESP. Therefore, no formal scoping comment period 

occurred. A public outreach meeting was held on July 17, 2008. A summary of that meeting 

can be found at the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following 

Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML082190977.

Appendix E 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Comments and Responses

March 2011 E-1 NUREG-1947

Appendix E

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Comments and Responses

As part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review of the Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) application for combined licenses (COLs) for proposed 

Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site, the NRC solicited comments 

from the public on a draft of this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). NRC 

regulations related to the environmental review of COL applications are contained in Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart C. Pursuant to 

NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.50(c)(1), a COL applicant referencing an early site permit (ESP) 

need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in 

the ESP final environmental impact statement (EIS), except to the extent the COL applicant has 

identified new and significant information regarding such issues. In addition, pursuant to 

10 CFR 52.39, matters resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered to be resolved in any 

subsequent proceedings, absent identification of new and significant information. The NRC 

staff prepared this SEIS to the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), in support of the COL application for the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site.

The draft SEIS was published in September 2010 (NRC 2010a). A 75-day comment period 

began on September 3, 2010, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a 

Notice of Availability (75 FR 54190) of the draft SEIS to allow members of the public to 

comment on the results of the environmental review. On October 7, 2010, a public meeting was 

held at the Augusta Technical College in Waynesboro, Georgia. At the meeting, NRC staff 

described the results of the environmental review, answered questions related to the review, 

and provided members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their 

comments.

As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft SEIS, the staff

• placed a copy of the draft SEIS at the Burke County Public Library in Waynesboro, Georgia

• made the draft SEIS available in the NRC’s Public Document Room in Rockville, Maryland

• placed a copy of the draft SEIS on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1947/

• provided a copy of the draft SEIS to any member of the public that requested one

• sent copies of the draft SEIS to certain Federal, State, and local agencies
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-2 March 2011

• published a notice of availability of the draft SEIS in the Federal Register on September 3, 

2010 (75 FR 54190)

• filed the draft SEIS with the EPA

• announced and held a public meeting at the Augusta Technical College in Waynesboro, 

Georgia, to describe the results of the environmental review, answer any related questions, 

and take public comments.

Approximately 80 people attended the meeting and 22 attendees provided oral comments. A 

certified court reporter recorded the oral comments and prepared a written transcript of the 

meeting. The transcript of the public meeting is part of the public record for the proposed 

project and was used to establish correspondence between comments contained in this volume 

of the SEIS and oral comments received at the public meeting. In addition to the comments 

received at the public meeting, the NRC received 37 letters and e-mail messages with 

comments. The comment period closed on November 24, 2010; however, the NRC did, to the 

degree permitted by the schedule, consider comments submitted after the comment 

period ended.

A meeting summary is available from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC’s 

Agency-wide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS); its accession number is 

ML103130579 (NRC 2010c). The transcript of the public meeting, and the letters and e-mail 

messages providing comments on the draft SEIS, are also available in ADAMS; accession 

numbers are provided in Table E-1. ADAMS is accessible at www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html, which provides access through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room link. 

Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff 

at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

E.1 Disposition of Comments

This appendix contains all of the comments extracted from the comment letters and e-mail 

messages provided to the review team during the comment period, as well as the comments 

from the transcript. Each set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique alpha 

identifier (commenter ID), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back 

to the transcript, letter, or e-mail in which the comments were submitted. 

After the comment period, the staff considered and dispositioned all comments received. To 

identify each individual comment, the team reviewed the transcript of the public meeting and 

each letter and e-mail received related to the draft SEIS. Table E-1 lists commenters identified 

by name, affiliation (if given), comment number, and the source of the comment including its 

ADAMS accession number. As part of the review, the staff identified statements that they 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-3 NUREG-1947

believed were related to the proposed action and recorded the statements as comments. Each 

comment was assigned to a specific subject area, and similar comments were grouped 

together. Finally, responses were prepared for each comment or group of comments.

This appendix presents the comments and the staff responses to them grouped by similar 

issues in the following order:

• Comments Concerning Process – COL

• Comments Concerning Process – NEPA

• Comments Concerning Land Use – Transmission Lines

• Comments Concerning Meteorology and Air Quality

• Comments Concerning Hydrology – Surface Water

• Comments Concerning Hydrology – Groundwater

• Comments Concerning Ecology – Terrestrial

• Comments Concerning Ecology – Aquatic

• Comments Concerning Socioeconomics

• Comments Concerning Historic and Cultural Resources

• Comments Concerning Environmental Justice

• Comments Concerning Health – Nonradiological

• Comments Concerning Health – Radiological

• Comments Concerning Accidents – Design Basis

• Comments Concerning Accidents – Severe

• Comments Concerning the Uranium Fuel Cycle

• Comments Concerning Transportation

• Comments Concerning the Need for Power

• Comments Concerning Alternatives – Energy

• Comments Concerning Benefit-Cost Balance

• General Comments in Support of the Licensing Action

• General Comments in Support of the Licensing Process

• General Comments in Support of Nuclear Power

• General Comments in Support of the Existing Plant

• General Comments in Opposition to the Licensing Action

• General Comments in Opposition to the Licensing Process

• General Comments in Opposition to Nuclear Power

• General Comments in Opposition to the Existing Plant

• Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope – Emergency Preparedness

• Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope – Miscellaneous

• Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope – NRC Oversight 

• Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope – Safety

• Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope – Security and Terrorism
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-4 March 2011

When the comments resulted in a change in the text of the draft SEIS, the corresponding 

response refers the reader to the appropriate section of the final SEIS where the change was 

made. Throughout the final SEIS, with the exception of this new Appendix E, revisions to the 

text from the draft SEIS are indicated by vertical lines (change bars) in the margin beside the 

text.

Some comments addressed topics and issues that are not part of the environmental review for 

this proposed action. These comments included questions about the NRC’s safety review, 

general statements of support or opposition to nuclear power, observations regarding national 

nuclear waste management policies, comments on the NRC regulatory process in general, and 

comments on NRC regulations. These comments are included, but detailed responses to such 

comments are not provided because they addressed issues that do not directly relate to the 

environmental effects of this proposed action and are thus outside the scope of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of this proposed action. If appropriate, these 

comments were forwarded to the cognizant organization within the NRC for consideration.

Many comments specifically addressed the scope of the environmental review, analyses, and 

issues contained in the draft SEIS, including comments about potential impacts, proposed 

mitigation, the agency review process, and the public comment period. Detailed responses to 

each of these comments are provided in this appendix.

Table E-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Comment Period

Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source and ADAMS

Accession #

Correspondence 

ID

Abrams, Lucious Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-3

Arnold, Judy Self E-mail (ML103330061) 0003

Barczak, Sara Southern Alliance for 

Clean Energy

Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-5

Barczak, Sara Southern Alliance for 

Clean Energy

Meeting Transcript (ML103140538) 0017-1

Baxley, Robin Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-9

Baxter, Farouk Self E-mail (ML103560158) 0001

Boatenreiter, Glenn Self E-mail (ML103330045) 0003

Booher, Sam Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-21

Byne, Dick Waynesboro City 

Council

Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-2
Appendix E

March 2011 E-5 NUREG-1947

Table E-1. (contd)

Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source and ADAMS 

Accession #

Correspondence 

ID

Carroll, Glenn Nuclear Watch South E-mail (ML103330030) 0002

Carroll, Glenn Nuclear Watch South Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-11

Carter, Pat Self E-mail (ML103330034) 0003

Celestine, Bryant Alabama-Coushatta 

Tribe of Texas

E-mail (ML102940055) 0012

Cumbow, Kay Self E-mail (ML103330053) 0003

Dawson, Daneille Self E-mail (ML103330064) 0003

DeLoach, George Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-1

Dooley, Gerald Self E-mail (ML103330054) 0003

Elam, Terry Augusta Technical 

College

Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-4

Elam, Terry Augusta Technical 

College

Meeting Transcript (ML103140541) 0018-1

Falconer, Kimberly Self E-mail (ML103330038) 0003

Hatch, Sarah Nuke Watch South E-mail (ML103330031) 0003

Henson, Courtney Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-15

Howard, Claude Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-17

Kasenow, Lisa Self E-mail (ML103330043) 0003

Kushner, Adele Action for a Clean 

Environment

E-mail (ML103330037) 0005

Lewis, Marvin Self E-mail (ML103330048) 0003

Lomas, Judith Self E-mail (ML103330046) 0003

Lusk, Phil Self E-mail (ML103330044) 0003

McConnell, Joy Self E-mail (ML103330063) 0003

McNulty, Joy Self E-mail (ML103330055) 0003

Michetti, Susan Self E-mail (ML103330052) 0007

Mills, Nancy Self E-mail (ML103330035) 0003

Mitchell, Tommy Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-8

Mueller, Heinz J. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency

Letter (ML103370044) 0019

Ogley-Oliver, Emma Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-16
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-6 March 2011

Table E-1. (contd)

Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source and ADAMS 

Accession #

Correspondence 

ID

Parr, Sue Augusta Metro Chamber 

of Commerce

Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-12

Patrie, Lewis E. Western N. C. 

Physicians for Social 

Responsibility

E-mail (ML102940057) 0013

Paul, Bobbie Women’s Action for New 

Directions

Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-7

Pierce, Charles Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company

Letter (ML103330035) 0014

Rivard, Betsy Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-20

Roberts, Ashley Burke Co. Chamber of 

Commerce

Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-13

Sardi, David Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-22

Sheppard, Deborah Self E-mail (ML103330033) 0003

Smith, Nathan Self E-mail (ML103330047) 0006

Hogue, Gregory U.S. Department of 

the Interior

E-mail (ML103330069) 0010

Stephens, Annie Laura Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-10

Stone, Jesse Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-14

Taylor, F Self E-mail (ML103330032) 0004

Thomas, Ellen Self E-mail (ML103330060) 0008

Thomas, Russel Self E-mail (ML103330040) 0003

Trujillo, Dianne Self E-mail (ML103330058) 0003

Utley, Charles Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-6

Valentin, Dianne Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-19

Vejdani, Vivianne South Carolina

Department of Natural 

Resources

E-mail (ML102940054) 0011

Villarreal, Tasha Self E-mail (ML103330039) 0003

Vincent, Patricia Self Meeting Transcript (ML103130550) 0016-18

Zeller, Lou Blue Ridge 

Environmental Defense 

League

E-mail (ML103330070) 0009
Appendix E

March 2011 E-7 NUREG-1947

E.2 Comments and Responses 

Table E-2 is an alphabetical index to the comment categories and lists the commenter names 

and comment identification numbers that were included in each category. The balance of this 

document presents the comments and responses organized by topic category. References 

appear in Section E.3 at the end of the appendix. 

Table E-2. Comment Categories

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID)

Accidents-Design Basis • Sardi, David (0016-22-8)

Accidents-Severe • Arnold, Judy (0003-8)

• Boatenreiter, Glenn (0003-8)

• Carroll, Glenn (0002-8)

• Carter, Pat (0003-8)

• Cumbow, Kay (0003-8)

• Dawson, Daneille (0003-8)

• Dooley, Gerald (0003-8)

• Falconer, Kimberly (0003-8)

• Hatch, Sarah (0003-8)

• Kasenow, Lisa (0003-8)

• Kushner, Adele (0005-8)

• Lewis, Marvin (0003-8)

• Lomas, Judith (0003-8)

• Lusk, Phil (0003-8)

• McConnell, Joy (0003-8)

• McNulty, Joy (0003-8)

• Mills, Nancy (0003-8)

• Sheppard, Deborah (0003-8)

• Thomas, Russel (0003-8)

• Trujillo, Dianne (0003-8)

• Villarreal, Tasha (0003-8)

Alternatives-Energy • Arnold, Judy (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Barczak, Sara (0016-5-7) (0017-1-6)

• Boatenreiter, Glenn (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Carroll, Glenn (0002-2) (0002-6) (0016-11-4) (0016-11-5) (0016-11-6)

• Carter, Pat (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Cumbow, Kay (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Dawson, Daneille (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Dooley, Gerald (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Falconer, Kimberly (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Hatch, Sarah (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Kasenow, Lisa (0003-2) (0003-6)
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-8 March 2011

Table E-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID)

• Kushner, Adele (0005-2) (0005-6)

• Lewis, Marvin (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Lomas, Judith (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Lusk, Phil (0003-2) (0003-6)

• McConnell, Joy (0003-2) (0003-6)

• McNulty, Joy (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Michetti, Susan (0007-3) (0007-4)

• Mills, Nancy (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Patrie, Lewis E. (0013-3)

• Rivard, Betsy (0016-20-12)

• Sardi, David (0016-22-4) (0016-22-14)

• Sheppard, Deborah (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Taylor, F (0004-2)

• Thomas, Ellen (0008-1) (0008-5)

• Thomas, Russel (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Trujillo, Dianne (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Villarreal, Tasha (0003-2) (0003-6)

• Vincent, Patricia (0016-18-3)

Benefit-Cost Balance • Arnold, Judy (0003-5)

• Barczak, Sara (0016-5-2) (0016-5-6) (0017-1-2) (0017-1-5) 

• Boatenreiter, Glenn (0003-5)

• Carroll, Glenn (0002-5) (0016-11-2)

• Carter, Pat (0003-5)

• Cumbow, Kay (0003-5)

• Dawson, Daneille (0003-5)

• Dooley, Gerald (0003-5)

• Falconer, Kimberly (0003-5)

• Hatch, Sarah (0003-5)

• Henson, Courtney (0016-15-3) (0016-15-5)

• Kasenow, Lisa (0003-5)

• Kushner, Adele (0005-5)

• Lewis, Marvin (0003-5)

• Lomas, Judith (0003-5)

• Lusk, Phil (0003-5)

• McConnell, Joy (0003-5)

• McNulty, Joy (0003-5)

• Michetti, Susan (0007-2) (0007-5) (0007-10)

• Mills, Nancy (0003-5)

• Ogley-Oliver, Emma (0016-16-5)

• Patrie, Lewis E. (0013-1) (0013-2)

• Paul, Bobbie (0016-7-5)

• Roberts, Ashley (0016-13-3)
Appendix E

March 2011 E-9 NUREG-1947

Table E-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID)

• Sheppard, Deborah (0003-5)

• Thomas, Ellen (0008-3) (0008-4)

• Thomas, Russel (0003-5)

• Trujillo, Dianne (0003-5)

• Utley, Charles (0016-6-3) (0016-6-4)

• Villarreal, Tasha (0003-5)

Ecology-Aquatic • Hogue, Gregory (0010-2)

• Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-2)

Ecology-Terrestrial • Hogue, Gregory (0010-1) (0010-3)

• Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-11)

Environmental Justice • Arnold, Judy (0003-7)

• Boatenreiter, Glenn (0003-7)

• Carroll, Glenn (0002-7)

• Carter, Pat (0003-7)

• Cumbow, Kay (0003-7)

• Dawson, Daneille (0003-7)

• Dooley, Gerald (0003-7)

• Falconer, Kimberly (0003-7)

• Hatch, Sarah (0003-7)

• Kasenow, Lisa (0003-7)

• Kushner, Adele (0005-7)

• Lewis, Marvin (0003-7)

• Lomas, Judith (0003-7)

• Lusk, Phil (0003-7)

• McConnell, Joy (0003-7)

• McNulty, Joy (0003-7)

• Mills, Nancy (0003-7)

• Ogley-Oliver, Emma (0016-16-1)

• Sheppard, Deborah (0003-7)

• Thomas, Russel (0003-7)

• Trujillo, Dianne (0003-7)

• Utley, Charles (0016-6-7)

• Valentin, Dianne (0016-19-1) (0016-19-8) (0016-19-9) (0016-19-11)

• Villarreal, Tasha (0003-7)

• Zeller, Lou (0009-2) (0009-3) (0009-6) (0009-7)

Health-Nonradiological • Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-10)

Health-Radiological • Carroll, Glenn (0016-11-1)

• Henson, Courtney (0016-15-4)

• Michetti, Susan (0007-9)

• Ogley-Oliver, Emma (0016-16-3)
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-10 March 2011

Table E-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID)

• Paul, Bobbie (0016-7-4)

• Rivard, Betsy (0016-20-5) (0016-20-6) (0016-20-8) (0016-20-10) 

(0016-20-11)

• Stephens, Annie Laura (0016-10-3) (0016-10-4)

• Taylor, F (0004-5)

• Utley, Charles (0016-6-6) (0016-6-8) (0016-6-9) (0016-6-10)

• Valentin, Dianne (0016-19-3) (0016-19-5) (0016-19-6) (0016-19-7)

• Vincent, Patricia (0016-18-2)

Historic and Cultural 

Resources • Celestine, Bryant (0012-1)

• Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-12)

• Valentin, Dianne (0016-19-12)

Hydrology-Groundwater • Rivard, Betsy (0016-20-9)

• Utley, Charles (0016-6-2)

• Valentin, Dianne (0016-19-2) (0016-19-4)

Hydrology-Surface Water • Arnold, Judy (0003-4)

• Barczak, Sara (00160-5-4) (0016-5-9) (0017-1-4) (0017-1-8)

• Boatenreiter, Glenn (0003-4)

• Booher, Sam (0016-21-1) (0016-21-2) (0016-21-3) (0016-21-4) 

(0016-21-5) (0016-21-6) (0016-21-7)

• Carroll, Glenn (0002-4)

• Carter, Pat (0003-4)

• Cumbow, Kay (0003-4)

• Dawson, Daneille (0003-4)

• Dooley, Gerald (0003-4)

• Falconer, Kimberly (0003-4)

• Hatch, Sarah (0003-4)

• Kasenow, Lisa (0003-4)

• Kushner, Adele (0005-4)

• Lewis, Marvin (0003-4)

• Lomas, Judith (0003-4)

• Lusk, Phil (0003-4)

• McConnell, Joy (0003-4)

• McNulty, Joy (0003-4)

• Michetti, Susan (0007-6)

• Mills, Nancy (0003-4)

• Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-1) (0019-8)

• Pierce, Charles (0014-1)

• Sardi, David (0016-22-3) (0016-22-10) (0016-22-13)

• Sheppard, Deborah (0003-4)

• Taylor, F (0004-4)

• Thomas, Russel (0003-4)
Appendix E

March 2011 E-11 NUREG-1947

Table E-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID)

• Trujillo, Dianne (0003-4)

• Utley, Charles (0016-6-1)

• Villarreal, Tasha (0003-4)

Land Use-Transmission Lines • Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-7)

Meteorology and Air Quality • Arnold, Judy (0003-9)

• Boatenreiter, Glenn (0003-9)

• Carroll, Glenn (0002-9)

• Carter, Pat (0003-9)

• Cumbow, Kay (0003-9)

• Dawson, Daneille (0003-9)

• Dooley, Gerald (0003-9)

• Falconer, Kimberly (0003-9)

• Hatch, Sarah (0003-9)

• Howard, Claude (0016-17-1)

• Kasenow, Lisa (0003-9)

• Kushner, Adele (0005-9)

• Lewis, Marvin (0003-9)

• Lomas, Judith (0003-9)

• Lusk, Phil (0003-9)

• McConnell, Joy (0003-9)

• McNulty, Joy (0003-9)

• Michetti, Susan (0007-16)

• Mills, Nancy (0003-9)

• Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-9) (0019-14) (0019-15)

• Sheppard, Deborah (0003-9)

• Thomas, Russel (0003-9)

• Trujillo, Dianne (0003-9)

• Villarreal, Tasha (0003-9)

Need for Power • Parr, Sue (0016-12-3)

Opposition-Licensing Action • Arnold, Judy (0003-1)

• Barczak, Sara (0016-5-1) (0016-5-10) (0016-5-11) (0017-1-1) 

(0017-1-9) (0017-1-10)

• Baxter, Farouk (0001-1)

• Boatenreiter, Glenn (0003-1)

• Carroll, Glenn (0002-1)

• Carter, Pat (0003-1)

• Cumbow, Kay (0003-1)

• Dawson, Daneille (0003-1)

• Dooley, Gerald (0003-1)

• Falconer, Kimberly (0003-1)

• Hatch, Sarah (0003-1)
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-12 March 2011

Table E-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID)

• Henson, Courtney (0016-15-1) (0016-15-7)

• Kasenow, Lisa (0003-1)

• Lewis, Marvin (0003-1)

• Lomas, Judith (0003-1)

• Lusk, Phil (0003-1)

• McConnell, Joy (0003-1)

• McNulty, Joy (0003-1)

• Mills, Nancy (0003-1)

• Ogley-Oliver, Emma (0016-16-4)

• Patrie, Lewis E. (0013-4)

• Paul, Bobbie (0016-7-2)

• Sardi, David (0016-22-1)

• Sheppard, Deborah (0003-1)

• Stephens, Annie Laura (0016-10-1)

• Taylor, F (0004-1)

• Thomas, Ellen (0008-6)

• Thomas, Russel (0003-1)

• Trujillo, Dianne (0003-1)

• Villarreal, Tasha (0003-1)

• Zeller, Lou (0009-4)

Opposition-Licensing Process • Carroll, Glenn (0016-11-7)

• Kushner, Adele (0005-1)

• Sardi, David (0016-22-15)

Opposition-Nuclear Power • Barczak, Sara (0016-5-8) (0017-1-7)

• Carroll, Glenn (0016-11-8)

• Howard, Claude (0016-17-3)

• Michetti, Susan (0007-1) (0007-7) (0007-15)

• Ogley-Oliver, Emma (0016-16-6)

• Sardi, David (0016-22-5) (0016-22-12)

• Smith, Nathan (0006-1)

• Vincent, Patricia (0016-18-1)

Outside Scope-Emergency 

Preparedness

• Paul, Bobbie (0016-7-6)

Outside Scope-Miscellaneous • Howard, Claude (0016-17-2)

• Paul, Bobbie (0016-7-1)

• Rivard, Betsy (0016-20-2)

• Sardi, David (0016-22-9)

• Utley, Charles (0016-6-5)

Outside Scope-NRC 

Oversight • Byne, Dick (0016-2-1)

• DeLoach, George (0016-1-4)
Appendix E

March 2011 E-13 NUREG-1947

Table E-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID)

Outside Scope-Safety • Arnold, Judy (0003-3)

• Barczak, Sara (0016-5-3) (0017-1-3)

• Baxter, Farouk (0001-2) (0001-3)

• Boatenreiter, Glenn (0003-3)

• Carroll, Glenn (0002-3)

• Carter, Pat (0003-3)

• Cumbow, Kay (0003-3)

• Dawson, Daneille (0003-3)

• Dooley, Gerald (0003-3)

• Falconer, Kimberly (0003-3)

• Hatch, Sarah (0003-3)

• Henson, Courtney (0016-15-2) (0016-15-6)

• Kasenow, Lisa (0003-3)

• Kushner, Adele (0005-3)

• Lewis, Marvin (0003-3)

• Lomas, Judith (0003-3)

• Lusk, Phil (0003-3)

• McConnell, Joy (0003-3)

• McNulty, Joy (0003-3)

• Michetti, Susan (0007-11)

• Mills, Nancy (0003-3)

• Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-5)

• Rivard, Betsy (0016-20-1)

• Sheppard, Deborah (0003-3)

• Stone, Jesse (0016-14-2)

• Taylor, F (0004-3)

• Thomas, Russel (0003-3)

• Trujillo, Dianne (0003-3)

• Villarreal, Tasha (0003-3)

Outside Scope-Security and 

Terrorism

• Sardi, David (0016-22-2) (0016-22-6)

Process-ESP-COL • Parr, Sue (0016-12-5)

• Paul, Bobbie (0016-7-3)

• Rivard, Betsy (0016-20-3) (0016-20-4)

• Valentin, Dianne (0016-19-10) (0016-19-13)

Process-NEPA • Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-6)

• Zeller, Lou (0009-1)

• Vejdani, Vivianne (0011-1)

Socioeconomics • Baxley, Robin (0016-9-1) (0016-9-4)

• Carroll, Glenn (0016-11-3)
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-14 March 2011

Table E-2. (contd)

Comment Category Commenter (Comment ID)

• Elam, Terry (0016-4-2) (0016-4-4) (0016-4-5) (0016-4-7) (0018-1-2) 

(0018-1-4) (0018-1-6)

• Mitchell, Tommy (0016-8-2)

• Parr, Sue (0016-12-6)

• Rivard, Betsy (0016-20-7)

• Roberts, Ashley (0016-13-4) (0016-13-5) (0016-13-6)

• Sardi, David (0016-22-11)

• Stone, Jesse (0016-14-1) (0016-14-7)

Support-Licensing Action • Byne, Dick (0016-2-2) (0016-2-4)

• DeLoach, George (0016-1-2)

• Elam, Terry (0016-4-1) (0016-4-3) (0016-4-6) (0018-1-1) (0018-1-3) 

(0018-1-5)

• Parr, Sue (0016-12-1)

• Roberts, Ashley (0016-13-1) (0016-13-2) (0016-13-8)

Support-Licensing Process • Abrams, Lucious (0016-3-2)

• DeLoach, George (0016-1-3)

• Parr, Sue (0016-12-2) (0016-12-4)

• Stone, Jesse (0016-14-6) (0016-14-8)

Support-Nuclear Power • Baxley, Robin (0016-9-3)

• Stone, Jesse (0016-14-4)

Support-Plant • Abrams, Lucious (0016-3-1)

• Baxley, Robin (0016-9-2)

• Byne, Dick (0016-2-3)

• DeLoach, George (0016-1-1)

• Mitchell, Tommy (0016-8-1)

• Roberts, Ashley (0016-13-7)

• Stephens, Annie Laura (0016-10-2)

• Stone, Jesse (0016-14-3) (0016-14-5)

Transportation • Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-4)

Uranium Fuel Cycle • Barczak, Sara (0016-5-5)

• Michetti, Susan (0007-8) (0007-12) (0007-13) (0007-14)

• Mueller, Heinz J. (0019-3)

• Ogley-Oliver, Emma (0016-16-2)

• Utley, Charles (0016-6-11)

E.2.1 Comments Concerning Process − COL

Comment: So I'm looking at the notes that you gave in your PowerPoints and it's smart for you 

to put something like new and significant because nine times out of ten, the people in the 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-15 NUREG-1947

community who are already really oppressed both financially and socially are not going to be 

able to provide you with new and significant information. (0016-19-10 [Valentin, Dianne])

Comment: I turned the page and it says how impacts are quantified and you have small, 

moderate and large. And having worked in that community and met with a lot of people, 

watched people die from painful cancers in that community, I wondered how people feel -- you 

know, they're watching their friends and their families in hospital beds, if they consider the tubes 

and the death a moderate effect, a large effect or a small effect? I'm not understanding how 

you're making these determinations when you haven't come into the community and talked to 

the people. (0016-19-13 [Valentin, Dianne])

Comment: The Supplemental EIS is difficult to comment on, as I said, because it mostly says 

the staff is not aware of any new and significant site-specific or reactor-specific information, 

blah, blah, blah. And therefore, our conclusion remains valid. The problem is the NRC is 

dependent on Southern Company to provide that information, which I think is a little strange. 

They're the ones to provide the new and significant information. And so it just seems odd that 

they would be the ones to provide it. Would the NRC be talking to people in Finland that are still 

waiting for the AP1000? (0016-20-4 [Rivard, Betsy])

Response: The environmental review conducted by NRC at the COL stage is informed by the 

EIS prepared at the ESP stage, and that previous review is incorporated by reference in the 

COL SEIS. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.39, matters resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered to be 

resolved in any subsequent proceedings, absent identification of new and significant 

information. Consequently, the focus in the environmental review of a COL application 

referencing an ESP is on identifying developments since the ESP review that have significance 

for the conclusions previously reached. Accordingly, as required by NRC regulations, the COL 

SEIS for the proposed VEGP Unit 3 and 4 focuses on new and significant information identified 

after issuance of the final ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Furthermore, as explained in Section 1.6 of 

the SEIS, while Southern submitted its own assessment of whether new and significant 

information had been identified, the NRC staff independently considered Southern’s process 

and other available information, and determined for itself whether there was new and significant 

information that warranted further analysis.

The SMALL, MODERATE and LARGE significance levels are used by the review team after 

completing its analyses to communicate the results of its assessment of the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action and alternative to the action. The structure for the significance 

levels was based on Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance (40 CFR 1508.27) and 

on discussions with the CEQ and the EPA when it was first implemented for licensing actions. 

Definitions of the three significance levels are provided in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

A, Appendix B, and are provided in Section 1.1.1.1 of this SEIS. These comments did not result 

in changes to the SEIS.
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-16 March 2011

Comment: And so I would suggest that the NRC in all its deliberations and all the things before 

you from the intervenors and companies and whatever, get to know the people, not just what we 

say here. (0016-7-3 [Paul, Bobbie])

Comment: While the construction and operation of the new units is certain to impact the 

environment and people amongst whom it is built, the Draft Supplemental EIS provides a 

thorough consideration of those impacts and recommends that the positive impacts justify 

continued construction and licensure. (0016-12-5 [Parr, Sue])

Comment: But it's just a little unnerving to hear about early site permits, combined operating 

licenses, et cetera. It implies that everything is kind of in flux, there's no set design and I don't 

really know too many people that would build a house without a design. And I have heard that 

things are being built. I mean it's not just a flat level piece of dirt -- I don't think so anyway. 

(0016-20-3 [Rivard, Betsy])

Response: These comments express general views regarding the COL licensing 

process. These comments provide no new and significant information. Therefore, no changes 

were made to the SEIS.

E.2.2 Comments Concerning Process − NEPA

Comment: However, the NRC's definitions of new and significant are either outside the 

meaning of the statutory definition or wholly absent from NEPA and are, therefore, artificial and 

improper limitations on the extant NEPA proceeding. (0009-1 [Zeller, Lou])

Response: This comment expresses opposition to NRC's process for the environmental review 

of a COL application referencing an ESP. 10 CFR 51.92 reflects NRC's obligation under NEPA 

to address new and significant information for a COL that references an ESP. As outlined in the 

Federal Register notice of August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49429), the NRC rules indicate that issuance 

of an ESP and a COL are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment and that each action would require the preparation of an EIS. However, 10 CFR 

Part 52 does provide finality for issues previously resolved in an ESP proceeding. Thus, the 

environmental review conducted by NRC at the COL stage is informed by the EIS that was 

prepared at the ESP stage, and information from the ESP review can be incorporated by 

reference in the COL SEIS. The COL SEIS for the proposed Units 3 and 4 focuses on new and 

significant information identified after issuance of the final ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) and ensures 

that all environmental terms and conditions included in the ESP relevant to the COL will be 

satisfied by the date of issuance of the COL SEIS. No change was made to the SEIS as a 

result of this comment. 

Comment: We note that the NRC considers transmission lines to be "preconstruction" activities 

(discussed in the EIS for the ESP), and that preconstruction activities are considered in the 

context of cumulative impacts. EPA is concerned about the impacts of transmission lines and 

supporting infrastructure for the project and, in accordance with NEPA, considers these 

activities as part of the project, and not a separate action. (0019-6 [Mueller, Heinz J.])
Appendix E

March 2011 E-17 NUREG-1947

Response: Because the Vogtle COL application references the Vogtle ESP, the NRC staff’s 

environmental review focuses primarily on whether any new and significant information has 

been identified with respect to the impacts previously discussed in the ESP EIS (see, 10 CFR 

51.50(c)(1), 51.92(e)(7)). The proposed extent of the potential new transmission line right-ofway (ROW) is discussed in section 4.1.2 of the ESP EIS, and the impacts of the new 

transmission ROW are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). With 

respect to impacts associated with the transmission line ROW, no significant new information 

was identified during the preparation of the SEIS. Under NRC regulations, preconstruction 

activities such as the building of transmission lines are excluded from the definition of 

“construction” because they are outside the NRC’s regulatory jurisdiction and are not authorized 

by NRC’s licensing action (see 10 CFR 50.10(a); 72 FR 57416 (2007)). The Commission has 

therefore explained that the impacts of those activities are to be analyzed in the environmental 

review for a COL application, but in the context of cumulative impacts (see, 72 FR 57421). The 

comment did not provide new and significant information. Therefore, no change was made to 

the SEIS.

Comment: Personnel with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have 

reviewed the above-referenced Supplement Environmental Impact Statement for the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4. DNR has no comment at this time. (0011-1 [Vejdani, 

Vivianne])

Response: The NRC acknowledges the South Carolina DNR review of the draft SEIS through 

the NEPA process. There was no change to the SEIS as a result of this comment.

E.2.3 Comments Concerning Land Use − Transmission Lines

Comment: The DSEIS (pages 3-7 and 3-8) discusses the construction of a new transmission 

line through a "macro-right-of-way." This term should be defined in the text, with details given 

regarding the proposed extent and impacts of this new transmission line. The FSEIS should 

also clarify whether there are plans to issue a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) for these lines 

pursuant to the NRC's LWA process. (0019-7 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: Sections 2.7.1 and 3.3 of the SEIS have been updated to clarify the definition of the 

transmission line Representative Delineated Corridor that was the focus of the staff’s analysis of 

transmission line impacts in the ESP EIS. Construction of the new transmission line ROW 

would not require an LWA issued by NRC because construction of new transmission facilities is 

not considered construction under NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.4). 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-18 March 2011

E.2.4 Comments Concerning Meteorology and Air Quality

Comment: COMPARISONS AND ALTERNATIVES 

Table 7-1 compares only three energy types: coal, oil and nuclear. The table must be revised to 

compare also wind, solar, conservation and efficiency. In the likelihood that NRC does not feel 

qualified to make the assessment on alternative energy, an outside contractor should conduct 

the study. The study should include the DOE and Oceana reports as well as IEER's CarbonFree and Nuclear-Free report. As stated above, the cost savings and benefits of readily 

available alternatives must be contrasted with long-range, high-risk speculation on new reactor 

build. Georgia's excellent potential for offshore wind must be incorporated into the EIS. 

(0003-9 [Arnold, Judy] [Boatenreiter, Glenn] [Carter, Pat] [Cumbow, Kay] [Dawson, Daneille] [Dooley, 

Gerald] [Falconer, Kimberly] [Hatch, Sarah] [Kasenow, Lisa] [Lewis, Marvin] [Lomas, Judith] [Lusk, Phil] 

[McConnell, Joy] [McNulty, Joy] [Mills, Nancy] [Sheppard, Deborah] [Thomas, Russel] [Trujillo, Dianne] 

[Villarreal, Tasha]); (0002-9 [Carroll, Glenn])

Comment: COMPARISONS AND ALTERNATIVES 

Table 7-1 compares only three energy types: coal, oil and nuclear. The table must be revised to 

compare also wind, solar, conservation and efficiency. In the likelihood that NRC does not feel 

qualified to make the assessment on alternative energy, an outside contractor should conduct 

the study. The study should include the DOE and Oceana reports as well as IEER's CarbonFree and Nuclear-Free report. As stated above, the cost savings and benefits of readily 

available alternatives must be contrasted with long-range, high-risk speculation on new reactor 

build. Georgia's excellent potential for offshore wind must be incorporated into the EIS. 

Rather than continue with this flawed and dangerous model, which puts at immediate risk the 

community which lives close to the existing reactors, the only responsible action is to study and 

evaluate alternatives in the studies by NC WARN, Arjun Makhijani, SACE, DOE, and OCEANA. 

Otherwise we would be repeating the wasteful and dangerous use of valuable resources 

particularly people's lives which were spent in building the first two reactors. (0005-9 [Kushner, 

Adele])

Comment: Another reason not to permit new construction is that it contributes to global 

warming from cradle to grave with an mean of 66 grams CO2 equivalent per kWh. The highest 

renewable energy has a mean of 41 grams CO2 equivalent per kWh life cycle. We must 

conserve CO2 emissions everywhere possible, and new plant construction with too many other 

disadvantages doesn't pass the acceptable test. (0007-16 [Michetti, Susan])

Response: Table 7-1 in this SEIS provides estimates of CO2 emission rates for a variety of 

sources, including coal-fired, natural-gas-fired, and nuclear power plants. The table is intended 

to provide context for comparing CO2 emission rates from base-load power sources evaluated in 

Section 9.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). As discussed in Section 9.2 of the ESP EIS, the NRC 

staff concluded that wind, solar, and other alternatives not requiring new generating capacity 

were not reasonable alternatives for base-load power generation. Because these comments did 

not provide new and significant information, no change was made to the SEIS.
Appendix E

March 2011 E-19 NUREG-1947

Comment: Sometimes I wonder why is black smoke coming out of the stacks sometimes? My 

question is what's going on out there polluting and poisoning people within the community?

(0016-17-1 [Howard, Claude])

Response: Air quality impacts are addressed in Section 5.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). As 

stated in Section 5.2, Units 3 and 4 would have standby auxiliary diesel generators and boilers 

that will be used on an infrequent basis, and the pollutants discharged will be permitted in 

accordance with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. This comment appears to be 

referring to the existing units at the Vogtle site and does not provide any specific information 

relating to environmental effects of the proposed action. Because this comment did not provide 

new and significant information, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: EPA also recommends a discussion of best management practices to reduce 

GHGs and other air emissions during construction and operation of the facility. Specifically, 

clean energy options such as energy efficiency and renewable energy should be a 

consideration in the use of construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles. For example, 

equipment and vehicles that use conventional petroleum (e.g., diesel) should incorporate clean 

diesel technologies and fuels to reduce emissions of GHGs and other pollutants, and should 

adhere to anti-idling policies to the extent possible. Alternate fuel vehicles (e.g., natural gas, 

electric) are also possibilities. (0019-9 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: Measures to be taken to reduce construction-related pollutant emissions, such as 

maintaining equipment in good operating condition and developing a construction management 

traffic plan, are discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Such 

measures will generally reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Section 7.2 of this SEIS

provides comparative estimates of GHG emissions associated with nuclear, coal, and natural 

gas base-load power generation. As discussed in that section, the greatest contribution to GHG 

emissions from nuclear power plants is associated with the nuclear fuel cycle; contributions from 

construction, operations, or decommissioning are comparatively less. The staff also determined 

in that section of the SEIS that the conclusion from the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) regarding GHG

impacts remain valid. Nevertheless, the staff agrees that best management practices, such as 

using clean diesel technologies or alternative fuel vehicles, keeping equipment in good working 

order, and reducing idling time, could be implemented to reduce GHG emissions associated 

with construction and operation of the plant. No change was made to the SEIS as a result of 

this comment. 

Comment: CEQ Draft Guidance on GHG Analysis within NEPA: On February 18, 2010, the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed four steps to modernize and reinvigorate 

NEPA. In particular, the CEQ issued draft guidance for public comment on, among other issues, 

when and how Federal agencies must consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change 

in their proposed actions. (Reference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/epa) 

The draft guidance explains how Federal agencies should analyze the environmental impacts of 

greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when they describe the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action under NEPA. It provides practical tools for agency reporting, including a 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-20 March 2011

presumptive threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from 

the proposed action to trigger a quantitative analysis, and instructs Federal agencies regarding 

how to assess the effects of climate change on the proposed action and their design. The draft 

guidance does not apply to land and resource management actions and does not propose to 

regulate greenhouse gases. 

While this guidance is not yet final (and thus, not required), we recommend that the FSEIS 

explicitly reference the draft guidance, describe the elements of the draft guidance, and to the 

relevant extent, provide the assessments suggested by the guidance. (0019-14 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: Discussion of GHG emissions and climate change in this SEIS was guided by the 

focus on new and significant information subsequent to the issuance of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a). As noted in Section 7.2 of the SEIS, although the staff considered GHG emissions in 

the ESP EIS and the issue is therefore not new, the staff re-examined its previous analysis to 

demonstrate conformance with the November 3, 2009, Commission Order CLI-09-21 (NRC 

2009). This order is consistent with the objectives of the CEQ guidance by directing NRC staff 

to include consideration of GHG emissions from operation, construction, and the uranium fuel 

cycle in environmental reviews under NEPA. Because this comment did not provide new and 

significant information, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: (Note that the discussion in Section 7.2 and referencing the Sovacool paper (see 

footnote 1 below) regarding the derivation of 447,000 metric tons/year of CO2 emissions from a 

1000 MW nuclear power plant is difficult to follow. For example, we could not find the "1 percent 

to 5 percent" citation noted as being in the Sovacool paper. It would be helpful to show a 

detailed derivation of the amount of direct and indirect CO2-equivalent emissions expected 

specifically from this project.) (0019-15 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: Section 7.2 of the SEIS has been modified to clarify the discussion regarding 

estimates of CO2 emissions from nuclear power plants. With respect to derivation of projectspecific emissions, the level of detail in the staff’s discussion of GHG emissions and climate 

change in this SEIS was guided by the focus on new and significant information subsequent to 

the issuance of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Moreover, as discussed in Section 7.2, the vast 

majority of GHG emissions associated with nuclear power generation as reported in Table 7-1 

are from the uranium fuel cycle.

E.2.5 Comments Concerning Hydrology − Surface Water

Comment: The draft EIS fails to analyze the continuance of an historic 10-year drought already 

impacting the Savannah River Basin. The Savannah River is currently the fourth most polluted 

body of water in the U.S. The two reactors at Vogtle already withdraw over 68 million gallons of 

water each day, more than the combined daily usage of Atlanta, Savannah and Augusta. 

Not all of the water withdrawn is returned to the river, much of it is lost as water vapor, a 

greenhouse gas, a point which also is not analyzed in the draft EIS. The water that the reactors 

return to the river will be hotter than the water which was withdrawn. Two-thirds of the heat 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-21 NUREG-1947

generated in the nuclear reactor will not be turned into electricity, but will be vented to the local 

environment as waste heat contributing to drought conditions. This environmental impact has 

not been analyzed in the draft EIS. (0002-4 [Carroll, Glenn])

Comment: The draft EIS fails to analyze the continuance of an historic 10-year drought already 

impacting the Savannah River Basin. The Savannah River is currently the fourth most polluted 

body of water in the U.S. The two reactors at Vogtle already withdraw over 68 million gallons of 

water each day, more than the combined daily usage of Atlanta, Savannah and Augusta. 

• Not all of the water withdrawn is returned to the river, much of it is lost as water vapor, a 

greenhouse gas, a point which is not analyzed in the draft EIS. 

• The water that the reactors return to the river will be hotter than the water which was 

withdrawn. 

• Two-thirds of the heat generated in the nuclear reactor will not be turned into electricity, but 

will be vented to the local environment as waste heat contributing to drought conditions. This 

environmental impact has not been analyzed in the draft EIS. (0004-4 [Taylor, F])

Comment: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The draft EIS fails to analyze the continuance of an 

historic 10-year drought already impacting the Savannah River Basin. The Savannah River is 

currently the fourth most polluted body of water in the U.S. The two reactors at Vogtle already 

withdraw over 68 million gallons of water each day, more than the combined daily usage of 

Atlanta, Savannah and Augusta. (0003-4 [Arnold, Judy] [Boatenreiter, Glenn] [Carter, Pat] [Cumbow, 

Kay] [Dawson, Daneille] [Dooley, Gerald] [Falconer, Kimberly] [Hatch, Sarah] [Kasenow, Lisa] [Lewis, 

Marvin] [Lomas, Judith] [Lusk, Phil] [McConnell, Joy] [McNulty, Joy] [Mills, Nancy] [Sheppard, Deborah] 

[Thomas, Russel] [Trujillo, Dianne] [Villarreal, Tasha]); (0005-4 [Kushner, Adele]) 

Comment: Citizens were not allowed to use water to water organic gardens in Georgia during 

recent droughts, while the nuclear plants were not shut down during the same droughts. It is 

unacceptable the nuclear plants in Georgia are already diverting water use away from citizens in 

order to not overheat and jeopardize public health. (0007-6 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: Additionally, since four years ago, this region suffered through a severe drought 

and the reliability of existing nuclear plants were tested, and there were failures then that have 

continued even through this year. The powering back or shutting down of TVA's Browns Ferry 

reactors along the Tennessee River in Alabama, for example. And yet somehow the NRC is 

able to recommend approving the combined operating license for Vogtle even though the 

reactor design that Southern Company intends to build here has yet to be approved and water 

concerns remain and other issues are yet to be resolved. (0016-5-4 [Barczak, Sara]); (0017-1-4

[Barczak, Sara])

Comment: Does the NRC even care that if Plant Vogtle is expanded less water will be 

available in the Savannah River for other users both upstream and downstream? People have 

heard me state this statistic before, but I'm going to do it again tonight. To put the consumptive 

water loss in perspective from Plant Vogtle -- that is the water that does not go back into the 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-22 March 2011

river -- with average per capita daily water use in Georgia at 75 gallons from surface and 

groundwater sources, this means the two existing and two proposed reactors could use enough 

water to supply 1.4 to 2.3 million Georgians. Somehow the NRC thinks that is a small impact. 

Read the EIS, they consider it a small impact. We disagree and we believe that the future 

communities upstream and downstream of the plant will vehemently disagree as climate change 

impacts are observed and droughts get longer and more severe and everyone is fighting over 

water. But it'll be too late by then. (0016-5-9 [Barczak, Sara])

Comment: ...the high water that's being consumed by the plant is just astronomical. (0016-6-1

[Utley, Charles])

Comment: The operating permit must address drought conditions, when are they critical and 

what are the limits. (0016-21-7 [Booher, Sam])

Comment: It's my belief that granting this permit will ...endanger our water supply, especially in 

the face of global warming. (0016-22-3 [Sardi, David])

Comment: ...I ask you to consider the power plant's impact on our water resources. Power 

plants require both certain temperature and enormous quantities as was just said, and the new 

plants will make a large impact on our water supply in the future, which is expected to be a lot 

more limited. Electricity supplies threaten the water resources that's an important aspect of the 

region -- tourism, agriculture, fishing industries and sensitive biodiversity. (0016-22-10 [Sardi, 

David])

Comment: France, as has already been mentioned today, generates the majority of their 

energy from nuclear energy, has already been forced to shut down power plants days at a time 

for these reasons [water temperature increases and droughts]... (0016-22-13 [Sardi, David])

Comment: Does the NRC even care that if Plant Vogtle is expanded less water will be 

available in the Savannah River for other users both upstream and downstream? To put this 

consumptive water loss in perspective from Plant Vogtle, with average per capita daily water 

use in Georgia at 75 gallons from surface and ground water sources, this means the two 

existing and two proposed reactors could use enough water to supply 1.4 to 2.3 million 

Georgians. Somehow the NRC thinks that is a "small" impact. We disagree and we believe that 

the future communities upstream and downstream of the plant will vehemently disagree as 

climate change impacts are observed and droughts get longer and more severe and everyone is 

fighting over water. But it'll be too late by then. (0017-1-8 [Barczak, Sara])

Response: The impacts of Savannah River water use during drought flows were evaluated in 

ESP EIS Section 5.3.2.1 (NRC 2008a). The cumulative impacts associated with existing water 

use by VEGP Units 1 and 2, including water use during drought conditions, were evaluated in 

ESP EIS Section 7.3. The thermal effects of plant discharge to the Savannah River were 

evaluated in ESP EIS Section 5.3.3.1 as well as in Section 5.3 of this SEIS. Cooling tower 

impacts were evaluated in ESP EIS Section 5.2.1 (NRC 2008a). Because these comments did 

not provide new and significant information, no change was made to the SEIS.
Appendix E

March 2011 E-23 NUREG-1947

Comment: The problem is that in the summer with low flows and the river water a lot warmer, 

Plant Vogtle needs a lot more water just to cool the current two reactors efficiently. I would offer 

that during low flow and drought conditions, 83 million gallons will not be sufficient to cool the 

water for all four reactors. (0016-21-1 [Booher, Sam])

Comment: The second problem is that I believe federal law requires Georgia Power to keep 

track of the temperature and quantity of the river water they remove and record the temperature 

and quantity of the water being discharged back into the river. Equally important is the need to 

keep the NRC and the public informed of this information. (0016-21-2 [Booher, Sam])

Comment: When the Tennessee Valley Authority, TVA, finds the Tennessee River 

temperature is too warm, TVA is required to reduce the energy production. Why, with the 

current two and soon to be four reactors will Georgia Power not be required to monitor the 

Savannah River water temperature they remove from the river? I can see 160 million gallons of 

very warm river water needed to cool all four reactors. (0016-21-3 [Booher, Sam])

Comment: The Savannah River needs to be allowed to retain some dissolved oxygen for 

Savannah. During drought conditions four unconstrained reactors will not allow sufficient 

dissolved oxygen downstream. 

The problem is that the current Georgia Power operating permit from EPD, the current Vogtle 

permit, does not have a requirement for anyone to keep track of how much Savannah River 

water and its daily temperature of that water is removed from the river. Nor is there any daily 

record of the amount of water and its temperature being discharged back into the Savannah 

River provided EPD, NRC or the public. (0016-21-4 [Booher, Sam])

Response: Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

have authority to require water quality monitoring for nonradiological material in the waters of 

the United States. The NRC has no authority to place water monitoring requirements on any 

facility, except for radiological monitoring. Withdrawals from and discharge to the Savannah 

River are governed by state permits as described in ESP EIS Section 5.3 (NRC 2008a). 

Because these comments did not provide new and significant information, no change was made 

to the SEIS.

Comment: Last, I read paragraph 5.3 in the Draft Supplemental EIS. My understanding is that 

your staff's result is from modeling and not real water withdrawal and discharge or actual on-site 

data. Also, your modeling does averaging and it's not based on low flow and drought conditions, 

the water temperature, which is my only concern. The law says the returning water cannot be 

more than five degrees greater than the temperature of the original water as withdrawn from the 

river. 

We will be having more drought conditions before reactors 3 and 4 go back on line. You need to 

check your data under these conditions, not averaging. (0016-21-5 [Booher, Sam])
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-24 March 2011

Comment: Since federal law requires this information of TVA, why is EPD allowed to issue 

permits to Georgia Power without following the same legal daily water temperature 

requirements? I do not believe the law talks about diluting plumes out in the river. It is my 

understanding that EPD allows periodic testing of water temperature downstream from the 

discharge point. I offer these diluted plumes in the river as nothing more than a way to get 

around federal law and it should be reviewed by your office. (0016-21-6 [Booher, Sam])

Response: Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

have authority to require water quality monitoring for nonradiological material in the waters of 

the United States. The NRC has no authority to place water quality monitoring requirements on 

any facility, except for radiological monitoring. Withdrawals from and discharge to the 

Savannah River are governed by state permits as described in ESP EIS Section 5.3 (NRC 

2008a). Water quality impacts, including the thermal effects of plant discharge to the Savannah 

River under normal and low flow conditions, were evaluated in ESP EIS Section 5.3.3.1 as well 

as in Section 5.3 of this SEIS. Because these comments did not provide new and significant 

information, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: Title IV, Permits and Licenses section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

requires "any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not 

limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the 

navigable waters, [to] provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State" 

indicating that the discharges will comply with applicable provisions in the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act. This requirement was included in Sections 1.5 and 4.3, and Table H-1 of 

the VEGP Draft SEIS and states that a 401 Water Quality Certification be received from the 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) to support the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COL 

process. On June 1, 2010, the GDNR issued a 401 Water Quality Certification (JPN 

200701837) to SNC for the VEGP Units 3 and 4 site. Please find enclosed as Attachment 1 a 

copy of the 401 Water Quality Certification. 

Furthermore, as described in Condition #3 of the Certification, the 401 Water Quality 

Certification will be effective once the GDNR has issued a Stream Buffer Variance for the 

project. On April 29, 2010, the GDNR issued a Stream Buffer Variance to SNC for the VEGP 

Units 3 and 4 site. Please find enclosed as Attachment 2 a copy of the Stream Buffer Variance. 

SNC requests that Sections 1.5 and 4.3, and Table H-1 be revised to indicate that a 401 Water 

Quality Certification has been issued by the GDNR for VEGP Units 3 and 4. (0014-1 [Pierce, 

Charles])

Response: Sections 1.5 and 4.3 and Table H-1 were modified to reflect receipt of the 

401 Water Quality Certification (Southern 2010). 

Comment: The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) should include a 

graph of the plume showing the temperature profile, and a discussion of how the increase will 

(or will not) cause a violation of Georgia's water quality standard for temperature at the point of 

discharge. 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-25 NUREG-1947

In addition, the design and location of the proposed new cooling water intake structure has 

changed. The NRC determined that this new location would not alter conclusions presented in 

the previous ESP FEIS. (0019-1 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Comment: Southern indicated that there would be an operations-related three percent 

increase in the thermal discharge flow. The NRC determined that the thermal plume would 

remain small compared to the width of the Savannah River at this location, and that it would not 

impede fish passage in the river (Section 5.4.2). In addition, the design and location of the 

proposed new cooling water intake structure has changed. The NRC determined that this new 

location would not alter conclusions in the previous ESP FEIS. Pursuant to our review, the 

following areas need clarification: 

• Temperature: The discussion of the 3% increase in the thermal discharge should include a 

graph of the plume showing the temperature profile, and a discussion of how the increase 

will (or will not) cause a violation of Georgia's water quality standard for temperature at the 

point of discharge. 

• Cooling Water Intake: For clarity, the FSEIS should restate the requirements for the cooling 

water intake structure. (0019-8 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: Requirements of the cooling water intake structure were described in ESP EIS 

Section 5.4.2.2 (NRC 2008a). These requirements under the Clean Water Act include a 

through-screen velocity of 0.2 m/s (0.5 ft/s) and withdrawal of less than 5 percent of the source 

water body mean annual flow (66 FR 65256). As described in Section 5.4.2 of this SEIS, there 

was no change in these requirements and the changes to the design and location of the cooling 

water intake structure, described in Section 3.2.2, did not result in a change to the 

environmental impacts.

The NRC staff believes the comment may reflect a misconception with respect to the discharge. 

A 3 percent increase in the discharge flow was evaluated in Section 5.3. As noted in Table I-1 

of Appendix I, however, the cooling water system cooling tower blowdown temperature was 

unchanged from the value reported in the ESP EIS. The maximum temperature of the 

blowdown used in the evaluation of the thermal plume in Section 5.3 was therefore identical to 

that used in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Section 5.4.2 was modified to clarify that the aquatic 

impacts evaluated were from the 3 percent increase in discharge flow, not an increase in 

discharge temperature.

An illustration of the size of the thermal plume resulting from the conservative analysis 

described in ESP EIS 5.3.3.1 was provided in ESP EIS Figure 5-1 (NRC 2008a). The increase 

in the size of this plume resulting from the 3 percent increase in discharge flow was quantified in 

Section 5.3 of this SEIS. 

Clarifying changes were made to Section 5.4.2 and a figure (Figure 5-1) was added as a result 

of these comments. 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-26 March 2011

E.2.6 Comments Concerning Hydrology − Groundwater

Comment: And when you think about it, you know, there are farmers who are going around 

now putting wells down and they're going deeper and deeper and deeper because as Sara said 

earlier, there is a drought. ...And yet we don't care about ours [our water], so we'll let them just 

suck and suck and suck all the way to the aquifer, that beautiful water that's underneath the 

earth and nobody should be even bothering with it. (0016-6-2 [Utley, Charles])

Comment: You have considered birds, you have considered fishes, you considered a lot of 

things, but nobody came to the communities that live in the shadow of these reactors and 

watched the water pressure change as Plant Vogtle does its flushing systems. (0016-19-2

[Valentin, Dianne])

Comment: But those who are not adversely affected should not disrespect the people who are. 

And should now not consider the people that are adversely impacted by the groundwater 

contamination... (0016-19-4 [Valentin, Dianne])

Response: Groundwater impacts were evaluated in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), and no new 

or significant information was identified by the NRC staff in its review of the COL. These 

comments do not provide any specific information relating to the environmental effects of 

Units 3 and 4 construction or operation. Because these comments did not provide new and 

significant information, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: Does the NRC monitor groundwater or is it Southern Company that does the 

monitoring? I would think it should be NRC. Is information public? What about rainwater, offsite 

groundwater? NRC should require that Southern Company provide the information to the public 

if they're doing the monitoring, but I really think NRC should be doing the monitoring. (0016-20-9

[Rivard, Betsy])

Response: Radiological monitoring required by the NRC was described in Section 5.9.6 of the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Any requirement for nonradiological groundwater monitoring near site 

facilities would be implemented through the applicable state permitting process. Maximum 

groundwater withdrawals are specified by state-issued permits, which were considered by the 

NRC staff. Because this comment did not provide new and significant information, no change 

was made to the SEIS.

E.2.7 Comments Concerning Ecology − Terrestrial

Comment: By letter dated September 19, 2008, we concurred with the findings of NRC's 

Biological Assessment for the effects of early site preparation and preliminary construction 

activities at the VEGP site. The list of species protected under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) that occur in the project area has not changed since September 2008, and includes the 

wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, indigo snake, and Canby's dropwort. The DEIS 

indicates that the NRC is preparing a second Biological Assessment for construction and 

operations effects. As transmission line corridors and other pertinent construction details are 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-27 NUREG-1947

more precisely defined, please coordinate directly with the US Fish and Wild Life Service's 

Coastal Georgia Sub-office supervisor, Strant Colwell, at (912) 832-8739, to conclude the ESA 

consultation process for the project. (0010-1 [Hogue, Gregory])

Comment: The DSEIS states that a biological assessment documenting potential impact on 

the federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial special as a result of operation of the 

proposed new units and proposed transmission line is in development. The FSEIS should 

provided updated information on this assessment. (0019-11 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: As part of the NRC’s responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act, the staff prepared a biological assessment (BA) that documents potential impacts on the 

Federally listed threatened or endangered species as a result of the site preparation (including 

construction of the onsite portion of the new 500-kV transmission line) and construction of 

Units 3 and 4 on the VEGP site. The BA for the ESP EIS was submitted to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) on January 25, 2008 (NRC 2008b), and FWS concurred with the findings 

on September 19, 2008 (FWS 2008). In a letter dated January 7, 2010, NRC requested that the 

FWS Field Office in Brunswick, Georgia, provide information regarding Federally listed species 

and critical habitat that may have changed since the 2008 consultation (NRC 2010b). On 

February 12, 2010, FWS provided a response letter indicating listed species under FWS

purview had been adequately addressed for limited site-preparation activities on the VEGP site

(FWS 2010a). On October 20, 2010, FWS provided an updated list of Federally listed 

threatened or endangered species that can be expected to occur in the project area (FWS 

2010b). NRC submitted a BA to FWS on February 24, 2011 to document potential impacts on 

Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species resulting from operation of Units 3 

and 4 and ancillary facilities, as well as construction and operation of the proposed transmission 

line ROW. This BA is included in Appendix F of this SEIS. 

Comment: The DEIS notes that bird collisions with tall structures and transmission lines are 

among the impacts of building and operating the proposed project (pages 4-6 and 5-3), but does 

not describe mitigation measures for these impacts. The Department recommends that the NRC 

and Southern coordinate with us and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife 

Division in the development of an Avian Protection Plan (APP). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) prohibits take of migratory birds except when specifically authorized by the Department 

of the Interior. The regulations implementing the MBTA (50 CFR Part 21) do not provide for 

permits authorizing take of migratory birds that may be killed or injured by activities that are 

otherwise lawful, such as by the construction and operation of power transmission lines. The 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for very limited issuance of permits that 

authorize take of eagles when such take is associated with otherwise lawful activities, is 

unavoidable despite implementation of advanced conservation practices, and is compatible with 

the goal of stable or increasing eagle breeding populations. The overall goal of the APP would 

be to minimize avian mortality associated with the proposed facilities. (0010-3 [Hogue, Gregory])

Response: Georgia Power Company (GPC) has developed an Avian Protection Program

(APP) that includes guidelines for siting new transmission lines (GPC 2006). When siting new 

transmission lines, substations, or other GPC facilities, available information on migratory and 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-28 March 2011

resident bird populations will be taken into account to ensure that the lines or facilities will have 

as little adverse impact as practicable on these bird species. GPC has implemented the APP to 

monitor and address the impacts of transmission lines on birds. Information on the APP was 

included in Section 5.4.1.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Additional information on the 

mitigation measures proposed in the APP to minimize bird collisions during construction and 

operation activities has been added to Sections 4.4.1 and 5.4.1 of this SEIS.

E.2.8 Comments Concerning Ecology − Aquatic

Comment: The Department had been concerned about the possible impacts of dredging the 

channel for barge delivery of reactors, containment vessels, and other large equipment; 

however, the DEIS notes (page 7-6) that Southern will instead deliver large components and 

materials by rail, and will not construct a barge slip or seek dredging of the Savannah River 

navigation channel. This change in the project plans eliminates our concerns related to ESAprotected aquatic species, such as the robust redhorse. (0010-2 [Hogue, Gregory])

Response: As indicated in this SEIS, the shipment of large components and materials by rail 

rather than using barges will eliminate the need to further consider the cumulative impacts to 

aquatic biota resulting from the potential dredging of the Savannah River navigation channel to 

accommodate barge traffic to the site. Because this comment did not provide new and 

significant information, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: Continuing measures to limit bioentrainment and other impacts to aquatic species 

from surface water withdrawals and discharges should be referenced in the FSEIS, and should 

continue to be addressed as the project progresses, in compliance with the NPDES Permit.

(0019-2 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: Because it incorporates the ESP-stage analysis by reference, this SEIS focuses on

new information discovered since the ESP review. There were no additional measures 

identified to limit entrainment or impingement beyond those specified in the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a), the COL draft SEIS (NRC 2010a), and the ESP evidentiary hearing. Southern has 

indicated that it will comply with any requirements or restrictions in the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for thermal or chemical discharges (Southern 

2007). The current NPDES permit for Units 1 and 2 does not have requirements or restrictions 

on entrainment or impingement. Until very recently, NPDES permits in the State of Georgia 

have not included restrictions or requirements for entrainment and impingement. A new State of 

Georgia regulation − "R.61-9, Water Pollution Control Permits" − that became effective on 

November 26, 2010 (Ga. Code Ann. 2010) provides consistency in permitting with the EPA 

regulations related to cooling water intake structures and will allow state rules to have specific 

requirements to minimize entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. The staff 

expects that the State of Georgia will include requirements to minimize entrainment and 

impingement of aquatic organisms as appropriate in the NPDES permits for Units 3 and 4. 

No change was made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.
Appendix E

March 2011 E-29 NUREG-1947

E.2.9 Comments Concerning Socioeconomics

Comment: But what I heard in Shell Bluff that dropped my world and changed me very 

profoundly was that in that part of the county, said the community, "we don't have a grocery 

store. If we have a fire, it takes 45 minutes for emergency personnel to get here". That is not in 

this EIS. Economic benefits are not created equal in Burke County. That needs to be noted.

(0016-11-3 [Carroll, Glenn])

Response: The NRC regulates the civilian use of nuclear materials to protect the public health 

and safety and the environment. Issues related solely to the location of commercial 

establishments, distribution of economic benefits and of taxes for infrastructure and/or services, 

such as fire services, are outside NRC's mission and authority, and are not addressed in this

SEIS. Socioeconomic impacts during construction and operation, including impacts to public 

services in Burke County as a result of the plant workforce during construction and operation, 

were addressed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). No change was made to 

the SEIS.

Comment: The expansion of Plant Vogtle is key to the growth of the region because it will 

provide employment opportunities to this part of the state, with steelworkers and well-paying 

jobs. At peak construction, over 3500 construction jobs and 800 permanent jobs at the site in a 

vast array of levels from administrative to technical to security. Permanent jobs will be a driver 

of the local economy, bringing with it small businesses and services that will benefit both the 

transient and permanent jobs that will be created at the site. (0016-4-2 [Elam, Terry])

Comment: The expansion will drive students to our technical college to develop fundamentals 

in math, science and other technologies that would be applicable to Southern Nuclear's

employment needs and help create a more educated workforce in general. (0016-4-4 [Elam, 

Terry]); (0018-1-4 [Elam, Terry])

Comment: But probably the most significant step in the process of finding a workforce to make 

this plant a very safe and reliable operation is that we have partnered with Southern Nuclear 

and have developed a two-year associate degree program in nuclear engineering technology.

(0016-4-5 [Elam, Terry])

Comment: The impact [of the expansion of Southern Nuclear Company] on creating an 

educated workforce and the potential for additional businesses will greatly benefit the local 

economy of Burke County. We will also benefit because we will receive students who will need 

training and taking advantage of the educational opportunities with the current and future crop of 

students. (0016-4-7 [Elam, Terry])

Comment: As a business we are members of other chambers of commerce and different 

things like that around the area and Burke County and the local community are very lucky to 

have this as far as financial impact. And people are jealous and envious that we have this in our 

area and I think we need to embrace that. (0016-9-4 [Baxley, Robin])
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-30 March 2011

Comment: The Augusta Metro Chamber of Commerce is pleased to support the expansion of 

Plant Vogtle. We believe that the facility is a good neighbor, supplying a needed commodity in 

an efficient and safe fashion. (0016-12-6 [Parr, Sue])

Comment: In addition, the thousands of short-term jobs created during the construction as well 

as the permanent jobs, once they are added, will provide a much needed boost to our economy.

(0016-13-4 [Roberts, Ashley])

Comment: I can tell you that this [the new units] is not just important to Burke County, this is 

important for our region of the state. This is the economic engine for what's moving our 

economy forward. These are jobs that won't be exported. (0016-14-1 [Stone, Jesse])

Comment: Employment opportunities to a part of the State that needs skilled workers and well 

paying jobs. At peak construction, 3500 construction jobs will need to be filled and after 

completion, there will be 800 permanent jobs at the site in a vast array of levels from 

administrative to technical to security. Permanent jobs will be a driver of the local economy, 

bringing with it small businesses and services that will benefit both the transient and permanent 

jobs that will be created at the site. (0018-1-2 [Elam, Terry]) 

Comment: The impact on creating an educated workforce and the potential for additional 

business creation will greatly benefit the local economy of Burke County. Augusta Technical 

College will also benefit by providing training and educational opportunities for current and 

future students. (0018-1-6 [Elam, Terry])

Response: These comments generally express support for Southern's plans to add two new 

units to the VEGP site, based on the potential positive socioeconomic impacts that this 

expansion would be expected to bring to the region. Socioeconomic impacts including 

employment, tax revenue, and economic impacts during construction and operation were 

discussed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 are the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), respectively. No new and 

significant information was provided in these comments. Therefore, no change was made to the 

SEIS. 

Comment: Our educational facilities are second to none in this area; and due to the taxes 

generated from Plant Vogtle, our school board has been able to maintain a relatively low millage 

rate in comparison to many other counties throughout the state. 

The poverty rate in Burke County is relatively high; and due to the taxes from Plant Vogtle, it 

levels the playing field giving opportunities to students that would never have those 

opportunities otherwise. 

The education today is the engine of our future economic growth and development. Due to Plant 

Vogtle's contributions, we are able to provide a quality education to all of our students here in 

Burke County. 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-31 NUREG-1947

A key question asked by companies and even families seeking to move to this area is about the 

quality of the public education system where they would be located. Because of Plant Vogtle's 

involvement, we are able in Burke County to answer that question with satisfaction and pride. 

We are extremely proud to have Plant Vogtle in our community. (0016-8-2 [Mitchell, Tommy])

Comment: And of course, from an economic standpoint, it has been great for us and helped us 

through this economy in the last year, this expansion. (0016-9-1 [Baxley, Robin])

Comment: Also, the tax revenues that we receive from Plant Vogtle allow our local government 

to provide a menu of services to our residents, all of our residents. And I think our EMA Director 

in the back would argue the fact that it would take 45 minutes to get to Shell Bluff. (0016-13-5

[Roberts, Ashley])

Comment: It also affords our Board of Education the opportunity to provide outstanding 

educational opportunities to benefit the children in our community, all of our community 

including the kids from Shell Bluff. (0016-13-6 [Roberts, Ashley])

Comment: I can tell you that this is going to have a positive (sic) impact on us if for some 

reason it doesn't go forward; to many, many people, to the people in Jenkins County where 

unemployment is 21 percent. It's only that low because they're able to commute up to Burke 

County to work up here, all the surrounding counties. We are hoping and praying that this 

project will go forward. (0016-14-7 [Stone, Jesse])

Response: These comments discuss past economic benefits to the community with regard to 

Units 1 and 2 and recent expansion activities related to Units 3 and 4. They provide some 

context for expectations regarding future behavior. Socioeconomic impacts including economic 

and tax impacts during construction and operation were addressed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of 

the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). No new and significant information was provided in these 

comments; therefore, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: Let's see, how many local people are actually employed -- will be employed by 

building Plant Vogtle, or were actually employed by building Vogtle 1 and 2? I'm of the 

impression they brought in a lot of people from the outside, I don't think it really had a big impact 

on employment in the county and how many will be brought in for 3 and 4. Burke County has a 

very high unemployment rate of 11.5 percent. Is that going to be substantially decreased by 

building Vogtle 3 and 4? (0016-20-7 [Rivard, Betsy])

Response: Employment impacts from construction and operation were addressed in Sections 

4.5 and 5.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), respectively. This comment provided no new and 

significant information. Therefore, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: This is an interesting fact, in 2006, over 3.7 million people spent almost $3.5 billion 

on ecotourism, hunting and fishing, just in the state of Georgia. And so draining the water, 

decreasing the water supply to produce nuclear energy is going to hurt our economy tomorrow. 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-32 March 2011

We can't sacrifice thousands of permanent jobs tomorrow for temporary jobs today. 

(0016-22-11 [Sardi, David])

Response: Socioeconomic impacts including employment and recreational impacts during 

construction and operation were addressed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a). No new and significant information was provided in this comment. Therefore, no 

change was made to the SEIS.

E.2.10 Comments Concerning Historic and Cultural Resources

Comment: Upon review of your September 2, 2010 submission, we reiterate our January 7, 

2010 electronic message to decline the opportunity to participate in this consultation. Burke 

County currently exists beyond our scope of interest for the state of Georgia. No known impacts 

to religious, cultural, or historical assets of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas will occur in 

conjunction with this proposal. No further consultation with our Tribe regarding this project is 

anticipated at this time. (0012-1 [Celestine, Bryant])

Response: NRC requested the participation of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 25 Tribes in identifying new and significant 

information concerning historic properties that may be impacted by this licensing action. 

Appendixes C and F of this SEIS have been revised to include the consultation correspondence 

from the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas.

Comment: We appreciate the thorough discussion of cultural and historic resources in the 

DSEIS. Pursuant to the location of a historic cemetery on the VEGP site, Southern entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding (SHPO) with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO). We also note SCE&G's cultural resources awareness training and inadvertent 

discovery procedure training for staff working at the site. The FSEIS should include an update of 

coordination activities with the SHPO. (0019-12 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: This comment refers to general cultural resources management and the status of 

consultation documented in the SEIS. Southern (as opposed to South Carolina Electric and 

Gas as cited in the comment) has an inadvertent discovery procedure, which is described in the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The SEIS includes the updated status of consultation activities with the 

SHPO.

Comment: I'm wondering if you talked to anybody from the Yemassee Tribe. But yet maybe it's 

not new or maybe it's not significant and maybe you wouldn't consider it either. (0016-19-12

[Valentin, Dianne])

Response: The NRC requested the participation of the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and 25 Federally Recognized Tribes in identifying new and significant information 

concerning historic properties that may be impacted by this licensing action. As of August 5, 

2010, the Yemassee Tribe was not listed as a Federally Recognized Tribe in the Federal 

Register by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Consultation activities associated with this licensing 

action are discussed in Chapter 2 of this SEIS. Appendix C contains a complete listing of the 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-33 NUREG-1947

25 Federally Recognized Tribes with which NRC consulted. Because this comment did not 

provide new and significant information, no change was made to the SEIS.

E.2.11 Comments Concerning Environmental Justice

Comment: I really don't think that as a regulatory agency you have met your, what should be a 

standard when you allow the research and information that you use primarily to come from 

those that you regulate and you don't go into the communities that are affected adversely by the 

presence of these reactors, the two that are already here and the ones that are coming. 

It's important that people be considered. (0016-19-1 [Valentin, Dianne])

Comment: Now if you don't live in an area of Waynesboro that is impacted by the 

contaminations from Vogtle 1 and 2 and you don't have to be afraid of the environmental 

impacts of Vogtle 3 and 4, that's great. But at least give consideration to the people who do. 

You don't know them? Go get to know them, see what is actually happening in their 

communities, understand, talk to them because obviously you have not, because there is no 

way that you could sit through conversations with these people who live in these communities 

and not be personally impacted even if you don't think the environment is impacted. (0016-19-8

[Valentin, Dianne])

Response: On February 11, 1994, the President issued Executive Order 12898, “Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

(Executive Order 1994).” This order requires each Federal executive branch agency to identify 

and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations resulting from its actions. The 

memorandum accompanying the Executive Order directed Federal executive agencies to 

consider environmental justice, and CEQ provided guidance for addressing environmental 

justice. Although complying with the executive order is not mandatory for independent 

agencies, the Commission has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews 

as part of its NEPA responsibilities. The Commission’s “Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions” contains guidance 

and information for addressing issues of environmental justice (69 FR 52040). To perform a 

review of environmental justice in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant, the NRC staff examines 

the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within 80 km (50 mi) of the 

site. The staff uses the most recent census data available. The staff also supplements its 

analysis with field inquiries to groups such as county planning departments, social service 

agencies, local churches, and private social service agencies. Once the locations of minority 

and low-income populations are identified, the staff evaluates whether any of the environmental 

impacts of the proposed action could affect these populations in a disproportionately high and 

adverse manner. The staff used this process during preparation of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a); 

the environmental justice process and analysis was documented in Sections 2.10, 4.7, and 5.7. 

No change was made to the SEIS.
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-34 March 2011

Comment: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Impacts on the community living directly adjacent to 

reactors already at the Vogtle site are LARGE. The Shell Bluff community is in the emergency 

planning zone of the reactors, and yet its residents do not enjoy emergency fire, police and 

health protection. This under-served community does not have a grocery store, yet could be 

permanently dislocated following an accidental radiation release from either the existing, or 

proposed, reactors at Vogtle. This environmental justice issue must be acknowledged and 

analyzed in the EIS. Health studies suggest cancer and death rates have risen in Burke County 

since Vogtle reactors 1 and 2 started operating. (0002-7 [Carroll, Glenn])

Comment: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Impacts on the community living directly adjacent to 

reactors already at the Vogtle site are LARGE. The Shell Bluff community is in the emergency 

planning zone of the reactors, and yet its residents do not enjoy emergency fire, police and 

health protection. This under-served community does not have a grocery store, yet could be 

permanently dislocated following an accidental radiation release from either the existing, or 

proposed, reactors at Vogtle. This environmental justice issue must be acknowledged and 

analyzed in the EIS. (0003-7 [Arnold, Judy] [Boatenreiter, Glenn] [Carter, Pat] [Cumbow, Kay] 

[Dawson, Daneille] [Dooley, Gerald] [Falconer, Kimberly] [Hatch, Sarah] [Kasenow, Lisa] [Lewis, Marvin] 

[Lomas, Judith] [Lusk, Phil] [McConnell, Joy] [McNulty, Joy] [Mills, Nancy] [Sheppard, Deborah] [Thomas, 

Russel] [Trujillo, Dianne] [Villarreal, Tasha]); (0005-7 [Kushner, Adele])

Comment: These two reactors were brought to Shell Bluff, Waynesboro to boost an 

economically depressed area. It was proposed that the area would be saved by the nuclear 

industry. It was proposed that the people residing in Shell Bluff would be saved by the nuclear 

industry. Maybe we thought that these two reactors would define Shell Bluff or the larger 

Waynesboro area as a celebrated zone, a special zone. 

However, we've come to think at Shell Bluff as a sacrifice zone. What does this mean? The local 

government and big businesses have taken advantage of people who are economically and 

politically powerless. My friends from Shell Bluff have not been saved by the nuclear industry. 

The wider area of Waynesboro has not been saved by the nuclear industry. Reactors 1 and 2 

have brought daily radioactive releases. Reactors 1 and 2 prevent locals from eating from the 

river. Reactors 1 and 2 prevent locals from drinking the local tap water. It's hot. Reactors 1 and 

2 produce significant amounts of waste -- not minuscule amounts of waste. (0016-16-1 [OgleyOliver, Emma])

Comment: You have to be aware of the fact that it [fallout from the atmosphere] is a major 

thing when you have children in our impacted area, it is a disproportionate environmental 

injustice for one community to stand all the pollution being poured on them. (0016-6-7 [Utley, 

Charles])

Response: The comments concern potential effects from construction and operation of the 

existing and proposed reactors at the VEGP site as a potential environmental justice issue. 

The environmental justice analysis was conducted in accordance with NRC guidance. Issues 

related to the distribution of taxes for infrastructure and/or services such as fire, police and 

health services are outside the NRC's mission and authority, and will not be addressed in the 

SEIS. To the extent the comments address the adequacy of Southern’s emergency plan, 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-35 NUREG-1947

emergency planning and preparedness is reviewed by the NRC as a part of its safety review 

and therefore is outside the scope of the environmental review. Environmental justice, the 

potential for disproportionate and adverse environmental impact on minority and low-income 

communities, including from socioeconomic impact, was addressed in Sections 4.7 and 5.7 of 

the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Sections 4.8 and 4.9 of the ESP EIS include discussions of the 

nonradiological and radiological health impacts on the public during construction, and Sections 

5.8 and 5.9 include discussions of the nonradiological and radiological impacts on the public 

during operation of the proposed facility. Information in Sections 7.7 and 7.8 of the ESP EIS 

addresses all potential cumulative nonradiological and radiological impacts on the public from 

operation of the proposed facility. The environmental justice analysis provided in Sections 4.7 

and 5.7 of the ESP EIS addresses disproportionately adverse human health impacts on minority 

and low-income communities that could potentially be produced by the construction and 

operation of the proposed facility, and information in Section 7.6 addresses cumulative impacts 

in terms of environmental justice (NRC 2008a). The review team found that all environmental 

emissions and operation dose assessments are well within NRC and EPA regulations, and no 

demographic subgroup is affected differently then another subgroup. No studies were identified 

that indicated minority and low-income individuals would be more susceptible to nonradiological 

emissions or radiological doses. No change was made to the SEIS as a result of these 

comments. 

Comment: The Final EIS for an early site permit for Plant Vogtle's Units 3 and 4 was 

completed in July 2008. The FEIS concluded: "[T]he impacts of plant operations on 

environmental justice would be SMALL because no environmental pathways, health 

characteristics, or other preconditions of the minority and low-income population were found that 

would lead to adverse and disproportionate impacts." Unbelievably, the report attributed the 

high percentage of minority and low-income people on the "sparseness" of the rural population. 

The data collection for this report consisted of interviews with just three residents. The 

application for a Vogtle combined operating license with environmental report was submitted to 

the NRC on March 31, 2008.

In 2009, subsequent to the Vogtle COLA and ESP-FEIS, a nuclear power siting study was 

published which suggests that there is a "reactor-related environmental injustice" at Plant 

Vogtle. Attachment C contains the full article (Alldred and Shrader-Frechette 2009). The study 

found:

"The mining, fuel enrichment-fabrication, and waste-management stages of the US commercial 

nuclear fuel cycle have been documented as involving environmental injustices affecting, 

respectively, indigenous uranium miners, nuclear workers, and minorities and poor people living 

near radioactive-waste storage facilities. After surveying these three environmental- injustice 

problems, the article asks whether US nuclear-reactor siting also involves environmental 

injustice. For instance, because high percentages of minorities and poor people live near the 

proposed Vogtle reactors in Georgia, would siting new reactors at the Vogtle facility involve 

environmental injustice? If so, would this case be an isolated instance of environmental 

injustice, or is the apparent Georgia inequity generally representative of environmental injustice 

associated with nuclear-reactor siting throughout the US? Providing a preliminary answer to 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-36 March 2011

these questions, the article uses census data, paired t-tests, and z-tests to compare each 

state's percentages of minorities and poor people to the percentages living in zip codes and 

census tracts having commercial reactors. Although further studies are needed to fully evaluate 

apparent environmental injustices, preliminary results indicate that, while reactor-siting-related 

environmental injustice is not obvious at the census-tract level (perhaps because census tracts 

are designed to be demographically homogenous), zipcode-scale data suggest reactor-related 

environmental injustice may threaten poor people (p < 0.001), at least in the southeastern 

United States.

The summary conclusions of the ESP Final EIS are plainly wrong or at least premature. The 

NRC must include this new information in its analysis. (0009-2 [Zeller, Lou])

Response: As a part of the environmental review required by the NEPA process during the 

ESP review, NRC conducted a scoping meeting that was announced in the Federal Register, on 

the NRC website, and in local and regional newspapers prior to the public meeting. Participants 

in the scoping process were provided an opportunity to submit oral and written comments to 

which the NRC staff responded. Consistent with its environmental review guidance, the staff 

also conducted interviews with local county government and social services agencies. A 

complete list of organizations contacted is in Appendix B of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). 

Possible environmental justice impacts occurring outside the impact region described the ESP 

EIS (such as those associated with mining and spent fuel storage) are beyond the scope of this 

environmental review and are not addressed in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). As stated in the 

NRC guidance, analyses of census data is done at the census block group level and provides 

information for geographic areas of approximately 1000 people each, on average, and as such 

provides sufficient geographic detail to assess the impact of VEGP Units 3 and 4 on minority 

and low-income populations. The ESP EIS concluded impacts of plant construction and 

operations on environmental justice would be SMALL because no environmental pathways, 

health characteristics, or other preconditions of the minority and low-income population were 

found that would lead to adverse and disproportionate impacts. This comment, including the 

referenced article, did not provide new information regarding the demographic composition 

around the VEGP site leading to the presence of additional environmental justice communities 

or environmental pathways, health characteristics, or other preconditions that would lead to 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income 

communities. Therefore, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: They [the people impacted] don't live a block away from this building, they don't 

work a block away from this building. And unfortunately, their children die or they move away, 

so they don't have as many children in these schools that Southern Nuclear is building and 

making, you know, the community shine and polish. But I don't think you know that because you 

never came and you never asked. (0016-19-9 [Valentin, Dianne])
Appendix E

March 2011 E-37 NUREG-1947

Comment: You have a list of staff conclusions that did not change and you -- I thought it was 

kind of nervy for you to list environmental justice, especially since nobody came to talk to the 

people in Shell Bluff. But you talk about socioeconomics and the people of Shell Bluff are 

getting poorer. (0016-19-11 [Valentin, Dianne])

Response: As a part of the environmental review required in the NEPA process during the 

ESP review, NRC conducted a scoping meeting that was announced in the Federal Register, on 

the NRC website, and in local and regional newspapers prior to the public meeting. Participants 

in the scoping process were provided an opportunity to submit oral and written comments to 

which the NRC staff responded. Consistent with its environmental review guidance, the NRC 

staff also conducted interviews with local county government and social services agencies. A 

list of organizations contacted is provided in Appendix B of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). As 

explained in the draft SEIS, the staff did not identify new and significant information regarding 

environmental justice during its COL review. These comments did not provide any new and 

significant information. Therefore, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: Section 3-301(b) of Executive Order 12898 states that "Environmental human 

health analyses, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall identify multiple and cumulative 

exposures." A missing factor in the assessment of Vogtle's impact is the proximity of the nuclear 

power station to the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site. Vogtle and SRS emissions 

intermingle, making independent assessment challenging. The principal contractor at the 

Savannah River Site publishes annual reports which contain the following data.

Tritium Transport in Streams 

Year SRS emissions Vogtle emissions Total curies

2003 4010 1900 5910

2004 2430 1200 3630

2005 2620 1860 4480

The discharge of Tritium in the form of radioactive water pollutes the Savannah River all the way 

to the ocean. Downstream drinking water wells are contaminated. Does the pollution come from 

SRS or Vogtle? The answer is "both." Until a few years ago, the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources Environmental Protection Division published reports on its radiation monitoring 

program. The program tested samples of air, surface water, groundwater, rain, sediments, fish, 

soil, vegetation, milk and agricultural crops near facilities which are known to emit ionizing 

radiation and compares these data to background levels. Test results for Vogtle from 1995 to 

2002 indicated that the nuclear power plant is the source of a variety of radionuclides which 

contaminate sediment, river water, fish and drinking water. The state's test results reveal striking 

elevations of harmful radionuclides. The test results range from 2 times to 50 times above 

background level. (0009-6 [Zeller, Lou])

Comment: A study conducted by the University of South Carolina has shown that there is a 

higher than average instance of cervical cancer in black women, and a higher rate of 

esophageal cancer in black men, within a fifty mile radius of Plant Vogtle. Georgia EPD 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-38 March 2011

monitoring indicates much of the radioactive pollution comes from the two nuclear reactors at 

Plant Vogtle. Studies of U.S. Centers for disease Control and Prevention data indicate that the 

death rate per 100,000 population from all cancers in Burke County increased by 24.2% and 

that infant deaths increased by 70.1% in Burke County after the Plant Vogtle reactors went 

online. (0009-7 [Zeller, Lou]) 

Response: These comments concern radiological impacts and tritium releases from the 

existing Units 1 and 2, and potential tritium releases from the proposed Units 3 and 4. The 

expected radiation doses to the public from all radioactive effluents, including tritium, from the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 are addressed in Section 5.9 and Appendix G of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a). Section 5.9 and Appendix G also address the expected combined radiation doses from 

operation of all four units; these estimates include tritium. As discussed in Section 5.9, the 

doses to the maximally exposed individual are estimated to be less than 3 mrem/yr to the total 

body and less than 10 mrem/yr to the organ with the highest dose. These estimates include 

tritium and the drinking water exposure pathway. These doses are considered to be small by 

the NRC because they are lower than the NRC and EPA dose standards and much lower than 

the average dose of 311 mrem/yr to the total body from natural sources of radiation. NRC 

accepts the theory that there is some health risk associated with any amount of radiation 

exposure. However, according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection 

(ICRP) and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), doses at 

this level would most likely result in zero excess health effects (NCRP 1995; ICRP 2007). 

Furthermore in Section 7.8 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the staff considered the cumulative 

radiological health impacts from operations at both the existing and proposed reactors at the 

VEGP site, as well as the Savannah River Site, and other nuclear facilities, including from 

tritium, and concluded that these impacts would be SMALL. As the staff in the ESP EIS found 

no unusual resource dependencies or practices or environmental pathways through which 

minority and low-income populations would be disproportionately affected, the cumulative 

environmental justice impacts would remain small even when considering the radiological health 

impacts of the Savannah River Site. No change was made to the SEIS as a result of these

comments. 

Comment: Section 4-401 of Executive Order 12898 states: "In order to assist in identifying the 

need for ensuring protection of populations with differential patterns of subsistence consumption 

of fish and wildlife, Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, 

maintain, and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations who principally 

rely on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence."

Local residents depend on the Savannah River for fish to feed their families. Radiological 

monitoring reveals that Savanna River fish are contaminated with Cesium-137. Tests in the 

vicinity of Plant Vogtle routinely find Cesium-137 in the edible parts of fish.

Radioactive Cesium-137 is of particular concern because levels actually increase when fish is 

cooked. One study found that cesium levels increase by 32% when fish are fried with breading, 

and by 62% when fried without breading.
Appendix E

March 2011 E-39 NUREG-1947

African American and low-income individuals are at specific heightened risk from hazardous 

materials in the Savannah River, and although individuals from all socioeconomic backgrounds 

engage in fishing in the area, African Americans in particular commonly engage in subsistence 

fishing along the Savannah River and have a higher than average consumption of fish, 

frequently surpassing allowable contaminated fish consumption levels. (0009-3 [Zeller, Lou])

Response: The comment concerns subsistence consumption of fish contaminated with 

cesium-137. Sections 4.7 and 5.7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) addressed subsistence fishing. 

Section 5.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008), estimates the potential radiation doses to members of 

the public from liquid effluent releases from the proposed two new units at the Vogtle site, 

including consumption of fish caught in the Savannah River. The expected total body dose to 

the maximally exposed individual in the public from all liquid dose pathways for two new 

reactors, including fish consumption, was estimated to be 0.034 mrem/yr. The highest dose to 

any organ was estimated to be 0.042 mrem/yr to the liver of a child. The ESP EIS (NRC 2008) 

further estimated the dose to the maximally exposed individual from all four reactors (two 

existing reactors and two proposed reactors) to be 2.4 mrem/yr from all liquid and gaseous 

effluents (less than 0.1 mrem/yr is from fish consumption). These estimates are based on 

projected release rates for the two proposed reactors and the typical measured and reported 

release rates from the existing reactors. These estimates include all radionuclides released 

from the Vogtle reactors including cesium-137; the expected release rates all radionuclides in 

liquid effluents from the proposed reactors are shown in Table G-1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a). Also, as shown in Table G-1, these doses are based on assumed annual fish 

consumption rates of 21 kg (about 46 lb) for an adult, 16 kg (35 lb) for a teen, and 6.9 kg (15 lb) 

for a child. Subsistence fishermen might consume more fish than these assumed rates; 

however, even if someone consumed a pound of fish every day, the doses would increase by a 

factor of ten to only about 1 mrem/yr. This is a very small dose compared to the average annual 

dose to an individual in the United States from natural radiation sources of 311 mrem/yr. As the 

comment suggested, the concentration of radionuclides such as cesium-137 may increase 

because of weight loss when the fish is cooked, and the person may consume a bigger portion 

of fish as a result. However, even increases in the dose of 30 to 60 percent would still result in 

a very small dose. No change was made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.

E.2.12 Comments Concerning Health − Nonradiological

Comment: In addition to the EPA's concerns regarding climate change effects and GHG 

emissions, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has determined 

that diesel exhaust is a potential human carcinogen, based on a combination of chemical, 

genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity data. In addition, acute exposures to diesel exhaust have been 

linked to health problems such as eye and nose irritation, headaches, nausea, and asthma. 

Although every construction site is unique, common actions can reduce exposure to diesel 

exhaust. EPA recommends that the following actions be considered for construction equipment: 

• Using low-sulphur diesel fuel (less than 0.05% sulphur). 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-40 March 2011

• Retrofit engines with an exhaust filtration device to capture DPM before it enters the 

workplace. 

• Position the exhaust pipe so that diesel fumes are directed away from the operator and 

nearby workers, thereby reducing the fume concentration to which personnel are exposed. 

• A catalytic converter reduces carbon monoxide, aldehydes, and hydrocarbons in diesel 

fumes. These devices must be used with low sulphur fuels. 

• Ventilate wherever diesel equipment operates indoors. Roof vents, open doors and 

windows, roof fans, or other mechanical systems help move fresh air through work areas. As 

buildings under construction are gradually enclosed, remember that fumes from diesel 

equipment operating indoors can build up to dangerous levels without adequate ventilation. 

• Attach a hose to the tailpipe of a diesel vehicle running indoors and exhaust the fumes 

outside, where they cannot reenter the workplace. Inspect hoses regularly for defects and 

damage. 

• Use enclosed, climate-controlled cabs pressurized and equipped with high efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) filters to reduce operators' exposure to diesel fumes. Pressurization 

ensures that air moves from inside to outside. HEPA filters ensure that any air coming in is 

filtered first. 

• Regular maintenance of diesel engines is essential to keep exhaust emissions low. Follow, 

the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and procedures. Smoke color can 

signal the need for maintenance. For example, blue/black smoke indicates that an engine 

requires servicing or tuning. 

• Work practices and training can help reduce exposure. For example, measures such as 

turning off engines when vehicles are stopped for more than a few minutes; training dieselequipment operators to perform routine inspection and maintenance of filtration devices. 

• When purchasing a new vehicle, ensure that it is equipped with the most advanced emission 

control systems available. 

• With older vehicles, use electric starting aids such as block heaters to warm the engine, 

avoid difficulty starting, and thereby reduce diesel emissions. 

• Respirators are only an interim measure to control exposure to diesel emissions. In most 

cases an N95 respirator is adequate. Respirators are for interim use only, until primary 

controls such as ventilation can be implemented. Workers must be trained and fit-tested 

before they wear respirators. Personnel familiar with the selection, care, and use of 

respirators must perform the fit testing. Respirators must bear a National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approval number. Never use paper masks or 

surgical masks without NIOSH approval numbers. (0019-10 [Mueller, Heinz J.])
Appendix E

March 2011 E-41 NUREG-1947

Response: The comment concerns known and potential health effects of exposure to diesel 

exhaust, and offers strategies to mitigate such exposures. Construction equipment exhaust was 

discussed in Sections 4.2 and 5.2 the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). While the NRC determined that 

nonradiological impacts would be SMALL, it agrees that the measures identified in the comment

would further reduce exposure to diesel exhaust. No changes were made to the draft SEIS.

E.2.13 Comments Concerning Health − Radiological

Comment: Health studies suggest cancer and death rates have risen in Burke County since 

Vogtle reactors 1 and started operating. (0004-5 [Taylor, F])

Comment: New construction for nuclear industry is unacceptable for the following reasons:...

• routine and accidental releases of unseen radionuclides into the air and water, some of 

which are persistent and/or biohazardous toxins, affecting the health of downwind or 

downstream communities and watersheds (0007-9 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: At the same time, you're having fallout from the atmosphere, you have all that to 

breathe, coming down on you. (0016-6-6 [Utley, Charles])

Comment: You can come and say well, they come from Atlanta, they come from Savannah, 

they come from Wisconsin. It doesn't affect them. But yeah, look at that one community, Shell 

Bluff, look at those folks. There is a definite impact on those who live near plants. Brain tumors 

in a year old -- think about it. Babies are susceptible... (0016-6-8 [Utley, Charles])

Comment: They some people out of Australia who live as far as their reactor is from here 

almost to California. They had iodine. How many of you got it in your water? (0016-6-9 [Utley, 

Charles])

Comment: We talk about these same issues but yet they're not here. We talk about FEMA, we 

talk about GEMA, we talk about all of these acronyms that's supposed to be helping us, but 

where are they when you're on your sick bed and all you're getting is radiation and fallout and 

you're trying to say send it over here, we're not going to take it. (0016-6-10 [Utley, Charles])

Comment: ...investigate that the cancer rates since '87 and '89 when 1 and 2 went on line, 

have gone perhaps from 11 percent below the national average to 26 percent above -- look at 

those CDC figures and investigate for yourself. (0016-7-4 [Paul, Bobbie])

Comment: Hearing from other persons, we realize that there is cancer and no amount of 

money can ease the suffering that I have encountered in this community. And it's just not only 

blacks, but it's whites also that are suffering from a high rate -- an increase of cancer. (0016-10-3

[Stephens, Annie Laura])
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-42 March 2011

Comment: And I heard you mention about moving the species, certain species -- well, what 

about mankind like over on the South Carolina side where SRS moved six communities from 

that site. Do you all plan to look into that as moving us as a people to another place? Take that 

into consideration and see if that will impact your decision when it comes down to humanity. 

That's what we are praying for, the health and welfare for all humanity in this area and all other 

areas where these plants are built. (0016-10-4 [Stephens, Annie Laura])

Comment: One thing very fundamental has changed since reactors 1 and 2 and that is this 

county has experienced nuclear reactors in its community. It has come to know cancer and now 

we know a lot more going into Vogtle 3 and 4 than we did when we talked about Vogtle 1 and 2.

(0016-11-1 [Carroll, Glenn])

Comment: And finally, the addition of the two new reactors even further increases the 

environmental and health and safety dangers that the communities around Plant Vogtle face 

every day. (0016-15-4 [Henson, Courtney])

Comment: The area is contaminated. The people are sick with cancer. Local government and 

big businesses profit, everyday folk suffer. We have a choice -- health or radiation; prosperity or 

devastation. (0016-16-3 [Ogley-Oliver, Emma])

Comment: For example, I was sitting talking to somebody and she told me about a woman that 

lived in the Shell Bluff community. She knew 30 people that had cancer. This is something that 

really hit home to me, because my mom, she just completed her radiation therapy that she had 

to go through for breast cancer. So can you imagine 30 people with cancer that you know 

personally? To me, I picture my mom and 30 versions of my mom, you know, with cancer.

(0016-18-2 [Vincent, Patricia])

Comment: I don't think you have sent anybody into the communities and asked or investigated 

in any way where people who thought their dog had mange took them to the vet and found out 

that they had cancer from eating the foliage out of the yard and drinking from the puddles. I 

don't think you sent anybody into the communities where I saw a beautiful black lab that turned 

around and had a huge tumor hanging off of its side. (0016-19-3 [Valentin, Dianne])

Comment: But those who are not adversely affected should not disrespect the people who are. 

And should now not consider the people that are adversely impacted by the ...contamination of 

the land and soil. (0016-19-5 [Valentin, Dianne])

Comment: So I think it's important that the NRC give consideration to the fact that there are 

people living in these communities who have to deal with awful things as a result of the reactors 

being there, very awful things including cancers, adverse health effects. (0016-19-6 [Valentin, 

Dianne])

Comment: You don't want to consider human life? Consider the lives of the pets if you don't 

want to consider human life, because it seems that you're very willing to consider how birds and 

fishes are impacted but not how humans are impacted. (0016-19-7 [Valentin, Dianne])
Appendix E

March 2011 E-43 NUREG-1947

Comment: The Report of the National Academy concluded that -- in their report -- they 

concluded their report with this hypothesis: Every exposure to radiation produces a 

corresponding cancer risk. Even if it's low, it all adds up. And tritium releases constitute the 

largest routine releases from nuclear power plants. And these releases have caused 

widespread contamination of water bodies at low levels. Tritium becomes tritiated water and that 

can cross the placenta, we know that. Non-cancer fetal risks are not part of the regulatory 

framework and I got this from an IEER publication, Institute for Energy -- Environmental Energy 

Research. (0016-20-10 [Rivard, Betsy])

Comment: Vogtle 1 and 2, for 2006, the average amount of picocuries per liter in drinking 

water was 746 and 766. And the surface water for 2000, 307 picocuries. Well, Ontario, 

California has lowered their standards so that -- actually it's kind of difficult to see where they 

lowered them, but they have changed their limit to -- Ontario has changed their limit to 540 

picocuries per liter and California has a public health goal at 400 picocuries per liter. This is for 

drinking water. And these figures, 746 and 766, that's the average daily amount in the drinking 

water that's higher than the standards for Ontario and California. And of course if you consider 

that the EPA says we can allow 20,000 picocuries, 700 sounds pretty good. But people are 

becoming more aware that tritium in your drinking water is not good for you. 

So I just feel like the NRC should address this issue and I think that considering that this impact 

is small, you know, we don't really know if it's small or not. (0016-20-11 [Rivard, Betsy])

Response: The comments concern the potential health effects from radiation exposure in the 

vicinity of the existing or proposed Vogtle reactors. Section 5.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a)

estimates the potential radiation doses to a member of the public from operation of all four 

reactors (two currently operating and two proposed) at Vogtle. The doses to the maximally 

exposed individual are estimated to be less than 3 mrem/yr to the total body and less than 

10 mrem/yr to the organ with the highest dose. These estimates include tritium and the drinking 

water exposure pathway. These doses are considered to be small by the NRC because they 

are lower than the NRC and EPA dose standards and much lower than the average dose of 

311 mrem/yr to the total body from natural sources of radiation. The NRC accepts the theory 

that there is some health risk associated with any amount of radiation exposure. However, 

according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the National 

Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), doses at this level would most 

likely result in zero excess health effects (NCRP 1995, ICRP 2007). Southern conducts an 

environmental radiological monitoring program around Vogtle that sample air, crops, river water, 

well water, soil, fish, and sediment. This program monitors the level of radioactive material in 

the environment from all sources, including Vogtle and the Savannah River Site. The Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division also conducts a radiological environmental monitoring around 

the VEGP site. Results from these monitoring programs confirm that there is no significant 

buildup of radioactive material from Vogtle in the environment. Because these comments 

provided no new and significant information, no change was made to the SEIS. 

Comment: I did notice that there is something in the Supplemental EIS about a new dairy in 

Gerard, Georgia, which will only be six miles south of the site. That's a concern to me, what 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-44 March 2011

radionuclides are looked for when they do check the milk? Is the information on the monitoring 

of the existing dairies, which I think there are like within 50 miles -- is that open to public 

scrutiny? What is an acceptable amount of radiation in milk? I don't know. (0016-20-5 [Rivard, 

Betsy])

Response: The comment concerns monitoring of dairy milk for radioactive material. As 

discussed in Section 5.9.1 of this SEIS, Southern will sample milk from the new dairy as part of 

the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program. The results of this monitoring program are 

submitted to NRC in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report; these reports are 

available to the public. The reports include information about when the samples were taken and 

what radionuclides were found. The samples would be analyzed for a number of radionuclides 

including iodine-131. Because these comments did not provide new and significant information, 

no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: There's a new off-site dose calculation manual mentioned. Is that produced by NRC 

or by Southern Company? (0016-20-6 [Rivard, Betsy])

Response: The comment concerns the offsite dose calculation manual (ODCM). The ODCM 

is a license requirement for VEGP Units 1 and 2; Southern would also be required to have and 

use an ODCM for proposed Units 3 and 4. The ODCM is produced by Southern and reviewed 

by NRC inspectors. No changes were made to the SEIS on the basis of this comment.

Comment: Radiological impacts are something I wanted to address but the Supplemental EIS 

does not provide me with much information. (0016-20-8 [Rivard, Betsy])

Response: The comment concerns the level of information about radiological impacts in the 

SEIS. This SEIS addresses new and significant information. Radiological impacts during 

construction of proposed Units 3 and 4 are estimated in Section 4.9 of the ESP EIS (NRC

2008a). Estimates of the radiological impacts of normal operations are provided in Section 5.9 

and Appendix G of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). No changes were made to the SEIS on the 

basis of this comment.

E.2.14 Comments Concerning Accidents − Design Basis

Comment: you also have to consider the potential for accidents. 

Now the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant in Hartsville, South Carolina, not too far from where I live, 

has already shut down three times this year due to mechanical failures. And dealing with these 

mechanical failures, while minor, are somewhat common. Increasing the amount of power 

plants in the state and the region only allows for more chances for something catastrophic to 

occur. We've heard so many times tonight about, you know, the horrible things that happen to 

people very close to the power plant. So that's something you really have to keep in mind. (0016-

22-8 [Sardi, David])
Appendix E

March 2011 E-45 NUREG-1947

Response: The potential for accidents is discussed in Section 5.10 of both the ESP EIS and 

this SEIS. The comment provides no new and significant information; therefore, no changes 

were made to the SEIS.

E.2.15 Comments Concerning Accidents − Severe

Comment: DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT The draft EIS is based on a reactor design which has 

not been granted a license. The Westinghouse AP100 reactor was recently issued a Notice of 

Violation by NRC review staff for submitting an unrealistic assessment of impacts from a direct 

airplane strike. The AP1000 also has a basic design defect, in an accident, the so- called shield 

building would funnel radionuclides directly to the environment as shown in the Gundersen 

report. Either of these issues is sufficient to conclude that the environmental impact from an 

accident would be LARGE. (0003-8 [Arnold, Judy] [Boatenreiter, Glenn] [Carter, Pat] [Cumbow, Kay] 

[Dawson, Daneille] [Dooley, Gerald] [Falconer, Kimberly] [Hatch, Sarah] [Kasenow, Lisa] [Lewis, Marvin] 

[Lomas, Judith] [Lusk, Phil] [McConnell, Joy] [McNulty, Joy] [Mills, Nancy] [Sheppard, Deborah] [Thomas, 

Russel] [Trujillo, Dianne] [Villarreal, Tasha]); (0002-8 [Carroll, Glenn]); (0005-8 [Kushner, Adele])

Response: The issues raised in the comments are being addressed in the staff’s separate 

review of Westinghouse’s proposed amendment to the AP1000 design certification. Moreover, 

the impacts of severe accidents, including an accident with release of fission products to the 

environment, were considered in Section 5.10.2 of the ESP EIS. The comments provide no 

new and significant information; therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS.

E.2.16 Comments Concerning the Uranium Fuel Cycle

Comment: New construction for nuclear industry is unacceptable for the following 

reasons:...dangerous wastes - some of which need isolation from the biosphere for millions of 

years. (0007-12 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: The failure to be able to solve the waste problem is the largest reason for stopping 

these proposals, regardless of the stage they may currently be at. 

It is obvious that no solution to the waste problem can be found, and this makes new 

construction negligent and reckless with public health and environmental quality from many 

different places of concern. (0007-13 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: ...I expect the highest standards of regulation for public protection around the world 

from nuclear wastes generated in the US. (0007-14 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: You've got the Savannah River Site across the river, they don't want it, nobody 

wants it but you say you've got enough space to keep it. Where in the world are you going to put 

it? Nonsense. Don't fool yourself. Everybody in the world is looking at Waynesboro, they want to 

know what are you going to do with all that radiation when it gets here, because it's going to be 

a glow in the dark. The world is going to know. Think about it, it's your choice. (0016-6-11 [Utley, 

Charles])
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-46 March 2011

Comment: And I mentioned earlier, the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain to 

store the nation's radioactive waste from the existing Vogtle units, all the reactors across the 

country, [and] the new reactors being proposed [Yucca Mountain's funding] have been 

suspended, zeroed out in the budget. (0016-5-5 [Barczak, Sara])

Comment: This area is contaminated just as the areas in France are contaminated. They have 

reprocessing -- reprocessing, which is a way to deal with the waste, they have it in my 

hometown in England, there's lots of leukemia there too. So if we think by producing more 

waste, we're going to have a way to deal with it, let's speak to our friends in England and in 

France. It's not happening. (0016-16-2 [Ogley-Oliver, Emma])

Comment: The FSEIS should clarify the impact of this revision on the proposed project, as this 

new determination finds that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely and securely without 

significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years after operation at any nuclear power 

plant. EPA recommends that the FSEIS cite any new analyses for longer-term storage 

regarding scientific knowledge relating to spent fuel storage and disposal. The FSEIS should 

also mention any developments with the Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission on alternatives 

for dealing with high-level radioactive waste, if there are such updates before FSEIS publication.

(0019-3 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: The comments concern interim storage and ultimate disposal of spent fuel and 

other high-level radioactive waste. Sections 5.9 of both the ESP EIS and this SEIS address the 

radiological impacts during operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4, including the storage of 

spent fuel in the spent fuel pool and in the independent spent fuel storage installation. Interim 

storage and ultimate disposal of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste are discussed in 

Sections 6.1.6 of both the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) and this SEIS. Section 6.1.6 presents Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada as an example of a possible of a high-level waste repository; the conclusions 

in Section 6.1.6 do not depend on whether Yucca Mountain, or another site, is ultimately the 

destination for spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Moreover, as indicated at 10 CFR 

51.23(a), “... The Commission has made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel 

generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for 

at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised 

or renewed license) of that reactor in a combination of storage in its spent fuel storage basin 

and at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations. Further, the 

Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mined geologic repository 

capacity will be available to dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent 

fuel generated in any reactor when necessary.” In addition, 10 CFR 51.23(b) applies the 

generic determination in section 51.23(a) to provide that “... no discussion of any environmental 

impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility storage pools or independent spent fuel storage 

installations for the period following the term of the....reactor combined license or 

amendment....is required in any....environmental impact statement....prepared in connection 

withthe.... issuance or amendment of a combined license for a nuclear power reactor under 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-47 NUREG-1947

parts 52 or 54 of this chapter.” Section 6.1.6 of the SEIS has been updated to reflect the current 

language of the Waste Confidence Decision.

Comment: New construction for nuclear industry is unacceptable for the following reasons: 

• the need for uranium mining and costly, dirty processing, which destroys the health of 

both watersheds and communities for very long periods of time 

(0007-8 [Michetti, Susan])

Response: The comment concerns uranium mining and processing. As explained in 

Section 6.1 of the ESP EIS, impacts from the uranium fuel cycle have been tabulated in 

10 CFR 51.51 Table S−3, which is used as the basis for evaluating the contribution of the 

environmental effects of uranium mining and milling to the environmental costs of licensing 

the nuclear power reactor (NRC 2008a). Associated effects also discussed in 10 CFR 51.51 

include the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, 

reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials, and management of lowlevel wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium fuel-cycle activities. Impacts of the 

uranium fuel cycle are addressed in Section 6.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). This comment 

provides no new and significant information. Therefore, no changes have been made to the 

SEIS.

E.2.17 Comments Concerning Transportation

Comment: We understand that shipping casks have not yet been designed for the spent fuel 

from advanced reactor designs such as the Westinghouse AP1000. Information in the Early Site 

Permit Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003) indicated 

that advanced light water reactor (LWR) fuel designs would not be significantly different from 

existing LWR designs; therefore, current shipping cask designs were used for the analysis of 

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel shipments. EPA recommends that when shipping 

casks are designed for the spent fuel for the Westinghouse AP1000, the analysis should be 

repeated. (0019-4 [Mueller, Heinz J.])

Response: The comment concerns the lack of availability of a certified transportation cask 

design for AP1000 spent fuel. The commenter is correct; shipping casks designed specifically 

to transport Westinghouse AP1000 spent fuel have not been developed, and the NRC staff's 

analysis of transportation impacts was based on current shipping cask designs for LWR spent 

fuel. The key shipping cask design related parameters used in the analysis in Section 6.2 of the 

SEIS are the cargo capacities and external radiation dose rates. The shipping cask capacities 

used in the NRC staff's analysis are conservative; that is, they are substantially smaller than the 

cargo capacities anticipated for shipping casks designed for Westinghouse AP1000 spent 

fuel. The small cargo capacity assumed by the NRC staff results in substantially larger numbers 

of spent fuel shipments and radiological impacts than would actually be expected when this 

plant would begin to ship spent fuel offsite. Furthermore, radiation dose rates emitted from 

spent fuel shipments were set to the regulatory dose rate limit in the NRC staff's analysis. 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-48 March 2011

Actual radiation dose rates cannot be higher and are likely to be lower than the regulatory limits. 

Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that the transportation impact analysis presented in the 

ESP EIS is bounding. The staff expects that further analysis to incorporate future shipping cask 

designs would result in lower impacts and would not affect the NRC staff's conclusion that 

transportation impacts are SMALL. No changes were made to the SEIS as a result of this 

comment. 

E.2.18 Comments Concerning the Need for Power

Comment: In the future, our community will need the clean, dependable energy provided by 

the new units at Plant Vogtle (0016-12-3 [Parr, Sue])

Response: In Section 8 of the draft SEIS (NRC 2010a), the staff concluded there was a need 

for the power that would be generated by the proposed nuclear units. No change to the SEIS 

was made as a result of this comment.

E.2.19 Comments Concerning Alternatives − Energy

Comment: For the reasons stated below, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should:... 

2) Issue a finding of LARGE environmental impacts for the proposed nuclear reactors and the 

conclusion that off-shore wind is the preferred alternative to nuclear. (0003-2 [Arnold, Judy] 

[Boatenreiter, Glenn] [Carter, Pat] [Cumbow, Kay] [Dawson, Daneille] [Dooley, Gerald] [Falconer, 

Kimberly] [Hatch, Sarah] [Kasenow, Lisa] [Lewis, Marvin] [Lomas, Judith] [Lusk, Phil] [McConnell, Joy] 

[McNulty, Joy] [Mills, Nancy] [Sheppard, Deborah] [Thomas, Russel] [Trujillo, Dianne] [Villarreal, Tasha]); 

(0002-2 [Carroll, Glenn]); (0004-2 [Taylor, F]); (0005-2 [Kushner, Adele])

Comment: Section 9.2 about energy alternatives. Well, the word is out -- sorry I don't have the 

book, I hope everybody will read it off the newsletter and this darling little piece, you can get 

both of these out on the table out there -- Carbon Free and Nuclear Free by 2050. 

Well, a skeptic said you've got to have coal, nuclear, one of these big baseload types of energy 

to keep on business as usual in this world. The name is Arjun Makhijani and he works for 

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Well, he was challenged to prove that we're 

stuck with these large polluting, poisonous power sources. And what he found, much to his 

surprise, a skeptic, was that we can, with existing technology (0016-11-4 [Carroll, Glenn])

Comment: Now it is official, in 30 years, if we will get it together, we can be off all poison 

power. He even covered the transportation sector's use of oil. (0016-11-6 [Carroll, Glenn])

Response: The staff reviewed the following report cited in the comments: Carbon-Free and 

Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy issued in 2007 by the Institute for Energy and 

Environmental Research (Makhijani 2007). The principal focus of the Makhijani report is to 

create a roadmap for zero CO2 emissions from energy production in the United States, the 

phase out of existing U.S. nuclear power plants, and no licensing of new nuclear power plants in 

the United States. 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-49 NUREG-1947

In Chapter 9 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the NRC staff considered alternatives to new nuclear 

units at the VEGP site, including viable base-load generation alternatives involving new 

generating capacity such as coal-fired and natural-gas-fired power plants. The staff considered 

the impacts, including air quality impacts, associated with those alternatives and determined 

that none of the viable alternatives would be environmentally preferable to the proposed new 

nuclear units. In Section 7.2 of the draft SEIS (NRC 2010a), the staff also described the relative 

annual CO2 emission rates of coal-fired and natural-gas-fired power plants and determined that 

the CO2 emissions associated with a new nuclear power plant (including the associated fuel 

cycle processes and operations) would be considerably less than emissions for alternative coalfired or natural-gas-fired plants. The staff concluded that these emissions and their impacts 

were small both in isolation and cumulatively when compared to these other viable sources of 

base-load energy. Accordingly, the discussion of CO2 emissions in the Makhijani report did not 

change the staff’s determinations in the ESP EIS and this SEIS with respect to air quality 

impacts or the comparison of energy alternatives.

Makhijani asserts in his book that nuclear power should not be part of the energy future of the 

United States for the following reasons: (1) the connections between nuclear power and 

nuclear weapons technologies and infrastructure; (2) the risks arising from severe nuclear 

accidents, (3) issues associated with disposal of nuclear waste; (4) the financial risks associated 

with nuclear power; and (5) the issue of government-provided insurance for nuclear power. 

Impacts from severe accidents, issues associated with nuclear waste disposal, and the costs 

and benefits associated with the proposed action are discussed in this SEIS and the ESP EIS 

(NRC 2008a) (Sections 5.10, 6.1.6, and 11.6, respectively). As discussed in this SEIS and the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the staff determined that impacts associated with severe accidents and 

the nuclear fuel cycle were small, and the staff explained the basis for its conclusion that the 

accrued benefits of the proposed action would most likely outweigh the economic, 

environmental, and social costs associated with constructing and operating two new nuclear 

units at the VEGP site. General policy considerations such as nonproliferation and the 

appropriateness of government-provided insurance are outside the scope of this SEIS. As the 

relevant impacts, costs, and benefits discussed in the Makhijani report and within the scope of a 

NEPA review were already analyzed in the ESP EIS and this SEIS, the report did not identify 

new and significant information with respect to the staff’s conclusions.

Makhijani also suggests in his book that wind, solar, geothermal, wave energy, biomass, and

hydropower should be important parts of future U.S. electricity production. NRC does not 

establish national energy policy, and the staff’s review of alternatives pursuant to NEPA focuses 

on reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. In any event, all of these energy sources, 

except wave energy, are discussed in Section 9.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Wave energy 

is an emerging technology with limited commercial application to date (Loew 2010). The staff 

concluded in the ESP EIS that (1) wind and solar could not supply base-load power comparable 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-50 March 2011

to the output of a new nuclear unit without a substantial energy storage mechanism; (2) it would 

be highly unlikely that energy storage such as pumped hydropower storage and compressed air 

energy storage could be combined with an intermittent electricity source such as wind or solar 

to produce a quantity of base-load power comparable to a new nuclear generating unit; and 

(3) new hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass plants could not supply base-load power in the 

region of interest comparable to the output of a new nuclear generating unit. Accordingly, the 

Makhijani report did not provide new and significant information with respect to the staff’s 

evaluation of viable alternatives to the proposed action.

Based on its review, the staff was not persuaded that the 2007 Makhijani report had the 

potential to change any of the staff’s conclusions in Section 9.2 of this SEIS relating to 

alternative energy technologies. Accordingly, no change to the SEIS was made as a result of 

the comments that referenced the 2007 Makhijani report.

Comment: The cost for nuclear reactors must be compared and contrasted with cheaper costs 

and quicker build-time of shovel-ready wind and solar projects. Recent reports by DOE and 

Oceana Institute highlight the potential for offshore wind and Georgia is particularly well suited 

as is Georgia Power which already holds offshore rights from Georgia. (0003-6 [Arnold, Judy]

[Boatenreiter, Glenn] [Carter, Pat] [Cumbow, Kay] [Dawson, Daneille] [Dooley, Gerald] 

[Falconer, Kimberly] [Hatch, Sarah] [Kasenow, Lisa] [Lewis, Marvin] [Lomas, Judith] [Lusk, Phil] 

[McConnell, Joy] [McNulty, Joy] [Mills, Nancy] [Sheppard, Deborah] [Thomas, Russel] [Trujillo, 

Dianne] [Villarreal, Tasha]); (0002-6 [Carroll, Glenn]); (0005-6 [Kushner, Adele])

Comment: Diversion of $8.3 billion in tight recession funds into long-term, high-risk nuclear 

projects squanders funds that would bring quick returns if invested in solar, and in Georgia, 

especially, offshore wind. 

(0007-3 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: The economic impacts of the Georgia Vogtle reactor proposal are of national 

concern, as Southern Company has signed a deal with the U.S. Department of Energy to 

receive $8.3 BILLION in tax-funded loans. Diversion of tight recession funds into long-term, 

high-risk nuclear projects squanders funds that would bring quick returns if invested in solar, 

and in Georgia, especially, offshore wind. (0008-5 [Thomas, Ellen])

Comment: I could go on about the fact that there are more cost effective, less water-intensive 

energy choices that would actually save money in the long run, keep money here at home and 

protect people's health and the environment such as energy efficiency and conservation and 

renewables including biopower, solar and wind. (0016-5-7 [Barczak, Sara]); (0017-1-6 [Barczak, 

Sara])

Comment: Solar -- the historic cross over happened two months ago. Solar is now equal in 

price to nuclear. And do you think we are giving $8.2 billion to anybody to do that? Wind power 

generation has surpassed nuclear on the planet. This is happening. (0016-11-5 [Carroll, Glenn])
Appendix E

March 2011 E-51 NUREG-1947

Response: Under its guidance in Environmental Standard Review Plan − Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), NRC only 

considers the cost of energy alternatives if the alternatives are found to be environmentally 

preferable to the proposed nuclear alternative and if the energy alternatives satisfy the purpose 

and need for the proposed project. The staff concluded in Section 9.2.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a) that, from an environmental perspective, none of the viable energy alternatives are 

clearly preferable to construction of a new base-load nuclear power generating plant. As 

discussed in section 9.2 of this COL SEIS, the staff did not identify any information related to 

energy alternatives that was both new and significant. These comments do not provide 

information that is both new and significant. Accordingly, no change was made to the SEIS as a 

result of the comments.

Comment: The two reactors proposed by Southern Company and Georgia Power to be built at 

Vogtle on the Savannah River are not needed. They have large environmental impacts that can 

be avoided by pursuing offshore wind power. (0007-4 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: The two reactors proposed by Southern Company and Georgia Power to be built at 

Vogtle on the Savannah River are not needed and have large environmental impacts that can 

be avoided by pursuing offshore wind power. (0008-1 [Thomas, Ellen])

Response: The staff concluded in Section 8 of this SEIS that there is a need for power from 

the proposed Units 3 and 4. The staff concluded in Section 9.2.3.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a) that a wind energy facility at or in the vicinity of the VEGP site currently would not be a 

reasonable alternative to construction of the proposed nuclear units. The staff's impact 

characterizations for the proposed nuclear units and for alternative coal, natural gas, and a 

combination of energy resources are provided in Table 9-4 of the ESP EIS. As stated in the 

Executive Summary of this SEIS, matters resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered to be 

resolved in any subsequent proceedings absent identification of new and significant information. 

The staff's discussion of what constitutes new and significant information is in Section 1.6 of this 

SEIS. As discussed in Section 9.2 of this SEIS, the staff did not identify any information related 

to energy alternatives that was both new and significant. These comments do not provide 

information that is both new and significant. Accordingly, no change was made to the SEIS as a 

result of the comments. 

Comment: Low-cost, low-carbon technologies could be in place more quickly at lower costs 

than new nuclear reactors and would be more than ample to meet electricity needs for the 

future. These actions would create less risks for the health and safety of workers and the public. 

Considering the fossil fuel needed to mine, process, create reactor fuel, build nuclear reactors 

and deal with long term management of the end products of nuclear reactors, there would be a 

significant reduction in carbon emissions for the foreseeable future. (0013-3 [Patrie, Lewis E.])

Response: The staff concluded in Section 9.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) that coal-fired and 

natural-gas-fired power plants or a combination of alternatives to which at least one of these two 

sources would be a significant contibutor were the only viable alternatives at the present time to 

providing base-load power in the amount of the proposed nuclear units. The staff compared the 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-52 March 2011

annual CO2 emission rates of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants in Table 7-1 of this 

SEIS. As stated in the Executive Summary of this SEIS, matters resolved in the ESP 

proceedings are considered to be resolved in any subsequent proceedings absent identification 

of new and significant information. The NRC staff's discussion of what constitutes new and 

significant information is in Section 1.6 of this SEIS. As discussed in Section 9.2 of this SEIS, 

the staff 

did not identify any information related to energy alternatives that was both new and 

significant. This comment does not provide information that is both new and significant. 

Accordingly, no change was made to the SEIS as a result of this comment.

Comment: Why don't we turn it into something that uses sustainable energy, like solar or 

wind? You know, we're not saying get rid of the plant entirely, but I think it's better to find a way 

to use energy that's less dangerous. You know, you could still bring jobs to the community, still 

have better schools and I think a lot of people within the Shell Bluff area would be -- could sleep 

better at night too. (0016-18-3 [Vincent, Patricia])

Comment: More studies should be done and I'm in favor of using alternate sustainable sources 

like wind and solar. (0016-20-12 [Rivard, Betsy])

Response: The staff concluded in Sections 9.2.3.2 and 9.2.3.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a)

that a wind or solar energy facility at or in the vicinity of the VEGP site currently would not be a 

reasonable alternative to construction of the proposed nuclear units. The staff's impact 

characterizations for the proposed nuclear units and alternative coal, natural gas, and a 

combination of energy resources are in Table 9-4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). As stated in 

the Executive Summary of this SEIS, matters resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered 

to be resolved in any subsequent proceedings absent identification of new and significant 

information. The staff's discussion of what constitutes new and significant information is in 

Section 1.6 of this SEIS. As discussed in Section 9.2 of this SEIS, the staff did not identify any 

information related to energy alternatives that was both new and significant. These comments 

do not provide information that is both new and significant. Accordingly, no change was made 

to the SEIS as a result of the comments.

Comment: Now given there are other and better available energy sources, such as wind, solar, 

biomass, I respectfully ask that you reconsider your preliminary recommendation. (0016-22-4

[Sardi, David])

Comment: ...given the dangers and uncertainties of nuclear energy, it would be more prudent 

to continue to develop renewable energy such as wind, solar and biomass. Georgia has great 

potential in these types of energy and its potential greatly outweighs that of nuclear energy.

(0016-22-14 [Sardi, David])

Response: The staff concluded in Sections 9.2.3.2, 9.2.3.3, 9.2.3.6, and 9.2.3.8 of the ESP 

EIS (NRC 2008a) that a wind, solar, wood, or other biomass-derived fuel energy facility at or in 

the vicinity of the VEGP site currently would not be a reasonable alternative to construction of 

the proposed nuclear units. The staff's impact characterizations for the proposed nuclear units 

and alternative coal, natural gas, and a combination of energy resources are in Table 9-4 of the 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-53 NUREG-1947

ESP EIS. As stated in the Executive Summary of this SEIS, matters resolved in the ESP 

proceedings are considered to be resolved in any subsequent proceedings absent identification 

of new and significant information. The staff's discussion of what constitutes new and 

significant information is in Section 1.6 of this SEIS. As discussed in Section 9.2 of this SEIS, 

the NRC staff did not identify any information related to energy alternatives that was both new 

and significant. These comments do not provide information that is both new and 

significant. Accordingly, no change was made to the SEIS as a result of the comments.

E.2.20 Comments Concerning Benefit-Cost Balance

Comment: Escalating costs for massive reactor projects which will take the better part of a 

decade to complete strain taxpayer resources in a time of historic recession. The financing of 

the project with taxpayer, and Georgia ratepayer, funds should be analyzed for socioeconomic 

impacts. (0003-5 [Arnold, Judy] [Boatenreiter, Glenn] [Carter, Pat] [Cumbow, Kay] [Dawson, Daneille] 

[Dooley, Gerald] [Falconer, Kimberly] [Hatch, Sarah] [Kasenow, Lisa] [Lewis, Marvin] [Lomas, Judith] 

[Lusk, Phil] [McConnell, Joy] [McNulty, Joy] [Mills, Nancy] [Sheppard, Deborah] [Thomas, Russel] [Trujillo, 

Dianne] [Villarreal, Tasha]); (0005-5 [Kushner, Adele]); (0002-5 [Carroll, Glenn])

Comment: New construction for nuclear industry is unacceptable for the following reasons:...

• huge cost overruns and little accountability to the public, either with safety or financially

(0007-10 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: The cost of building nuclear reactors has greatly escalated. Any assumption that 

the traditional 'learning by doing' observed in other industries is certainly untrue for nuclear 

reactors, which must be built to unique and certain specifications on-site. Half of the many 

reactors previously ordered decades ago were never completed. (0013-1 [Patrie, Lewis E.])

Comment: Presently the proponents of new Vogtle reactors are willing to gamble billions of tax 

dollars and ratepayers fees in advance.

New nuclear reactors will cost two to three times more than renewable and efficiency 

technologies. (0013-2 [Patrie, Lewis E.])

Comment: Section 5.5 on page 5-6, it's about socio-economic impact. Now I don't see it really 

discussing the tax giveaway in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

(0016-11-2 [Carroll, Glenn])

Response: The staff analyzed the costs and benefits of the proposed action in Chapter 11 of 

the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). Cost estimates for VEGP Units 3 and 4 relied on the best available 

estimate of project timing and duration, noting uncertainties associated with projections into the 

future. NRC does not have authority to ensure that the proposed plant is the least expensive

alternative to provide energy services under any particular set of assumptions concerning future 

circumstances. Judgments concerning the appropriate level of public funding for energy 

infrastructure are most often the role of State regulatory authorities, such as public service 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-54 March 2011

commissions. Any additional consideration by the review team would be speculative because of 

the dynamic nature of the rate-setting process. These comments provide no new and 

significant information. Therefore, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: There are more than a few deficiencies and oversights in the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission's draft EIS on Vogtle, for instance, wind, solar and conservation are not considered 

in a comparison chart of different energy costs and benefits. In considering economic benefits, 

the EIS fails to consider that the Shell Bluff community residing in the emergency planning zone 

of the proposed, and existing, reactors at Vogtle does not receive basic police, fire and health 

services despite the purported local economic benefits of hosting a nuclear reactor. (0007-5

[Michetti, Susan])

Comment: There are more than a few deficiencies and oversights in the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission's draft EIS on Vogtle, for instance, wind, solar and conservation are not considered 

in a comparison chart of different energy costs and benefits. (0008-3 [Thomas, Ellen])

Response: Under its guidance in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), NRC only considers the cost of 

energy alternatives if the alternatives are found to be environmentally preferable to the 

proposed nuclear alternative and if the energy alternatives satisfy the purpose and need for the 

proposed project. The staff concluded in Section 9.2.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) that, from 

an environmental perspective, none of the viable energy alternatives is clearly preferable to 

construction of a new base-load nuclear power generating plant. These comments provide no 

new and significant information. Therefore, no change was made to the SEIS.

Comment: Taxpayers are fed up with funding corporations and their unfunded externalities that 

harm public interests, including health, environment, and financial interests. Our taxpayer 

dollars are not for gambling on expensive, risky, unsafe nuclear power, no matter what state the 

proposal to build is in. In terms of taxpayer money, this is extremely wasteful due to the 

inefficiencies in the extremely high financial costs of nuclear power. The financial cost is 

indefensible compared to renewables without the history of cradle to grave accidents and risks 

to public health. (0007-2 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: Georgia Power ratepayers now are saddled with a bum deal that will cause their 

electric bills to start going up come January, because of the Georgia legislature passing anticonsumer legislation in 2009 to help finance the new reactors. This nuclear power tax is a 

prepayment scheme that takes money out of Georgians' pocketbooks today, instead of from the 

wallets of Southern Company shareholders and the big industrials who managed to get 

exempted from this scheme, for something that may never come to fruition tomorrow -- and 

there will be no rebate. You are not going to get a check in the mail if this plant doesn't get built. 

And this all happened as the country is stuck in the middle of an historic recession that has 

devastated the economy, families and our overall future. And this recession has also impacted 

the fact that future energy projections have fallen putting projects such as this in serious 

question -- but nothing in the draft NRC report touches on these realities. 

If Vogtle is abandoned, Southern Company and its utility partners managed to also feed from 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-55 NUREG-1947

the trough of the U.S. Treasury over these last four years, which is ultimately the U.S. taxpayers' 

checkbook, by getting an $8.3 billion conditional loan guarantee award from the Obama 

Administration that was awarded in February. All of us in this room could be on the hook 

financially for this boondoggle. ...No wonder Georgia utilities remain doggedly set on pushing 

the Vogtle reactors forward -- they have very little in this game and are proposing a very risk 

project in a very regulatory friendly environment that is shrouded in secrecy. (0016-5-6 [Barczak, 

Sara]); (0017-1-5 [Barczak, Sara])

Response: In determining the costs and benefits of the proposed action, NRC does not have 

authority to ensure that the proposed plant is the least expensive alternative to provide energy 

services under any particular set of assumptions concerning future circumstances. Judgments 

concerning the appropriate level of public funding for energy infrastructure most often are the 

role of State regulatory authorities such as public service commissions. Any additional 

consideration by the review team would be speculative because of the dynamic nature of the 

rate-setting process. The ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) considered the potential for alternative nonnuclear technologies to provide electricity that could be generated by the proposed plant and

their environmental impacts in Chapter 9. An analysis of the history of the nuclear power 

industry that goes beyond the proposed reactors and the alternatives is beyond the scope of 

this SEIS. In early 2010, President Obama and the U.S. Department of Energy announced 

$8.3 billion in loan guarantees for Units 3 and 4 authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The loan guarantees are contingent on Southern receiving all regulatory approvals, including a 

COL. NRC does not have the authority to grant or restrict loan guarantees. In its COL review, 

the staff did not identify new and significant information concerning the projected financial costs 

of the proposed units. No new and significant information was provided in these comments. 

Therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS.

Comment: In considering economic benefits, the EIS fails to consider that the Shell Bluff 

community residing in the emergency planning zone of the proposed, and existing, reactors at 

Vogtle does not receive basic police, fire and health services despite the purported local 

economic benefits of hosting a nuclear reactor. (0008-4 [Thomas, Ellen])

Response: NRC regulates the nuclear industry to protect the public health and safety. Issues 

related solely to the economic benefits and distribution of taxes for infrastructure and/or 

services, such as fire, police and health services, are outside the NRC's mission and authority 

and will not be addressed in the SEIS. Socioeconomic impacts of construction and operation, 

including impacts to public services in Burke County as a result of the plant workforce during 

construction and operation, were addressed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 

2008a). This comment does not provide new and significant information. Therefore, no

changes were made to the SEIS.

Comment: [We believe this expansion will allow us to continue to receive] cost-effective and 

reliable energy to serve our community as well as the state. (0016-13-3 [Roberts, Ashley])
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-56 March 2011

Response: The comments express general support for VEGP Units 3 and 4. No new and 

significant information was provided in this comment. Therefore, no changes were made to the 

SEIS.

Comment: The promise of $1.30 a month for the first year starting in 2011 has now turned to 

$3.73 a month, almost tripling what was proposed. Too many promises have been broken, 

financially and spiritually and I can tell you that people are afraid. (0016-7-5 [Paul, Bobbie])

Comment: Second, Georgia Power continues to implement rate hikes to pay for these new 

reactors and that's burdening myself financially and I'm sure other Georgians as well. (0016-15-3

[Henson, Courtney])

Comment: We can choose to build the reactors and continue to burden Georgians financially

(0016-15-5 [Henson, Courtney])

Response: The comments relate to the costs of power generation that are passed on to 

customers. NRC's responsibility is to regulate the nuclear industry to protect the public health 

and safety policy. NRC is not involved in establishing the rates paid by customers. No new and 

significant information was provided in this comment. Therefore, no changes were made to the 

SEIS.

Comment: But it's okay [to take water out of the aquifer] because we're going to use it for the 

almighty dollar. (0016-6-3 [Utley, Charles])

Comment: And with those two natural things [air and sun], why in the world am I upsetting 

what God has given me to live on? And then I'm going to build two more of them [reactors]. 

Why? It's easy because it's not out of my pocket, it's out of those people who live in Georgia.

(0016-6-4 [Utley, Charles])

Comment: Reactors 3 and 4 will represent a continuation of environmental destruction. ...more 

money for local government and big businesses. Who suffers? (0016-16-5 [Ogley-Oliver, Emma])

Response: These comments express opposition to the costs of Units 3 and 4, but do not 

provide any new and significant information. Therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS as 

a result of these comments.

Comment: Costs [of building nuclear reactors] have gone through the roof. New reactors 

proposed in Florida have more than tripled in cost. In fact, in just over the course of one year, 

Progress' estimate for the Levy County reactors in Florida sits at $5 billion more than it did in 

2009, it's now $22 billion overall for the two AP1000 reactors, and they now have a five-year 

delay to boot. (0016-5-2 [Barczak, Sara]); (0017-1-2 [Barczak, Sara])

Response: The NRC is not involved in establishing national energy policy nor does it have the 

authority to ensure that the proposed plant is the least costly alternative to provide energy 

services. Rather, it regulates the nuclear industry to protect the public health and safety within 

existing policy. The purpose of the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) and this SEIS is to disclose potential 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-57 NUREG-1947

environmental impacts of building and operating the proposed nuclear power plant. Chapter 11 

of the ESP EIS addressed the estimated overall costs and environmental impacts of the 

proposed project, relying on the best available estimate of project timing and duration, while 

noting possible uncertainties that may affect those estimates. In its COL review, the staff did 

not identify new and significant information concerning the projected financial costs of the 

proposed units. No new and significant information was provided in these comments. 

Therefore, no changes were made to the SEIS as a result of these comments.

E.2.21 General Comments in Support of the Licensing Action

Comment: ...we've got a lot of our infrastructure in place now and we expect a lot of growth 

and with the economic situation like it is now, you know, we're excited about the future. 

(0016-1-2 [DeLoach, George])

Comment: I believe in this nuclear power plant, I believe it will be good for Waynesboro, Burke 

County, Georgia and this great country. I feel like this panel has been thorough up to this point, I 

expect them to continue and I believe in the men and women of Georgia Power and the 

Southern Company. (0016-2-2 [Byne, Dick])

Comment: I believe in this plant and I know it will work and I feel very comfortable with it.

(0016-2-4 [Byne, Dick])

Comment: To the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on behalf of Augusta Technical College, a 

Georgia-based two-year technical college, we offer our support regarding the expansion of Plant 

Vogtle in Burke County by the Southern Nuclear Company. (0016-4-1 [Elam, Terry]); (0018-1-1

[Elam, Terry])

Comment: The expansion of Plant Vogtle opens up opportunities for innovations in training 

and for the industry to continue improving on its already existing high quality standards. 

(0016-4-3 [Elam, Terry]); (0018-1-3 [Elam, Terry])

Comment: Augusta Technical College endorses expansion of Southern Nuclear Company's 

efforts in Burke County. (0016-4-6 [Elam, Terry]); (0018-1-5 [Elam, Terry])

Comment: Since 2005, I've been traveling to Waynesboro and we've [the Augusta Metro 

Chamber of Commerce] been actively engaged in the regulatory and licensing process for 

Vogtle's reactors 3 and 4. Our organization is a strong advocate for diversified clean and safe 

solutions that will meet our growing energy needs. 

The Augusta Metro Chamber of Commerce supports the construction of reactors 3 and 4 at the 

Vogtle Generating site. (0016-12-1 [Parr, Sue])

Comment: On behalf of the Burke County Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Directors, I 

would like to state that we are in full support of Georgia Power in the expansion of Plant Vogtle.

(0016-13-1 [Roberts, Ashley])
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-58 March 2011

Comment: We believe this expansion will allow us to continue to receive clean [energy to 

serve our community as well as the state] (0016-13-2 [Roberts, Ashley])

Comment: While many may argue that the community leaders such as ourselves support this 

expansion and Plant Vogtle because we are blinded by the dollar signs of a project of this 

magnitude, I can promise you there is no amount of money that would be worth sacrificing the 

safety and security of my family and my community. Instead, we support the company and this 

project because of the relationship we have developed and the safe and reliable record that 

they have earned over the past 20 years in our community. (0016-13-8 [Roberts, Ashley]) 

Response: These comments provide general information in support of Southern’s COL 

application. Because these comments did not provide new and significant information, no 

change was made to the SEIS.

E.2.22 General Comments in Support of the Licensing Process

Comment: ...I'd like to thank the NRC for having this public meeting here in Waynesboro. No 

other countries have the freedom that we have of dissent and being for something. (0016-1-3

[DeLoach, George])

Comment: But beyond that, today when I was in the meeting with NRC today, not only Plant 

Vogtle and Southern Nuclear, all of them, how they handle themselves professionally, they have 

all these agencies -- and it just blew my mind today how they have to make sure that every 

screw, every bolt, every grain of dirt, has to be right. So I feel comfortable, and whatever we can 

do from the Board of Commissioners, Burke County Board of Commissioners, we're here to 

assist you because you are true professionals, you're a blessing for Burke County and whatever 

we can do to continue this relationship, we support you. (0016-3-2 [Abrams, Lucious])

Comment: We have confidence in the regulatory process that has occurred thus far and we 

believe it has provided the necessary oversight to ensure the best possible outcome for our 

community. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the DSEIS, further 

supports our opinion. The staff conclusion that the DSEIS finds no reason to deny the future 

issuance of combined operating license and an additional Limited Work Authorization is good 

news for Georgians. (0016-12-2 [Parr, Sue])

Comment: [T]he continuing regulatory process assures safe and responsible construction [of 

the new units]. (0016-12-4 [Parr, Sue])

Comment: We are very grateful for all concerned, everybody in this room, but most particularly 

the NRC in the thoroughness that you have devoted in studying the plans for this reactor 

expansion. (0016-14-6 [Stone, Jesse])

Comment: I appreciate y'all opening up this forum for public comment and look forward to 

listening to all the thoughtful comments that are coming ahead. (0016-14-8 [Stone, Jesse])
Appendix E

March 2011 E-59 NUREG-1947

Response: These comments provide general information in support of the NRC's COL review 

process. Because these comments did not provide new and significant information, no change 

was made to the SEIS.

E.2.23 General Comments in Support of Nuclear Power

Comment: I think there is always risk in anything that we do. My business is a couple of blocks 

-- a block away. We have a big railroad going behind it, you know, I mean a train accident would 

kill us all. But we still have to take those risks...we welcome them to our community, it has been 

a great asset. (0016-9-3 [Baxley, Robin])

Comment: This is -- we're not only proud to have it in our backyard, we're proud to be on the 

forefront of leading our country to energy independence. And we are just sorry that it has taken 

so long for us to get back on track. We need to catch up with other countries like Japan and 

France, and lead the nation in the way we need to go. (0016-14-4 [Stone, Jesse])

Response: These comments provide general information in support of nuclear power. 

Because these comments did not provide new and significant information, no change was made 

to the SEIS.

E.2.24 General Comments in Support of the Existing Plant

Comment: Plant Vogtle has meant a great deal to this town and county and we expect it to 

have a great impact on us in the next five to ten years. (0016-1-1 [DeLoach, George])

Comment: I feel they [Georgia Power and the Southern Company] have the best workforce in 

the southeast. ...They have treated me with respect and have answered my questions as well 

as can be expected. I feel very confident in their work ethics, I trust them and I appreciate their 

willingness to come to Burke County. (0016-2-3 [Byne, Dick])

Comment: They [Georgia Power and Plant Vogtle] have been true professionals. And not only 

with being a very true professional in whatever they do, the workers, how they handle their 

business, how they work in the communities, and beyond the impact, we know that it's a 

blessing due to the economy, the way everything is going on. (0016-3-1 [Abrams, Lucious])

Comment: From a public school perspective, we are very proud to have Plant Vogtle in our 

community. (0016-8-1 [Mitchell, Tommy])

Comment: But it has been very interesting to me to see all the things that they are doing for 

safety and EPD and it's been a great thing. I love to learn and they are following guidelines and 

welcome that accountability, from what I see. ... I know that they had to recently wait -- and this 

is not on the record exact figures -- four months for some bird eggs that were in an area that 

they had to wait to purge some land. I mean the land is changing every day and I think that they 

are going by those guidelines and doing those things to try do research and make it as safe as 

possible. (0016-9-2 [Baxley, Robin])
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-60 March 2011

Comment: Now Georgia Power is here, Plant Vogtle is here. We can't do anything about that, 

two are already here. And these two, Georgia Power and Plant Vogtle, has become bread to 

this community. And I say don't fight the hand that feeds you bread. (0016-10-2 [Stephens, Annie 

Laura])

Comment: I would like to say that Plant Vogtle is one of the finest corporate citizens a 

community could ask for and we are proud to have them in ours. Whether it is through civic 

involvement or a charitable cause, we can always count on overwhelming support of the 

company and the employees. (0016-13-7 [Roberts, Ashley])

Comment: We are proud to have Plant Vogtle in our backyard. (0016-14-3 [Stone, Jesse])

Comment: Now we're blessed so much it's hard to describe, at having Plant Vogtle here.

(0016-14-5 [Stone, Jesse])

Response: These comments express support of the existing units at the site. Because these 

comments did not provide new and significant information, no change was made to the SEIS.

E.2.25 General Comments in Opposition to the Licensing Action

Comment: The NRC is urged not to issue a Combined Licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant Units 3 and 4 because of flawed electrical systems inherent to the AP1000 which fail to 

meet AP1000 compliance documents as well as NRC safety requirements and regulations.

(0001-1 [Baxter, Farouk])

Comment: For the reasons stated below, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should: 

1) Deny Southern Company and its subsidiaries additional limited work authorization (LWA) for 

further construction related to proposed, unneeded, and still-unlicensed reactors on the Vogtle 

site in Georgia. (0003-1 [Arnold, Judy] [Boatenreiter, Glenn] [Carter, Pat] [Cumbow, Kay] [Dawson, 

Daneille] [Dooley, Gerald] [Falconer, Kimberly] [Hatch, Sarah] [Kasenow, Lisa] [Lewis, Marvin] [Lomas, 

Judith] [Lusk, Phil] [McConnell, Joy] [McNulty, Joy] [Mills, Nancy] [Sheppard, Deborah] [Thomas, Russel] 

[Trujillo, Dianne] [Villarreal, Tasha]); (0002-1 [Carroll, Glenn]); (0004-1 [Taylor, F])

Comment: Please halt these plans. (0008-6 [Thomas, Ellen])

Comment: If NRC permits Georgia Power to add two more, it would double the danger of 

radiation exposure, double the risk of nuclear accidents, and double the impact on future 

generations. (0009-4 [Zeller, Lou])

Comment: [T]he proposed construction of nuclear reactors would be counter productive, 

considering the proposed alternatives. (0013-4 [Patrie, Lewis E.])

Comment: Regulators, in our opinion, continue to have blinders on. We again believe that the 

NRC has failed to protect the public by recommending approval of Georgia Power and its utility 

partners' push to build two new reactors here for an estimated $14 billion price tag. 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-61 NUREG-1947

I mentioned four years ago that the issue of building more nuclear reactors would affect not just 

this local community, but Georgia as a whole and our region overall. And I had hoped that the 

NRC staff understood that it was important to do something that would benefit all, not just a 

select few. Sadly, that has not happened. (0016-5-1 [Barczak, Sara]); (0017-1-1 [Barczak, Sara])

Comment: In closing, we hope that the NRC and other regulators overseeing this project will 

step back and rethink all of this, will step back from all the hoopla surrounding this boondoggle 

and do what is right for the public and our natural resources and deny the license for the 

proposed Vogtle reactors. ...As I said four years ago, the future of not only this community, but 

many, many others are at stake. (0016-5-10 [Barczak, Sara])

Comment: It is not fair for the power companies to be given the biggest straw to pull from our 

precious water resources and a blank check from our wallets. (0016-5-11 [Barczak, Sara]); (0017-1-

10 [Barczak, Sara])

Comment: ...we're all connected here in this country, whether we live in Waynesboro; Shell 

Bluff, four miles from the reactor as the crow flies; Atlanta; Rockville, Maryland; whatever. And 

we know that DOE and NRC and EPA and DNR and South Carolina DHEC and all these people 

talk to each other. And I've come here to plead with you that what was rejected in this or 

whatever the term is -- no change -- are the things that deeply impact the people that live in this 

community, especially around the reactors. (0016-7-2 [Paul, Bobbie])

Comment: I can see that Georgia Power, Plant Vogtle are determined to build two more new 

reactors to the two existing reactors not regarding the affliction, the burden and the confusion 

that they are bringing to the community of Burke County and all other communities where these 

reactors are located. (0016-10-1 [Stephens, Annie Laura])

Comment: I've been deeply concerned about the two new nuclear reactors that are proposed 

at the Vogtle site. (0016-15-1 [Henson, Courtney])

Comment: I hope we will consider the latter [choose to stop the construction and take one step 

forward to a better, safer Georgia]. (0016-15-7 [Henson, Courtney])

Comment: Reactors 3 and 4 will represent a continuation of environmental destruction. More 

polluted land and water,...Who suffers? (0016-16-4 [Ogley-Oliver, Emma])

Comment: I am greatly concerned over Vogtle's proposed new reactors here in Waynesboro.

(0016-22-1 [Sardi, David]) 

Comment: In closing, we hope that the NRC and other regulators overseeing this project will 

step back and rethink all of this - will step back from all the hoopla surrounding this boondoggle 

and do what is best for the public and our natural resources and deny the license for the 

proposed Vogtle reactors. (0017-1-9 [Barczak, Sara])
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-62 March 2011

Response: These comments provide general information in opposition to Southern’s COL

application. Because these comments did not provide new and significant information, no 

change was made to the SEIS.

E.2.26 General Comments in Opposition to the Licensing Process

Comment: For the reasons stated below, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should: 

1) Deny Southern Company and its subsidiaries additional limited work authorization (LWA) for 

further construction related to proposed, unneeded, and still-unlicensed reactors on the Vogtle 

site in Georgia. (0005-1 [Kushner, Adele])

Comment: Well, something needs to be re-looked at in the EIS. (0016-11-7 [Carroll, Glenn])

Comment: I do not believe the NRC should approve this permit. Thank you for your time and 

consideration. (0016-22-15 [Sardi, David])

Response: These comments provide general information in opposition to NRC’s COL review 

process. Because these comments did not provide new and significant information, no change 

was made to the SEIS.

E.2.27 General Comments in Opposition to Nuclear Power

Comment: I would like to state my displeasure with the idea of having two new nuclear 

reactors in Georgia. (0006-1 [Smith, Nathan])

Comment: I wish to be on record opposing all taxpayer funding and construction of new 

nuclear power plants, specifically this includes the two Vogtle plants for Georgia. (0007-1

[Michetti, Susan])

Comment: The global warming and associated climate change are introducing new hazards to 

the use of nuclear plants that does not exist with renewable energy. It is no longer acceptable in 

public opinion to built new nuclear power plants that harm public interests in many ways. 

(0007-7 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: I ask the NRC to not permit new plant construction due to this unsolved waste 

problem that appears to have no solution that doesn't endanger public health with long-term

consequences of radioactivity. (0007-15 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: But why bother [talking about alternative energy sources]? As it all falls upon deaf 

ears in terms of the NRC and I'm afraid of other regulators overseeing this project. Let's face it, 

Georgia is using its natural resources, impacting its citizens' health, and allowing radioactive 

nuclear waste to pile up within its borders to power other states' air conditioning units and to line 

Southern Company's shareholders' wallets. (0016-5-8 [Barczak, Sara])

Comment: This is not a proper way of doing business. This is a relatively new way of doing 

business, it can't make it, it's going out of business. This is happening. We can get ripped off 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-63 NUREG-1947

until the cows come home. I predict no reactor will ever come on line in this country again. We 

should save our money, we should give the good folks in Shell Bluff emergency services and a 

grocery store at a minimum. (0016-11-8 [Carroll, Glenn])

Comment: We have a choice today, let's choose health and prosperity, not radiation and 

devastation. (0016-16-6 [Ogley-Oliver, Emma])

Comment: [This is a poem written by the commenter.] There was a community that was a 

peaceful area, they made their living off the land. They had strong family moral values and they 

passed it on to the next generation, their land and their homes. But as time moved on, there 

was a pimp that observed the way that they lived. He disguised himself to take advantage of the 

community. 

The pimp decided to bring two females and to take the man from his family. So if you kill the 

head, the body will die. Those two females were prostitutes, they had a disease that is called 

AIDS. So he got the man out and he began to enjoy the pleasures of life. The man did not know 

that these two females had AIDS. The pimp knew because he was their master, so he thought. 

The pimp made good profit on the two prostitutes. He had nowhere to take them after being 

used but to store all their venom in the land. Their scent got in the air, water and soil. The 

community started dying because of them. 

The pimp saw how much wealth he had made. So he got him two more prostitutes to bring in 

the area. But this time he shared some of the wealth with some of the community, so they were 

blinded by their desire and did not warn the community of the lies and the sickness in the land. 

For she has cast down many wounded, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is 

the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death. When you allow the dollar and human 

lives to control your decisions, then God will handle you. (0016-17-3 [Howard, Claude])

Comment: Now I don't know about everybody here, but personally I'm comfortable sleeping in 

my bed that's not near a nuclear reactor. I do not value nuclear energy because from what I've 

seen and heard, they bring death to communities that are near them. (0016-18-1 [Vincent, 

Patricia])

Comment: Hailing nuclear energy as a replacement for fossil fuels as a solution for global 

warming would be dangerous and irresponsible in a post-9/11 world. First of all, the United 

States will lose all moral authority in trying to deny North Korea and Iran their right to pursue 

nuclear energy. We can't champion nuclear energy as the future and at the same time 

reasonably keep it from the rest of the world. (0016-22-5 [Sardi, David])

Comment: For over five decades, nuclear power has diverted major funds away from the 

development of more benign but powerful forms of energy production... (0016-22-12 [Sardi, 

David])

Comment: But why bother as it falls upon deaf ears in terms of the NRC and I'm afraid other 

regulators overseeing this project? Let's face it. Georgia is using its natural resources, impacting 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-64 March 2011

its citizens' health, and allowing radioactive nuclear waste to pile up within in its borders to 

power other states' air conditioning units and to line Southern Company's shareholders' wallets.

(0017-1-7 [Barczak, Sara])

Response: These comments provide general information in opposition to nuclear power. 

Because these comments did not provide new and significant information, no change was made 

to the SEIS.

E.2.28 Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope − Emergency 

Preparedness

Comment: ...I'd like to say that tonight I was disappointed that there were not the booklets that 

are handed out when you go to Plant Vogtle or when you ask for evacuation routes. There was 

PR on Vogtle, there was one line in there that mentioned the public or public safety about 

evacuation. I've looked at this book with a checklist. There are four levels of radiation releases 

and you're supposed to look at it and determine which one is safe to stay in your house and 

which one you get in your car and get the hell out of Dodge. How to put a cloth on your mouth, 

turn off your air conditioning, shut down your heating, shut the windows. It's a new form of 

terrorism for the people living around these reactor sites. And I just ask for further screening on 

the NRC's part. (0016-7-6 [Paul, Bobbie])

Response: These comments relate to the adequacy of emergency plans, which is a safety 

issue that is outside the scope of the staff's environmental review. As part of its site safety 

review, the NRC staff will determine, after consultation with the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, whether emergency plans 

submitted by Southern meet applicable requirements. No change was made to the SEIS as a 

result of this comment.

E.2.29 Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope − Miscellaneous

Comment: Walked in to visit with her [the commenter's aunt] and she said, Well, tell me one 

thing about it, Charles, I just can't understand why my electric bill keeps going up. I said, 

Because they decided that you need to pay to build something that you're going to give a blank 

check and when they get through, you're going to pay to use it because every time you cut it on, 

you're paying. I said, You know, that's a good concept. Why don't I come up with something and 

you pay me to build it and I in return sell it back to you and you then buy it back from me. Isn't 

that crazy? That's what you're doing, that's exactly what you're doing. (0016-6-5 [Utley, Charles])

Comment: I heard that the monitoring from the Department of Energy to the state of Georgia

had been cut after years. And I couldn't believe it. ... This was right when the secret energy talks 

were happening in Washington and no one would disclose who was in them. We know Southern 

Company was there. I wondered today, when that was cut if those findings that our Georgia 

EPD -- Environmental Protection Division of DNR, DOE, everything -- had found or had 

explored, sampled and tested in beer, peanuts, pears, fish, the river -- I wondered why we didn't 

want that information any more. Who didn't want to have information about their community, 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-65 NUREG-1947

about their environment? ...radiation doesn't acknowledge state boundaries. 

So we've been working for about 14 months to restore that and we have a commitment from the 

Department of Energy and our state -- Georgia EPD --... (0016-7-1 [Paul, Bobbie])

Comment: As was said earlier, Georgia Power has the power to do what they want to do. They 

have the ability to buy who they want to buy. (0016-17-2 [Howard, Claude])

Comment: The AP1000 in Finland, I have heard about, it's not on line yet and they have made 

multiple design changes. I don't know if their design is design or not, but they've had many cost 

overruns and it's still not on line yet and it's way behind schedule. (0016-20-2 [Rivard, Betsy])

Comment: So for these reasons, continued and increased reliance on nuclear energy does not 

and cannot make sense within America's national security policy. (0016-22-9 [Sardi, David])

Response: This environmental review focuses on significant issues related to the proposed 

action. Having a defined scope for the environmental review allows the NRC to concentrate on 

the essential issues for actions under consideration rather than on issues that may have been or 

are being evaluated through different regulatory review processes. The issues raised in these 

comments are outside the scope of the environmental review process and were not addressed 

in the SEIS.

E.2.30 Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope − NRC Oversight

Comment: I'd just like to say ... my relationship with the NRC at city hall and others has been 

very professional and I thank you for what you are doing and most of all I thank you for having 

the safety of the general public first in your mind. (0016-1-4 [DeLoach, George])

Comment: If there's anything that I have learned -- the more that I learn, the less that I know. 

And I think that's the reason we have to ask Georgia Power, we have to ask the NRC questions 

and we have to continue to ask questions and you have to hold them accountable. (0016-2-1

[Byne, Dick])

Response: These comments provide general information regarding the NRC oversight 

process. These comments provide no new and significant information. Therefore, no change 

was made to the SEIS.

E.2.31 Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope − Safety

Comment: Section 3.2 of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement indicates 

that the AP1000 design has been certified by the NRC, but is presently undergoing further 

review by the NRC. The flawed electrical design of the AP1000 identified herein should also be 

resolved by the NRC prior to issue of the COL. The AP1000 design is flawed because it has 

failed to comply with the requirements of IEEE Standard 603 requiring the electrical portion of 

the safety systems that perform safety functions be classified as Class 1E. Compliance with 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-66 March 2011

IEEE Standard 603 would require the Ancillary Diesel Generators to be classified as Class 1E 

versus the present Non-Safety Related Commercial Grade classification. IEEE Standard 603 is 

listed by AP1000 as a compliance document with no exceptions; however, AP1000 does not 

comply with its requirements. IEEE Standard 603 is also endorsed by NRC Regulatory Guide 

1.153, and defines the functional requirements of the Safety System, and directs that electrical 

portions of the Safety System be classified as Class 1E; AP1000 also indicates complete 

conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.153, but the design does not comply. (0001-2 [Baxter, 

Farouk])

Response: The issues raised in this comment are outside the scope of the environmental 

review and are not addressed in the SEIS. The safety assessment for the proposed licensing 

action was provided as part of the application. The NRC is in the process of developing a safety 

evaluation report that analyzes all aspects of reactor and operational safety. The issues raised 

in the comment that are specific to the AP1000 design are being addressed in the staff’s 

separate review of Westinghouse’s proposed amendment to the AP1000 design certification. 

The NRC will issue a license or permit only if there is reasonable assurance that (1) the 

activities authorized by the license or permit can be conducted without endangering the health 

and safety of the public and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the rules 

and regulations of the Commission. No change was made to the SEIS as a result of this

comment.

Comment: The details of flawed electrical of electrical design are identified in the six 

attachments of detailed correspondence between Mr. Michael Johnson, NRC Director, New 

Reactors, and his staff. I had initially written to Mr. Johnson identifying safety flaws in the 

electrical design of the AP1000, and though a response was received from Mr. Johnson, as well 

as from Mr. Bergman, Mr. Chopra, and Mr. Jaffe; the final disposition from the Mr. Jaffe was that 

NRC did not have the time to review every concern that was brought to their attention; and 

therefore, no further action was planned to be undertaken by the NRC. (0001-3 [Baxter, Farouk])

Comment: LIMITED WORK AUTHORIZATION Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design has 

unresolved safety issues likely to impact the outcome of the licensing review as well as the final 

cost of the proposed reactors. Containment failure in an accident and analysis of impacts from a 

direct airline strike are unresolved safety issues of concern even to the NRC license review 

staff. These factors are likely to affect financing for, and the viability of, the proposed project. 

Therefore, it is premature to authorize any further work to the Vogtle site. 

(0003-3 [Arnold, Judy] [Boatenreiter, Glenn] [Carter, Pat] [Cumbow, Kay] [Dawson, Daneille] [Dooley, 

Gerald] [Falconer, Kimberly] [Hatch, Sarah] [Kasenow, Lisa] [Lewis, Marvin] [Lomas, Judith] [Lusk, Phil] 

[McConnell, Joy] [McNulty, Joy] [Mills, Nancy] [Sheppard, Deborah] [Thomas, Russel] [Trujillo, Dianne] 

[Villarreal, Tasha]); (0005-3 [Kushner, Adele]); (0002-3 [Carroll, Glenn])

Comment: Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design has unresolved safety issues likely to 

impact the outcome of the licensing review as well as the final cost of the proposed reactors. 

(0004-3 [Taylor, F])

Comment: New construction for nuclear industry is unacceptable for the following reasons:
Appendix E

March 2011 E-67 NUREG-1947

• the threat of serious accidents or incidents that could contaminate land and waters and all 

who live there, locally and perhaps globally - for a very long period of time 

(0007-11 [Michetti, Susan])

Comment: Most astonishingly -- and we heard it discussed just this evening -- the AP1000 

design still is not certified, Revision. I think all of us vividly remember being told that having a 

certified design would make this process much smoother, save money and on and on. Well, that 

hasn't happened and the most recent news is that Westinghouse has again missed another 

deadline. Yes, maybe eventually they'll get it together and the NRC will approve the design, but 

it has certainly been a long and bumpy road. (0016-5-3 [Barczak, Sara]); (0017-1-3 [Barczak, Sara])

Comment: I can understand all of your concerns about safety, and believe me, we are 

concerned too and we're not dumb, we read these preliminary reports and we study them and 

we know the experiences of our friends, our workers, our family members, our colleagues who 

work out there and have worked out there for years. We know the safety record that Southern 

Company, Southern Nuclear and Georgia Power and all the other partners in that venture have 

chalked up. (0016-14-2 [Stone, Jesse])

Comment: First, the AP1000 design has gone through several revisions and it's still not safe. 

(0016-15-2 [Henson, Courtney])

Comment: [We can choose to build the reactors] and put their safety at risk (0016-15-6 [Henson, 

Courtney])

Comment: ...my concern is the design is not complete. (0016-20-1 [Rivard, Betsy])

Comment: EPA understands that concerns have been raised by the NRC that certain 

structural components of the revised AP1000 shield building may not be suitable to withstand 

design loads. The shield building is designed to protect the reactor's primary containment from 

severe weather and other events, as well as serving as a radiation barrier and also supporting 

an emergency cooling water tank. It is EPA's understanding that the NRC is currently reviewing 

the remainder of the next- generation reactor's design certification amendment application, and 

that Westinghouse is expected to make design modifications and conduct safety testing to 

ensure the shield building design can meet its safety functions. 

The FSEIS should address the status of the Westinghouse AP1000 certification review and 

related issues, particularly the analysis of the structural integrity of the AP1000. We understand 

that the Safety Evaluation Report will address these issues in even more detail, and that the 

certification review may be completed as soon as December 2010. EPA understands that 

Revision 15 of the AP1000 design is codified in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. EPA concurs with 

NRC's plan to conduct an additional environmental review if changes result in the final design 

being significantly different from the design considered in the DEIS. (0019-5 [Mueller, Heinz J.])
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-68 March 2011

Response: The NRC's principal responsibility is to protect the health and safety of the public 

when authorizing the use of radioactive material. Because NEPA regulations do not include a 

safety review, the NRC has codified the regulations for preparing an EIS separately from the 

regulations for reviewing safety issues. The regulations governing the environmental review are 

set forth in 10 CFR Part 51, and the regulations covering the safety review are in 10 CFR Part 

52. For this reason, the license process includes an environmental review that is distinct and 

separate from the safety review. Because the two reviews are separate, operational safety 

issues are considered outside the scope of the environmental review, just as environmental 

issues are not considered part of the safety review. However, the staff forwards safety issues 

that are raised during the environmental review to the appropriate NRC organization for 

consideration and appropriate action. At this time, the staff has identified no changes in the 

design being evaluated in the AP1000 design certification amendment proceeding that differ 

significantly from the design considered in this SEIS. These comments are related to safety and 

are outside the scope of the staff’s environmental review. Therefore, no changes were made to 

the SEIS.

E.2.32 Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope − Security and Terrorism

Comment: It's my belief that granting this permit will impact our national security... (0016-22-2

[Sardi, David])

Comment: Second, the dangerous materials could potentially make it a prime target for 

terrorists attempting to harm the United States. (0016-22-6 [Sardi, David])

Response: Comments related to security and terrorism are safety issues that are outside the 

scope of the environmental review. However, NRC is devoting substantial time and attention to 

terrorism-related matters, including coordination with the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. As part of its mission to protect public health and safety and the common defense and 

security pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC staff is conducting vulnerability 

assessments for the domestic utilization of radioactive material. Since September 2001, NRC 

has identified the need for license holders to implement compensatory measures and has 

issued several orders to license holders imposing enhanced security requirements. Finally, 

NRC has taken actions to ensure that applicants and license holders maintain vigilance and a 

high degree of security awareness. Consequently, NRC will continue to consider measures to 

prevent and mitigate the consequences of acts of terrorism in fulfilling its safety mission. 

Additional information about the NRC staff’s actions regarding physical security since 

September 11, 2001, can be found on NRC’s public web site (www.nrc.gov). No change was 

made to the SEIS as a result of these comments.

E.3 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.”
Appendix E

March 2011 E-69 NUREG-1947

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”

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

1508, “Terminology and Index.”

64 FR 68005. December 6, 1999. “Waste Confidence Decision Review: Status.” Federal 

Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities.” Federal Register, 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 

Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

72 FR 49429. August 28, 2007. “Licenses, Certification, and Approvals for Nuclear Power 

Plants; Final Rule.” Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plant; Final 

Rule.” Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

73 FR 59551. October 9, 2008. “Waste Confidence Decision Update.” Federal Register, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

75 FR 54190. September 3, 2010. “Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of 

Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses 

(COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 and Associated Public Meeting.” 

Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq.

Alldred, M. and K. Shrader-Frechette. 2009. “Environmental Injustice in Siting Nuclear Plants.” 

Environmental Justice. 2(2):85-96. 
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-70 March 2011

Baker, P.J. and D.G. Hoel. 2007. "Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates 

of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities." European Journal of Cancer Care

16(4):355-363.

Clean Water Act (CWA). 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also called the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act [FWPCA])

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering. 2000. Study of Radiation Exposure From 

the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Available at 

http://www.ctcase.org/reports/index.html. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Executive Order 12898. 1994. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

Ga. Code Ann. 61-9. 2010. “Water Pollution Control Permits.” Georgia Code Annotated.

Georgia Power Corporation (GPC). 2006. Avian Protection Program for Georgia Power 

Company, Rev. 1. March 14, 2006. Accession No. ML063000228.

Health Physics Society (HPS). 2004. Radiation Risk in Perspective: Position Statement of the 

Health Physics Society, Rev. Health Physics Society, McLean, Virginia.

Hoffmann, W., C.Terschueren, and D.B. Richardson. 2007. "Childhood leukemia in the vicinity 

of the Geesthacht nuclear establishments near Hamburg, Germany." Environmental Health 

Perspectives 115(6):947-952.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1971. “1971 Recommendations 

of the ICRP.” ICRP Publication 26, Annals of the ICRP 1(3).

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1978. “Limits for Intakes of 

Radionuclides by Workers.” ICRP Publication 30, Annals of the ICRP 8(4).

Jablon, S.Z. Hrubec, J. D. Boice, Jr., and B. J. Stone. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living

Near Nuclear Facilities. NIH Pub. No. 90-874, National Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C.

Loew, T. 2010. “Oregon is first U.S. site for a wave-power farm.” USA TODAY. February 17, 

2010.

Makhijani, A. 2007. Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. Joint 

Project of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental 
Appendix E

March 2011 E-71 NUREG-1947

Research, IEER Press and RDR Books, Takoma Park, Maryland. Free PDF download 

available at http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/. 

Mangano, J.J., J. Sherman, C. Chang, A. Dave, E. Feinberg, and M. Frimer. 2003. "Elevated 

childhood cancer incidence proximate to U.S. nuclear power plants." Archives of Environmental 

Health 58(2):74-82.

Meinke, W.W. and T.H. Essig. 1991a. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard 

Radiological Effluent Controls for Boiling Water Reactors. NUREG-1302, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Meinke, W.W. and T.H. Essig. 1991b. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard 

Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors. NUREG-1301, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks for Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

Silva-Mato, A., D. Viana, M.I. Fernandez-SanMartin, J. Cobos, and M. Viana. 2003. "Cancer 

risk around the nuclear power plants of Trillo and Zorita (Spain)." Occupational and

Environmental Medicine 60(7):521-527.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Vogtle Early Site Permit 

Application. Rev. 2, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010c. Letter from C.R. Pierce, 

Southern, to NRC. “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement.” Letter ND-10-2199. November 23,1010. Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Accession No. ML103300035.

Talbott, E.O., A.O. Youk, K.P. Hugh-Pemu, and J.V. Zborowski. 2003. "Long-term follow-up of 

the residents of the Three Mile Island accident area: 1979-1998." Environmental Health 

Perspective 111(3):341-348.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting 

Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous 

Effluents form Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.21, Washington, 

D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1975. Programs for Monitoring of Nuclear Power 

Plants. Regulatory Guide 4.1, Washington, D.C.
Appendix E

NUREG-1947 E-72 March 2011

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Letter from FWS to NRC regarding USFWS Log# 

08-FA-0473. September 19, 2008. Accession No. ML082760694.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a. Letter from FWS to NRC regarding USFWS 

Log# 2009-1387. February 12, 2010. Accession No. ML100500426.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. Letter from FWS to NRC regarding USFWS 

Log# 2010-1254. October 20, 2010. Accession No. ML103010076.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan—

Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, NRC, 

Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 updates.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons 

Learned Task Force Final Report. Accessed at www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops

experience/tritium/lr-release-lessons-learned.pdf. Accession No. ML083220312.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Quality Assurance for Radiological 

Monitoring Programs (Inception Through Normal Operations to License Termination) – Effluent 

Streams and the Environment. Regulatory Guide 4.15, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1 

and 2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, 

ML082260203; ML082550040. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from NRC to FWS dated January 

25, 2008. Subject: Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Designated Critical Habitat for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit 

Application. Accession No. ML080100512.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and

Tennessee Valley Authority CLI-09-21, Docket No. 52-018-COL, 52-019-COL, 52-014-COL, 52-

015-COL.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Draft Supplemental Impact Statement for 

a Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 –NUREG-1947, 

Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML102000138. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Letter from G.P. Hatchett, NRC, to S. 

Tucker, FWS, “Request for a List of Protected Species Within the Area Under Evaluation for the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 Combined License Applications,” January 7, 

2010. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML092600684.
Appendix E

March 2011 E-73 NUREG-1947

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Summary of the Public Meeting for the 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined Licenses for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML103130579.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Biological Assessment for Threatened and 

Endangered Species and Designed Critical Habitat for the Vogtle Electrical Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application

Appendix F 

Key Consultation Correspondence 

March 2011 F-1 NUREG-1947 

Appendix F 

Key Consultation Correspondence 

Key consultation correspondence during the evaluation process of the application for combined 

licenses for Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) is identified in 

Table F-1. A list of pertinent correspondence generated during the preparation of this 

supplemental environmental impact statement is located in Appendix C. Copies of the 

correspondence listed in Table F-1 are included at the end of this appendix. Correspondence 

information relative to the early site permit (ESP) review of Units 3 and 4 can be found in 

Appendix F of ESP environmental impact statement, dated August 2008. 

Table F-1. Key Consultation Correspondence Regarding the Combined Operating License 

Application for Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP Site 

Source Recipient Date of Letter 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) 

(Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) 

Georgia Department of National Resources 

(Dr. Dave Crass) 

December 9, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

(Ms. Stephanie Rolin) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

(Ms. Emma Sue Holland) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

(Mr. Eddie Tullis) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

(Ms. Kathy McCoy) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Coushatta Tribe Louisiana 

(Mr. John Zachary) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Kialegee Tribal Town (Ms Evelyn Bucktrot) December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

(Mr. Steven Terry) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

(Ms. Gale Thrower) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Thlopthlocco Tribal Town (Mr. Louis McGertt) December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Muscogee National (Mr. A. D. Ellis) December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

(Mr. Richard L. Allen) 

December 10, 2009 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1947 F-2 March 2011 

Table F-1. (contd)

Source Recipient Date of Letter 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Chickasaw Nation (Ms. Gingy Nail) December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma 

(Mr. Bill Anoatubby) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Georgia Tribe of Easter Cherokee 

(Mr. Charles Thurmond) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town 

(Mr Tarpie Yargee) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

(Mr. Pare Bowlegs) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

(Mr. Michell Hicks) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

(Mr. Dallas Proctor) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Cultural/Historic Preservation Department 

(Ms. Karen Kaniatobe) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

(Ms. Debbie Thomas) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma 

(Ms. Joyce Bear) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

(Mr. Chadwick Smith) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Catawba Indian Tribe (Mr. Gilbert Blue) December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Seminole Tribe of Florida (Mr. Willard Steele) December 10, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

(Mr. Kenneth Carleton) 

December 10, 2009 

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton) South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources (Ms. Julie Holling) 

December 15, 2009 

South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources (Ms. Julie 

Holling) 

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton) December 15, 2009 

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton) Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

(Mr. Matt Elliot) 

December 15, 2009 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources (Mr. Matt Elliot) 

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton) December 16, 2009 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources (Ms. Katrina Morris) 

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton) December 17, 2009 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) U.S. Advisory Council on Historic December 23, 2009 
Appendix F 

March 2011 F-3 NUREG-1947 

Table F-1. (contd)

Source Recipient Date of Letter 

Preservation (Mr. Don Klima) 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Sub 

Office (Ms. Sandra S. Tucker) 

January 7, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Catawba Indian Nation (Mr. Donald Rodgers) January 7, 2010 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Ms. Sandra Tucker) 

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton) February 12, 2010 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources (Ms. Elizabeth Shirk) 

NRC (Ms. Mallecia Sutton) June 17, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Muscogee (Creek) Nation (Mr. A.D. Ellis) September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

(Mr. Dallas Proctor) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Mr. Eddie 

Tullis) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

(Ms. Emma Sue Holland) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (Ms. Kathy 

McCoy) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (Mr. John 

Zachary) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Kialegee Tribe, (Ms. Evelyn Bucktrot) September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (Mr. 

Steven Terry) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Ms. Gale 

Thrower) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Thlopthlocco Tribe (Mr. Louis McGertt) September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (Mr. Richard 

Allen) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Chickasaw Nation (Ms. Gingy [Virginia] Hail) September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Chickasaw Nation (Mr. Bill Anoatubby) September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee (Mr. 

Charles Thurmond) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Alabama-Quassarte Tribe (Mr. Tarpie 

Yargee) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (Mr. Pare 

Bowlegs) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (Mr. September 2, 2010 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1947 F-4 March 2011 

Table F-1. (contd)

Source Recipient Date of Letter 

Michell Hicks) 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma (Ms. 

Karen Kaniatobe) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (Ms. 

Debbie Thomas) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma (Ms. 

Joyce A. Bear) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (Mr. Chadwick 

Smith) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Seminole Tribe of Florida (Mr. Willard Steele) September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (Mr. 

Kenneth H. Carleton) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Ms. Stephanie 

Rolin) 

September 2, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Savannah 

District (Ms. Carol Bernstein) 

September 3, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) National Marine Fisheries Service (Mr. David 

Bernhart) 

September 3, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources (Mr. Robert Perry) 

September 3, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ms. Sandra 

Tucker) 

September 3, 2010 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of 

Texas (Mr. Bryant J. Celestine) 

NRC October 6, 2010 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (Mr. Heinz Mueller) 

NRC November 15, 2010 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

(Mr. Gregory Hogue) 

NRC November 21, 2010 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Ms. Sandra 

Tucker) 

February 24, 2011 

NRC (Mr. Gregory P. Hatchett) U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service 

(Mr. David Bernhart) 

February 24, 2011 
December 09, 2009 

Dr. Dave Crass, Acting Division Director and Deputy SHPO 

State of Georgia Historic Preservation Officer 

Historic Preservation Division 

Department of Natural Resources 

254 Washington Street, NW (Ground-level) 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

SUBJECT: VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED 

LICENSE APPLICATION REVIEW 

Dear Dr. Crass: 

Appendix F 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the State of Georgia Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 

to consult with the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations 

at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as 

amended. The NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended process identified in 

36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the 

NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement an FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether a formal scoping process 

will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51. 92, the NRC staff will prepare a supplement to the 

FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same coapplicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a formal seeping 

process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that if you have 

an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE), you will be 

afforded the opportunity to identify your concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance, 

and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

March 2011 F-5 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

D. Crass -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments you may have to offer on the environmental review of 

the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to describe and propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for 

potential impacts to historical and cultural resources, including developing alternatives and 

proposing measures that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose 

action on historic properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will 

forward the SEIS on the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your 

comments in the final SEIS on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4, would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2, on the site, and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The VEGP COL application is also 

available on the Internet at http://www/nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. During 

the ESP environmental review, the NRC consulted with your office. The detailed review by the 

NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed Units 3 and 4 is 

documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit 

(ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 and 2 are available 

in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project Manager, 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, D.C.20555-0001 or via e-mail to Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by 

January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton 

at 301 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-6 March 2011 
Ms. Stephanie Rolin 

NAGPRA Contact 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

5811 Jack Springs Road 

Atmore, AL 36502 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Ms. Rolin: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-7 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

S. Rolin -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any; your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

VogtleCOLASEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-8 March 2011 
December 10, 2009 

Ms. Emma Sue Holland, NAGPRA Contact 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

P.O. Box 746 

Tahlequah, OK 74465 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Ms. Holland: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians to consult 

with the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 

and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The 

NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures 

set forth in§§ 800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its 

regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-9 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-10 March 2011 
Mr. Eddie Tullis, Chairperson 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

5811 Jack Springs Rd 

Atmore, AL 36502 

December 10, 2009 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Tullis: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-11 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

E. Tullis -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-12 March 2011 
Ms. Kathy McCoy, NAGPRA Contact 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

P.O. Box 455 

Cherokee, NC 28719 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Ms. McCoy: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to consult with the 

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC 

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental 

Policy Act (N EPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-13 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

K. McCoy -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-14 March 2011 
Mr. John Zachary, Attorney at Law 

c/o Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 

P.O. Box 12730 

Alexandria, LA 71315-2730 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Zachary: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-15 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-16 March 2011 
Ms. Evelyn Bucktrot, Town King 

Kialegee Tribal Town 

P.O. Box 332 

Wetumka, OK 74883 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Ms. Bucktrot: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Kialegee Tribal Town to consult with the NRC regarding 

the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to coordinate 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 through 

800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for 

supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-17 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

E. Bucktrot -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-18 March 2011 
Mr. Steven Terry 

Land Resource Manager 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

Real Estate Services, Mile Marker 70 

US 41 at Admin. Bldg. 

Miami, FL 33194 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Terry: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Miccosulkee Tribe of Indians to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-19 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-20 March 2011 
Ms. Gale Thrower, NAGPRA Contact 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

5811 Jack Springs Road 

Atmore, AL 36502 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Ms. Thrower: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal seeping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-21 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-22 March 2011 
Mr. Louis McGertt, Town King 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

P.O. Box 188 

Okema, OK 74859 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. McGertt: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Thlopthlocco Tribal Town to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-23 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

L. IVII,;I.:J~Ill -L.-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-24 March 2011 
Mr. A.D. Ellis, Principal Chief 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

P.O. Box 580 

Okmulgee, OK 74447 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Ellis: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Muscogee (Creek Nation) to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-25 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

A. D. Ellis -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-26 March 2011 
December 10, 2009 

Mr. Richard L. Allen, NAGPRA Contact 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 948 

Tahleque, OK 74465-0948 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Allen: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-27 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-28 March 2011 
Ms. Gingy (Virginia) Nail 

NAGPRA Contact 

Chickasaw Nation 

P.O. Box 1548 

Ada, OK 74883 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Ms. Nail: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Chickasaw Nation to consult with the NRC regarding 

the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to coordinate 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 through 

800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for 

supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-29 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

G. Nail -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

VogtleCOLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-30 March 2011 
Mr. Bill Anoatubby, Governor 

Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 1548 

Ada, OK 74821-1548 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Anoatubby: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal seeping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-31 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-32 March 2011 
December 10, 2009 

Mr. Charles Thurmond, NAGPRA Contact 

Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee 

P.O. Box 1324 

Clayton, GA 30525 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Thurmond: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee to consult with the 

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC 

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental 

Policy Act (N EPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-33 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-34 March 2011 
Mr. Tarpie Yargee 

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town 

P.O. Box 187 

Wetumka, OK 74883 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Yargee: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town to consult with the 

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC 

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental 

Policy Act (N EPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-35 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

T. Yargee -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

VogtleCOLASEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-36 March 2011 
Mr. Pare Bowlegs 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 1498 

Wewoka, OK 74884 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Bowlegs: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-37 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

P. Bowlegs -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 8, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

VogtleCOLASEIS@nrc.gov by January 8, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-38 March 2011 
Mr. Michell Hicks, Principal Chief 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

P.O. Box 455 

Qualla Boundary 

Cherokee, NC 28719 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Hicks: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to consult with the 

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC 

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental 

Policy Act (N EPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-39 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

M. Hicks -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-40 March 2011 
December 10, 2009 

Mr. Dallas Proctor, Chief 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

P.O. Box 746 

Tahlequah, OK 74465 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Chief Proctor: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians to consult 

with the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 

and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The 

NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures 

set forth in§§ 800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its 

regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal seeping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-41 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

D. Proctor -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 8, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 8, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-42 March 2011 
December 10, 2009 

Ms. Karen Kaniatobe 

Director of the Cultural/Historical Preservation Department 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

2025 S. Gordon Cooper Drive 

Shawnee, OK 74801 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Ms Kaniatobe: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma to consult with 

the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC 

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental 

Policy Act (N EPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-43 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-44 March 2011 
Ms. Debbie Thomas 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

NAGPRA Coordinator 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

571 State Park Road 56 

Livingston, TX 77351 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Ms. Thomas: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas to consult with the 

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC 

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental 

Policy Act (N EPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-45 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

D. Thomas -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-46 March 2011 
December 10, 2009 

Mrs. Joyce A. Bear, NAGPRA Contact 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 580 

Okmulgee, OK 74447 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mrs. Bear: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma to consult with 

the NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC 

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental 

Policy Act (N EPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-47 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

J. A. Bear -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-48 March 2011 
Mr. Chadwick Smith, Principal Chief 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 948 

Tahlequa, OK 74465 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-49 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-50 March 2011 
Mr. Gilbert Blue, Chairperson 

Catawba Indian Tribe 

P.O. box 188 

Catawaba, SC 29704 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Blue: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Catawba Indian Tribe to consult with the NRC regarding 

the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to coordinate 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 through 

800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for 

supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-51 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

G. Blue -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any; your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-52 March 2011 
Mr. Willard Steele, Deputy THPO 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum 

HC 61, Box 21A 

Clewiston, FL 33440 

Appendix F 

December 10, 2009 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Steele: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Seminole Tribe of Florida to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 

51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

March 2011 F-53 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

W. Steele -2-

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant 

circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed 

action or its impacts, we request you submit written comments, if any; your tribe may have to 

offer on the environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-54 March 2011 
Mr. Kenneth H. Carleton 

THPO/Tribal Archaeologist 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

P.O. Box 6257/ 101 Industrial Road 

Choctaw, MS 39350 

December 10, 2009 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Mr. Carleton: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to consult with the 

NRC regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC 

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental 

Policy Act (N EPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in §§ 

800.3 through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 

CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal seeping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal seeping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

March 2011 F-55 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any, your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 15, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 15, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-56 March 2011 
PMVogtleCOLNPEm Resource 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

FYI 

Sutton, Mallecia 

Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:24 PM 

Kuntzleman, Nancy 

PMVogtleCOLNPEm Resource 

FW: SC State Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant 

From: Julie Holling [mailto:HollingJ@dnr.se,gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 2:49 PM 

To: Sutton, Mallecia 

Subject: RE: SC State Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Ms. Sutton, 

Appendix F 

The species listed in your attachment are still accurate for the 10-mile radius from VEGP. Please 

let me know if you need additional information. 

Julie 

Julie Holling- Data Manager 

SC: Dept. of Natural Resources 

Heritage Trust Program 

P. 0. Box 167, Columbia, SC 29202 

1000 Assembly St., Columbia, SC 29201 

office: 803-734-3917 fax: 803-734-3931 

Holling!Cilldnr.sc.gov 

DNR protects and manages South Carolina's natural resources by making wise and balanced decisions for the benefit of the state's 

natural resources and its people. Find out more about DNR at www. dnr.sc.gov. 

~ Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 

From: Sutton, Mallecia [mailto:Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:13PM 

To: Julie Holling 

Cc: PMVogtleCOLNPEm Resource 

Subject: SC State Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Dear Ms. Holling: 

The NRC staff is currently reviewing an application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 

for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of a two new nuclear power plants at the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. We originally consulted with you in 2007 

when we were preparing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Early Site Permit (ESP) for VEGP 

Units 3 and 4. The EIS for the COL will be a supplement to the ESP EIS. In 2007, we compiled a list of state 

threatened and endangered species in South Carolina within 10 miles of the VEGP site using the quads on the 

SCDNR website. I have attached the tables we included in the ESP EIS that contained this information. Could 

March 2011 F-57 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

you please let us know if these lists are still accurate or if there is updated or new species information? I have 

included the shapefile containing the centroid for the VEGP site. Coordsys is geographic: NAD27 degrees and 

is provided within the .prj file. Please let me know if you can provide information to verify or update this list with 

new information and if anything else is required to enable this data exchange. If I need to contact someone 

else for this information, please advise. 

I can be reached by phone or by email. 

Thanks for your assistance. 

Mal/ecia Sutton 

Environmental Project Manager 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Two White Flint North 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-27388 

Mailstop:T7E18 

301-415-0673 

Best regards, 

NUREG-1947 

2 

F-58 March 2011 
PMVogtleCOLNPEm Resource 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Thanks 

Mallecia Sutton 

Sutton, Mallecia 

Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:03 AM 

Matt Elliott 

Brett Albanese; Katrina Morris; PMVogtleCOLNPEm Resource 

RE: FW: GDNR email Vogtle COL 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Two White Flint North 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-27388 

Mailstop:T7E18 

301-415-0673 

-----Original Message-----

From: Matt Elliott [mailto:Matt.EIIiott@dnr.state.ga.us] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:49AM 

To: Sutton, Mallecia 

Cc: Brett Albanese; Katrina Morris 

Subject: Re: FW: GDNR email Vogtle COL 

Mallecia 

Appendix F 

Attached is our current GA protected species list. It has not changed since 2006 (when the last changes took 

effect). The attachment shows the changes that took place in 2006. 

Trina Morris and Brett Albanese will work on the rest of your request. 

Thanks 

Matt 

Matt Elliott 

Program Manager 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Wildlife Resources Division 

Nongame Conservation Section 

2065 US Hwy 278, SE 

Social Circle, GA 30025 

(770)918-6411 or (706)557-3032- office 

(404)291-8156- cell 

»>"Sutton, Mallecia" <Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov> 12/15/09 1:07PM »> 

Dear Matt: 

March 2011 F-59 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to participate on the phone call held Tuesday, December 8 

with the environmental staff working on the Vogtle COL application. As mentioned on the phone, the NRC staff 

is currently reviewing an application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) for a 

combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear power plants at the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. NRC is preparing a supplement to their 2008 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was prepared to support the decision to grant an Early Site Permit 

(ESP) to Southern for the VEGP site. NRC is particularly interested in any new Georgia state-listed species 

information in the vicinity of the VEGP site and the associated proposed transmission !ine macrocorridor. 

Attached are: 

1. Shapefiles for the boundary of the VEGP site and the transmission line macrocorridor. 

2. Tables 2-3 through 2-6 and Tables 2-9 and 2-10 from the ESP EIS. These tables provide lists of terrestrial 

and aquatic Federally and State-listed species within 10 miles of the VEGP site in Burke County and listed 

species in the counties crossed by the proposed transmission corridor (Burke, McDuffie, Jefferson, and 

Warren) as of 2007. 

We would appreciate it if you would please provide an updated list of the Georgia state-listed species or verify 

that there have been no changes. In addition, we would appreciate any new information you have on the 

occurrences of federally-listed species in the vicinity of Vogtle and the proposed transmission corridor. 

If you have any questions, I can be reached by email or phone. 

Thanks for your assistance 

Best Regards, 

Mallecia Sutton 

U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Two White Flint North 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-27388 

Mailstop:T7E18 

301-415-0673 

NUREG-1947 

2 

F-60 March 2011 
PMVogtleCOLPEm Resource 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Hi Mallecia, 

Katrina Morris [Katrina.Morris@dnr.state.ga.us] 

Monday, December 21, 2009 11 :22 AM 

Sutton, Mallecia 

Matt Elliott 

Re: FW: GDNR email Vogtle COL 

ir_12784.pdf 

Please see attached letter regarding the Vogtle COL. Let me know if you have any questions. 

Thanks, 

Trina 

Trina Morris, Wildlife Biologist 

Environmental Review Coordinator 

Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources 

Nongame Conservation Section 

2065 U.S. Hwy. 278 S.E. 

Social Circle, GA 30025-4743 

Ph: 770-918-6411 or 706-557-3032 

Fax: 706-557-3033 

katrina.morris@dnr.state.qa.us 

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/ 

Appendix F 

Wild about wildlife? Sign up for Georgia Wild, DNR's free e-newsletter about all things nongame, from animals 

to habitats. Click here to subscribe (or paste this link into your browser): 

http://www.georgiawildlife.com/enewsletters.aspx 

»>"Sutton, Mallecia" <Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov> 12/15/09 1:07PM »> 

Dear Matt: 

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to participate on the phone call held Tuesday, December 8 

with the environmental staff working on the Vogtle COL application. As mentioned on the phone, the NRC staff 

is currently reviewing an application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) for a 

combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear power plants at the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. NRC is preparing a supplement to their 2008 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was prepared to support the decision to grant an Early Site Permit 

(ESP) to Southern for the VEGP site. NRC is particularly interested in any new Georgia state-listed species 

information in the vicinity of the VEGP site and the associated proposed transmission line macrocorridor. 

Attached are: 

1. Shapefiles for the boundary of the VEGP site and the transmission line macrocorridor. 

2. Tables 2-3 through 2-6 and Tables 2-9 and 2-10 from the ESP EIS. These tables provide lists of terrestrial 

and aquatic Federally and State-listed species within 10 miles of the VEGP site in Burke County and listed 

species in the counties crossed by the proposed transmission corridor (Burke, McDuffie, Jefferson, and 

Warren) as of 2007. 

We would appreciate it if you would please provide an updated list of the Georgia state-listed species or verify 

that there have been no changes. In addition, we would appreciate any new information you have on the 

occurrences of federally-listed species in the vicinity of Vogtle and the proposed transmission corridor. 

March 2011 F-61 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

If you have any questions, I can be reached by email or phone. 

Thanks for your assistance 

Best Regards, 

Mallecia Sutton 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Two White Flint North 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-27388 

Mailstop:T7E18 

301-415-0673 

NUREG-1947 

2 

F-62 March 2011 
Appendix F 

~GEORGIA .-, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

CHRIS CLARK 

COMMISSIONER WILDLIFE RESOURCES DlVlSlON DAN FORSTER DIRECTOR 

March 2011 

December 17, 2009 

Mallecia Sutton 

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Two White Flint North 

111545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-27388 

Mailstop T7El8 

Subject: Known occurrences of natural communities, plants and animals of highest 

priority conservation status on or near Vogtle COL, Burke County, Georgia 

Dear Ms. Sutton: 

This is in response to your request of December 15, 2009. According to our records, within the 

VEGP Boundary and the Transmission Line Macrocorridor there are the following Natural 

Heritage Database occurrences: 

GA 

GA 

GA 

GA 

Scientific Name Common Name Status Counties 

Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum Eastern Tiger Salamander Jefferson, Mcduffie 

Ceratio/a ericoides Sandhill Rosemary ST Burke 

Oesmognathus auriculatus Southern Dusky Salamander Burke 

Geomys pinetis Southeastern Pocket Gopher ST Burke 

Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us Bald Eagle ST Mcduffie 

Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Burke 

Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Burke 

Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Burke 

Passerina ciris Painted Bunting Burke 

Stewartia ma/acodendron Silky Camellia SR Burke 

NONGAME CONSERVATION SECTION 

2065 U.S. HIGHWAY 278 S.E. I SOCIAL CIRCLE, GEORGIA 30025-4743 

770.918.6411 or 706.557.3032 I FAX 706.5.;7.3033 I WWW.GEORGIAWILDLIFE.COM 

F-63 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Boggy Gut Creek [High Priority Stream] 

Brier Creek [High Priority Stream] 

Brushy Creek [High Priority Stream] 

McBean Creek [High Priority Stream] 

Reedy Creek [High Priority Stream] 

Sandy Run Creek [High Priority Stream] 

Savannah River [High Priority Stream] 

According to our records, within 10 miles of the VEGP Boundary there are the following 

Natural Heritage Database occurrences: 

US Acipenser hrevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 1.0 mi. NE of site in the Savannah 

River 

US Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 10 mi. NW of site in the Savannah 

River 

US Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 4.0 mi. N of site in the Savannah 

River 

US Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 5 mi. N of site in the Savannah 

River 

US Acipenser brevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon) approx. 6 mi. N of site in the Savannah 

River 

Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus (Atlantic Sturgeon) [HISTORIC?] approx. 4.0 mi. N of 

site in the Savannah River 

Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum (Eastern Tiger Salamander) [HISTORIC] approx. 8 mi. S 

of site 

Cp mesic hroadleaf decid-hroadleaf ever. forest (Coastal Plain Mesic Ravine Forest) 

approx. 4.0 mi. S of site 

Cp mesic broadleaf decid -broadleaf ever. forest (Coastal Plain Mesic Ravine Forest) 

approx. 3.5 mi. S of site 

Cp mesic broadleafdecid-broadleafever. forest (Coastal Plain Mesic Ravine Forest) 

approx. 4.0 mi. S of site 

Desmognathus auriculatus (Southern Dusky Salamander) approx. 8 mi. W of site 

D1yopteris celsa (Log Fern) approx. 7 mi. S of site 

GA Enneacanthus chaetodon (Blackbanded Sunfish) approx. 10 mi. E of site in unnamed 

tributary #3 

GA Enneacanthus chaetodon (Blackbanded Sunfish) approx. 5 mi. E of site in Pen Branch 

Etheostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 3.5 mi. S of site in High Head Branch 

F:theostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. I 0 mi. E of site in Meyers Branch 

F:theostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 8 mi. E of site in Steel Creek 

Etheostomafricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 8 mi. NE of site in Pen Branch 

}_'theostoma fricksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 9 mi. E of site in Meyers Branch 

Etheostoma_fi-icksium (Savannah Darter) approx. 9 mi. N of site in Upper Three Runs 

Etheostoma serr{fer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 1.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Etheostoma serrder (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 4.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River 

NUREG-1947 F-64 March 2011 
Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 6 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River 

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 8 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 8 mi. NE of site in Pen Branch 

Etheostoma serrifer (Sawcheek Darter) approx. 9 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Appendix F 

GA Fusconaiamasoni (Atlantic Pigtoe) [EXTIRPATED?] approx. 8 mi. S ofsitein Brier 

Creek in Brier Creek 

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 1.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 4.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Fundulus ch1ysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site in the Savannah 

River 

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 7 mi. NW of site in the Savannah River 

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River 

Fundulus chrysotus (Golden Topminnow) approx. 8 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 1.5 mi. NW of site 

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 2.0 mi. SW of site 

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 2.5 mi. SW of site 

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 3.0 mi. NW of site 

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 3.0 mi. W of site 

GA Geomys pinetis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 3.5 mi. W of site 

GA Geomys pine tis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 4.0 mi. NW of site 

GA Geomys pine tis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 5 mi. NW of site 

GA Geomys pine tis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 5 mi. SW of site 

GA Geomys pine tis (Southeastern Pocket Gopher) approx. 7 mi. NW of site 

Lindera subcoriacea (Bog Spicebush) approx. 4.0 mi. S of site 

GA Moxostoma robustum (Robust Redhorse) approx. 10 mi. NW of site in the Savannah 

River in the Savannah River 

GA Moxostoma robustum (Robust Redhorse) approx. 2.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

in the Savannah River 

GA Moxostoma robustum (Robust Redhorse) approx. 5 mi. NW of site in the Savannah River 

in the Savannah River 

GA Moxostoma robustum (Robust Redhorse) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River 

in the Savannah River 

Nerodiajloridana (Florida Green Water Snake) approx. 9 mi. SE of site 

GA Nestronia umhellula (Indian Olive) approx. 3.5 mi. S of site 

March 2011 

Notropis chalyhaeus (lroncolor Shiner) approx. 1.0 mi. NE of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 1.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 1.5 mi. N of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (lroncolor Shiner) approx. 3.5 mi. NE of site in Fourmile Branch 

Notropis chalybaeus (lroncolor Shiner) approx. 4.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (lroncolor Shiner) approx. 4.0 mi. N of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (lroncolor Shiner) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (lroncolor Shiner) approx. 4.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (lroncolor Shiner) approx. 5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (lroncolor Shiner) approx. 5 mi. N of site in the Savannah River 

F-65 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 6 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 6 mi. NE of site in Pen Branch 

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 7 mi. NE of site in Indian Grave Branch 

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 7 mi. NW of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalybaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 8 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Notropis chalyhaeus (Ironcolor Shiner) approx. 9 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 1 0 mi. SW of site 

Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 1.5 mi. NW of site 

Passerina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 2.5 mi. NW of site 

Passer ina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 7 mi. SE of site 

Passer ina ciris (Painted Bunting) approx. 8 mi. S of site 

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus (Florida Pine Snake) approx. 6 mi. SW of site 

Pseudacris brimleyi (Brimley's Chorus Frog) [HISTORIC] approx. 5 mi. N of site 

Quercus austrina (Bluff White Oak) approx. 7 mi. NW of site 

GA Sarracenia rubra (Sweet Pitcherplant) approx. 8 mi. SE of site 

GA Scutellaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee Skullcap) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site 

Silene caroliniana (Carolina Pink) approx. 3.5 mi. S of site 

Silene caroliniana (Carolina Pink) approx. 4.0 mi. SE of site 

Silene caroliniana (Carolina Pink) approx. 7 mi. NW of site 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 10 mi. E of site in Meyers Branch 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 4.0 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 4.0 mi. NE of site 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 4.5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 5 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 5 mi. N of site in the Savannah River 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 5 mi. NE of site 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 6 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 6 mi. NE of site in Pen Branch 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 7 mi. E of site 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 7 mi. N of site in Island Creek 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 7 mi. NW of site in the Savannah River 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 7 mi. SE of site in the Savannah River 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 8 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Umbra pygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 9 mi. E of site in the Savannah River 

Umhrapygmaea (Eastern Mudminnow) approx. 9 mi. NW of site in McBean Creek 

* Entries above proceeded by "US" indicates species with federal status in Georgia (Protected 

or Candidate). Species that are federally protected in Georgia are also state protected; "GA" 

indicates Georgia protected species. 

Recommendations: 

We have records of several high priority species within the project area (see Table). We also a 

large number of records of species of concern within 10 miles of the VEGP site. This includes a 

federally listed species, Acipenser hrevirostrum (Shortnose Sturgeon). Section 9 of the 

NUREG-1947 F-66 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Endangered Species Act states that taking or harming of a listed species is prohibited. We 

recommend all requestors with projects located near federally protected species consult with the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. For southeast Georgia, please contact Strant Colwell 

(912-265-9336, ext.30 or Strant_Colwell@fws.gov). In southwest Georgia, please contact John 

Doresky (706-544-6999 or John_Doresky@fws.gov). In north Georgia, please contact Robin 

Goodloe (706-613-9493, ext.221 or Robin_ Goodloe@fws.gov). 

A record of a nesting Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is also within the transmission line 

macrocorridor area. Although Bald Eagles are no longer considered an endangered species, they 

are still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

and the Georgia Endangered Species Act. These Acts continue to protect bald eagles from 

potentially harmful human activities. For more information on how to prevent impacts to bald 

eagles that could violate the Eagle Act, download the National Bald Eagle Management 

Guidelines: 

http :1 /www .fws. gov /migratorybirds/i s sues/Bal dEagl e/N ati on alB aldEagl eManagementGui delines 

.pdf 

Though we don't have any records within the project area, there may be appropriate habitat for 

gopher tortoises ( Gopherus polyphemus) within the corridor. We recommend identifying any 

burrows before construction and avoiding disturbance of burrows and tortoises in those areas. 

In order to protect aquatic habitats and water quality, we recommend that all machinery be kept 

out of creeks during construction. Streams should not be culverted/forded to allow equipment 

access during construction or for future ROW maintenance. Further, we strongly advocate 

retaining at least a 25-foot vegetative butTer between each stream bank and the closest power 

pole, and allow this buffer to regenerate to shrub-scrub growth after the line is installed (if the 

landowner is willing). We realize that some trees may have to be removed, but recommend that 

shrubs and ground vegetation be left in place. Wider buffers may be needed for projects where 

land slopes sharply toward the stream being crossed. We also recommend that stringent erosion 

control practices be used during construction activities and that vegetation is re-established on 

disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Silt fences and other erosion control devices should be 

inspected and maintained until soil is stabilized by vegetation. Please use natural vegetation and 

grading techniques (e.g. vegetated swales, turn-offs, vegetated buffer strips) that will ensure that 

the project area does not serve as a conduit for stonn water or pollutants into the water during or 

after construction. These measures will help protect water quality in the vicinity of the project as 

well as in downstream areas. 

Please be aware that this project occurs near several high priority streams. As part of an etiort to 

develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for the state of Georgia, the Wildlife 

Resources division has developed and mapped a list of streams that are important to the 

protection or restoration of rare aquatic species and aquatic communities. High priority waters 

and their surrounding watersheds are a high priority for a broad array of conservation activities, 

but do not receive any additional legal protections. We now have GIS ESRI shapefiles of GA 

high priority waters available on our website 

(http://www.georgiawildlife.com/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=l3). 

March 2011 F-67 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Please contact the Georgia Natural Heritage Program if you would like additional information on 

high priority waters. 

Data Available on the Nongame Conservation Section Website 

By visiting the Nongame Conservation Section Website you can view the highest priority species 

and natural community information by Quarter Quad, County and HUC8 Watershed. To access 

this information, please visit our GA Rare Species and Natural Community Information page at: 

http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89 

An ESRI shape file of our highest priority species and natural community data by quarter quad 

and county is also available. It can be downloaded from: 

http:/ I georgi awi I dl i fe.dnr. state. ga. us/assets/documents/ gnhp/ gnhpds.zi p 

Disclaimer: 

Please keep in mind the limitations of our database. The data collected by the Nongame 

Conservation Section comes from a variety of sources, including museum and herbarium 

records, literature, and reports from individuals and organizations, as well as field surveys by our 

staff biologists. In most cases the information is not the result of a recent on-site survey by our 

staff Many areas of Georgia have never been surveyed thoroughly. Therefore, the Nongame 

Conservation Section can only occasionally provide definitive information on the presence or 

absence of rare species on a given site. Our files are updated constantly as new information is 

received. Thus, information provided by our program represents the existing data in our 

files at the time of the request and should not be considered a final statement on the species 

or area under consideration. 

If you know of populations of highest priority species that are not in our database, please fill out 

the appropriate data collection form and send it to our office. Forms can be obtained through our 

web site (http://www.georgiawildlife.com) or by contacting our office. Ifi can be of further 

assistance, please let me know. 

Sincerely, 

J~rrl~ 

Katrina Morris 

Environmental Review Coordinator 

NUREG-1947 F-68 March 2011 
December 23, 2009 

Mr. Don Klima, Director 

Office of Federal Agency Programs 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Old Post Office Building 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809 

Washington, DC 20004 

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 

AREA UNDER EVALUATION FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING 

PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION REVIEW 

Dear Mr. Klima: 

Appendix F 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC), on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants, for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to initiate consultation for the subject project with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) pursuant to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) regulations at 10 CFR 51 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of 

the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, process 

identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 through 800.6. 

Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 10 CFR 51.92 for 

supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement an FEIS, issue a notice of intent and determine whether a formal scoping process 

will be conducted. NRC staff will prepare a supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit 

(ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, as required by 10 CFR 51.92. In this case, the NRC staff has 

determined that it will not conduct a formal scoping process for the development of the SEIS. 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Therefore, a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not submit 

information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, 

except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that if your 

agency has an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE), it 

will be afforded the opportunity to identify its concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance, 

and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

March 2011 F-69 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

D. Klima 2 

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request that you submit written comments, if any, you may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 19, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the proposed action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8, the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on the 

COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS on 

the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4, would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2, on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Plant COL application is 

also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col/vogtle.html. A 

detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

VogtleCOLAEIS@nrc.gov by December 30, 2009. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton by 

telephone at 301-415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! A Fetter for 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-70 March 2011 
Sandra S. Tucker, Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Coastal Sub Office 

4270 Norwich Street 

Brunswick, GA 31520 

Appendix F 

January 7, 2010 

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR LIST OF PROTECTED SPECIES WITHIN THE AREA 

UNDER EVALUATION FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, 

UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATIONS 

Dear Ms. Tucker: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC), on behalf of itself and four co-applicants, for a 

combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear power plants at the 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. As part of the review of 

this COL application, the NRC is conducting an environmental review as required by Title 10, of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR) Part 51, the NRC regulation that implements the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). This letter is being submitted 

under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (FWCA). 

In accordance with the procedures set forth in NRC regulations at 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC is 

preparing a supplement (an SEIS) to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was 

issued in connection with the NRC's review of an early site permit (ESP) application submitted 

to the NRC in 2006 by SNC and the same co-applicants. The ESP was issued on August 26, 

2009. Because the COL application references the Vogtle ESP, the COL SEIS will supplement 

the NRC staff's analysis in the ESP FEIS with an analysis of any new and significant information 

regarding the environmental effects of construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant 

at the VEGP site. Accordingly, the COL EIS will address new and significant information 

pertinent to the environmental issues resolved in the ESP FEIS, such as impacts to fish and 

wildlife, including threatened or endangered species. To support the process for preparing the 

SEIS on the COL application and to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA, the NRC 

requests current information on Federally-listed, proposed and candidate species, and critical 

habitat that may be in the vicinity of the VEGP site. In addition, to fulfill consultation 

requirements of the FWCA, please provide any information you consider appropriate under the 

provisions of that statute. 

The proposed new reactors, Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4, would be located on a 3169 acre site in 

Burke County, approximately 26 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Units 1 and 2, on the site, and it plans to construct Units 3 and 4 adjacent to the 

existing units, wholly within the existing boundaries of the VEGP site. SNC submitted the 

application for COL by letter dated March 28, 2008, pursuant to NRC requirements in 10 CFR 

March 2011 F-71 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

S. Tucker -2-

Part 52. The application was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, and is available through 

the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access Management System 

(ADAMS), which can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental 

Report for the application is listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The VEGP 

COL application is also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newlicensing/col/vogtle.html. 

On August 26, 2009, the NRC issued SNC and its co-applicants an early site permit (ESP) for 

the VEGP site, which is the site proposed for Units 3 and 4. An ESP is a Commission approval 

of a site as suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. During the 

ESP environmental review, the NRC consulted with the Coastal Sub Office in Brunswick, GA, 

and by letter dated September 19, 2008, (Enclosure 1) received concurrence on a biological 

assessment evaluating the impacts of limited site-preparation activities for two new reactors at 

the VEGP site on potentially occurring federally-listed threatened or endangered species. The 

NRC's detailed review of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating proposed 

Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Early site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 

and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS accession numbers ML082240145 and 

ML082240165, respectively.) Pursuant to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

new and significant information regarding such issues. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.39, matters 

resolved in the ESP proceedings are considered to be resolved in any subsequent proceedings, 

absent identification of new and significant information. 

Consequently, in this consultation, the NRC is particularly interested in any information related 

to Federally-listed species, critical habitat, and our interactions under the FWCA that may have 

changed since our last consultation. As set forth in the COL application, SNC intends to use a 

closed-cycle, wet cooling tower system to remove waste heat during power operation for Plant 

Vogtle Units 3 and 4. Make-up water for the cooling tower system would be withdrawn from the 

Savannah River through a new intake structure. Blow-down from the closed-cycle cooling 

system would be discharged to the Savannah River through a new discharge structure. As 

noted above, the NRC SEIS on the COL application will include, among other things, analyses 

of new and significant information relating to threatened or endangered species, if any. 

As part of your office's participation in the consultation process, please submit by 

January 29, 2010, any written comments you have to offer regarding the environmental review. 

Comments should be submitted either by mail to Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. 

NUREG-1947 F-72 March 2011 
Appendix F 

S. Tucker -3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, 

Environmental Project Manager by telephone at 301 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

Enclosure: As stated 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-73 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mr. Donald Rodgers, Chief 

Catawba Indian Nation 

996 Avenue of the Nations 

Catawba, SC 29730 

January 7, 2010 

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOUTHERN NUCLEAR 

OPERATING COMPANY'S COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE 

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4 AT THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT IN WAYNESBORO, GEORGIA 

Dear Chief Rodgers: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern or SNC) on behalf of itself and several 

co-applicants for a combined license (COL) for construction and operation of two new nuclear 

units at its Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP) site in Burke County, Georgia. 

The purpose of this letter is to invite the Catawba Indian Nation to consult with the NRC 

regarding the proposed action, pursuant to NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. The NRC plans to 

coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA using the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process identified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in§§ 800.3 

through 800.6. Additionally, the NRC staff will rely on procedures in its regulations at 

10 CFR 51.92 for supplementing a final environmental impact statement (FEIS). 

Section 51.26(d) of the NRC regulations describes the processes for determining the need to 

supplement a FEIS, issue a notice of intent, and determine whether or not a formal scoping 

process will be conducted. As required by 10 CFR 51.92, the NRC staff will prepare a 

supplement to the FEIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and 

the same co-applicants. In this case, the NRC staff has determined that it will not conduct a 

formal scoping process for the development of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or 

more new nuclear units. Under 10 CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. 

In accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR § 800.8, the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian 

tribes that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the area of potential 

effect (APE) are afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and 

cultural importance and, if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such 

properties. 

NUREG-1947 F-74 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Chief Rodgers -2-

Thus, to support the NRC staff's review of any new and potentially significant circumstances or 

information relevant to the environmental concerns related to the proposed action or its impacts, 

we request you submit written comments, if any; your tribe may have to offer on the 

environmental review of the COL by January 29, 2010. 

The NRC intends to propose measures in the SEIS for the COL analyses for potential impacts 

to historical and cultural resources including developing alternatives and proposing measures 

that might avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects of the propose action on historic 

properties. To complete consultation under§ 800.8(c), the NRC staff will forward the SEIS on 

the COL to you for your review and comment, and will address your comments in the final SEIS 

on the COL. 

The proposed new reactors, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 would be located approximately 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia, near the town of Waynesboro, Georgia. SNC currently operates 

two reactors, Vogtle Units 1 and 2 on the site and plans to construct the new units adjacent to 

the existing reactors. The application for the COL was accepted for docketing on May 30, 2008, 

and is available through the web-based version of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access 

Management System (ADAMS), which can be found at 

http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The Environmental Report for the application is 

listed under ADAMS accession number ML081 050181. The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

COL application is also available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newlicensing/col/vogtle.html. A detailed review by NRC of the environmental impacts of 

constructing and operating proposed Units 3 and 4 is documented in NUREG-1872, "Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Site." (ESP FEIS Volumes 1 and 2 are available in ADAMS under ADAMS 

accession numbers ML082240145 and ML082240165, respectively.) 

Please submit comments either by mail to Mrs. Mallecia Sutton, Environmental Project 

Manager, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov by January 29, 2010. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mrs. Sutton at 

(301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Branch Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-75 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mar Oi 10 04:15p USFWS 

9128328744 p.2 

United States Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

105 West Park Drive, SuiteD 

Athens, Geor:;ia 30606 

Phone: (706) 613-9493 

Fax: (706) 6 U-6059 

Coastal Sub-OtJice 

West Georgia Sub,Office 

Post Office Box 52560 

Fort Benning, Geoq;ia 31995-2560 

Phone: (706) 544-6418 

FEB 1 2 2010 

4980 Wildlife Drive 

Townsend, Georgia 31331 

Phone: (912) 832-8739 

Fax: (912) 832-&744 

Fax: (706) 544-6419 

Ms. Mallecia Sutton 

Environmental Project Manager 

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Ylail Stop T-7El8 

Washington, DC 20555 

Re: USFWS Log Number 2009-13 87 

Dear Ms. Sutton: 

Thank you for your Jetter dated January 7, 2Dl 0, regarding your preparation for a combined license 

application for Plant Vog!le Units 3 and 4 in Burke County on the Savannah River near 

Waynesboro, Georgia. Plant Vogtle is a nuclear power, electric generating plant in the Southern 

Company system. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides the following comments in 

acrordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended; (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 

16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) to further the conservation offish and wildlife resources and !heir habitat, 

including federally listed threatened and endangered species. 

Our September 19, 2008, consultation letter stated we believed 'that listed species under our purview 

had been adequately addressed for limited site-preparation activities at the Vogtle site. Based on 

our knowledge, there is no additional information related to federally-listed species, critical habitat 

or other interactions under the FWCA. 

We appreciate your willingness to protect all natural resources. Regarding this pro.iect, we will 

provide comments to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344) And Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S. C. 

403). If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our Coastal Georgia Sub 

Office supervisor, Strant Colwell, at 912-832-Sn9 extension J. 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

A~~ Sandra S. Tucker ~ 

Field Supervisor/- ' 

F-76 March 2011 
March 2011 

-----Original Message-----

From: Elizabeth Shirk [mailto:Elizabeth.Shirk@dnr.state.ga.us] 

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:02 PM 

To: Sutton, Mallecia 

Subject: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Burke County, Georgia, Units 

3 and 4 Supplement 

Ms. Sutton: 

The Historic Preservation Division (HPD) has reviewed the additional 

information concerning the 

above referenced undertaking in Burke County, Georgia. Our comments are 

offered to assist 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its applicants in 

complying with the 

provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended. 

Based on the information provided, HPD agrees with NRC that the backfill 

operations will have 

no effect to properties listed on or eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

If we may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Elizabeth (Betsy) Shirk 

Environmental Review Coordinator 

Historic Preservation Division 

254 Washington Street, SW 

Ground Floor 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

404-651-6624 

Please Note Our New Address 

Appendix F 

F-77 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mr. A. D. Ellis, Principal Chief 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

P.O. Box 580 

Okmulgee, OK 74447 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Chief Ellis: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-78 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Chief Ellis - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-79 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Chief Ellis - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-80 March 2011 
September 2, 201 0 

Mr. Dallas Proctor, Chief 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

P.O. Box 746 

Tahlequah, OK 74465 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Chief Proctor: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-81 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Chief Proctor - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

5:00p.m. to 6:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-82 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Chief Proctor - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-83 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mr. Eddie Tullis, Chairperson 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

5811 Jack Springs Road 

Atmore, AL 36502 

September 02, 2010 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-84 March 2011 
Appendix F 

E. Tullis - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-85 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

E. Tullis - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-86 March 2011 
Ms. Emma Sue Holland 

NAGPRA Contact 

United Keetoowah Band 

of Cherokee Indians 

P.O. Box 746 

Tahlequah, OK 74465 

Appendix F 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Holland: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-87 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

E. Holland - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-88 March 2011 
Appendix F 

E. Holland - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-89 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Ms. Kathy McCoy, NAGPRA Contact 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

P.O. Box 455 

Cherokee, NC 28719 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. McCoy: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-90 March 2011 
Appendix F 

K. McCoy - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-91 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

K. McCoy - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-92 March 2011 
Mr. John Zachary, Attorney at Law 

c/o Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 

P.O. Box 12730 

Alexandria, LA 71315-2730 

Appendix F 

September 2, 2010 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. Zachary: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-93 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

J. Zachary - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-94 March 2011 
Appendix F 

J. Zachary - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-95 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Ms. Evelyn Bucktrot, Town King 

Kialegee Tribal Town 

P.O. Box 332 

Wetumka, OK 74883 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Bucktrot: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-96 March 2011 
Appendix F 

E. Bucktrot - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-97 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

E. Bucktrot - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-98 March 2011 
Mr. Steven Terry 

Land Resource Manager 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

Real Estate Services, Mile Marker 70 

US 41 at Admin. Bldg. 

Miami, FL 33194 

Appendix F 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. Terry: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-99 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

S. Terry - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide an: 

information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which ends on 

November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment period, to the 

extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration 

Mail stop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. 

Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-100 March 2011 
Appendix F 

S. Terry - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-1 01 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Ms. Gale Thrower, NAGPRA Contact 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

5811 Jack Springs Road 

Atmore, AL 36502 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Thrower: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA 

NUREG-1947 F-102 March 2011 
Appendix F 

G. Thrower - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-103 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

G. Thrower - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-104 March 2011 
Mr. Louis McGertt, Town King 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town 

P.O. Box 188 

Okema, OK 74859 

Appendix F 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. McGertt: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-105 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

L. McGertt - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide an: 

information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which ends on 

November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment period, to the 

extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration 

Mail stop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. 

Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-106 March 2011 
Appendix F 

L. McGertt - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-107 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

September 2, 201 0 

Mr. Richard L. Allen, NAGPRA Contact 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 948 

Tahleque, OK 74465-0948 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. Allen: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-108 March 2011 
Appendix F 

R. Allen - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-109 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

R. Allen - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-11 0 March 2011 
Ms. Gingy (Virginia) Hail 

NAGPRA Contact 

Chickasaw Nation 

P.O. Box 1548 

Ada, OK 74883 

Appendix F 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Hail: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-111 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

G. Hail - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-112 March 2011 
Appendix F 

G. Hail - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-113 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mr. Bill Anoatubby, Governor 

Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 1548 

Ada, OK 74821-1548 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Governor Anoatubby: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-114 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Governor Anoatubby - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-115 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Governor Anoatubby - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-116 March 2011 
September 2, 201 0 

Mr. Charles Thurmond, NAGPRA Contact 

Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee 

P.O. Box 1324 

Clayton, GA 30525 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. Thurmond: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-117 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

C. Thurmond - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-118 March 2011 
Appendix F 

C. Thurmond - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-119 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mr. Tarpie Yargee 

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town 

P.O. Box 187 

Wetumka, OK 74883 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr.Yargee: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-120 March 2011 
Appendix F 

T. Yargee - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-121 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

T. Yargee - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-122 March 2011 
Mr. Pare Bowlegs 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 1498 

Wewoka, OK 74884 

Appendix F 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAl 

IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNIT! 

3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. Bowlegs: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-123 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

P. Bowlegs - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-B01 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-124 March 2011 
Appendix F 

P. Bowlegs - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-125 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mr. Michell Hicks, Principal Chief 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

P.O. Box 455 

Qualla Boundary 

Cherokee, NC 28719 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Chief Hicks: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-126 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Chief Hicks - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-127 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Chief Hicks - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-128 March 2011 
September 2, 201 0 

Ms. Karen Kaniatobe 

Director of the Cultural/Historical 

Preservation Department 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

2025 S. Gordon Cooper Drive 

Shawnee, OK 74801 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Kaniatobe: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-129 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

K. Kaniatobe - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide an: 

information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which ends on 

November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment period, to the 

extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration 

Mail stop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. 

Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-130 March 2011 
Appendix F 

K. Kaniatobe - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-131 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Ms. Debbie Thomas 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

NAGPRA Coordinator 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

571 State Park Road 56 

Livingston, TX 77351 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Thomas: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-132 March 2011 
Appendix F 

D. Thomas - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide an: 

information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which ends on 

November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment period, to the 

extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration 

Mail stop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. 

Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-133 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

D. Thomas - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-134 March 2011 
September 2, 201 0 

Mrs. Joyce A. Bear, NAGPRA Contact 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 580 

Okmulgee, OK 74447 

Appendix F 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mrs. Bear: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-135 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

J. Bear - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-B01 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-136 March 2011 
Appendix F 

J. Bear - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-137 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mr. Chadwick Smith, Principal Chief 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 948 

Tahlequa, OK 74465 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Chief Smith: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-138 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Chief Smith - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide an: 

information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which ends on 

November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment period, to the 

extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration 

Mail stop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. 

Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-139 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Chief Smith - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-140 March 2011 
Mr. Willard Steele, Deputy THPO 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum 

HC 61, Box 21A 

Clewiston, FL 33440 

Appendix F 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Steele: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-141 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

W. Steele - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide 

any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which 

ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment 

period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, 

Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-142 March 2011 
Appendix F 

W. Steele - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-143 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mr. Kenneth H. Carleton 

THPO/Tribal Archaeologist 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

P.O. Box 6257/ 101 Industrial Road 

Choctaw, MS 39350 

September 02, 2010 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. Carleton: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early site 

permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear 

units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

NUREG-1947 F-144 March 2011 
Appendix F 

K. H. Carleton - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and archaeological 

resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC has entered into 

a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC preliminary determination 

is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the proposed project will affect, but not 

adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 of the DSEIS you will find a 

discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic properties from construction and 

operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes that 

might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide an: 

information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which ends on 

November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment period, to the 

extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration 

Mail stop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. 

Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-145 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

K. H. Carleton - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-146 March 2011 
Ms. Stephanie Rolin 

NAGRA Contact 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

5811 Jack Springs Road 

Atmore, AL 36502 

Appendix F 

September 2, 2010 

SUBJECT: SECTION 106 CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Rolin: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the 

"Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing 

the application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several coapplicants for two combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate two new nuclear units at 

the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the 

proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact 

statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues, including potential 

impacts to historic properties. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the early 

site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a 

Commission approval of a site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new 

nuclear units. Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL 

applicant referencing an ESP need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental 

issues that were resolved in the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified 

any new and potentially significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC 

staff considered whether new and significant information has been identified, including with 

respect to potential impacts to historic properties. The NRC staff conducted an environmental 

audit at the site and reviewed historic and archaeological records. The NRC staff also contacted 

Indian Tribes identified as having potential interest in the proposed action. 

By letter dated December 10, 2009, the NRC staff notified you that it will comply with its 

obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 

(NHPA) using the process set forth in 36 CFR 800.8(c) in lieu of the procedures set forth in 

36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is using the 

preparation of the DSEIS required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 

(NEPA), to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA. 

March 2011 F-147 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

S. Rolin - 2-

In the context of NEPA, under which the DSEIS was prepared, the NRC preliminary 

determination is that the impact of the two new proposed nuclear units on historical and 

archaeological resources remains moderate, as concluded in the ESP FEIS. In addition, SNC 

has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO). Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NRC 

preliminary determination is that, consistent with the determination in the ESP FEIS, the 

proposed project will affect, but not adversely affect, historic properties. Note that in Chapter 2 

of the DSEIS you will find a discussion of the areas of potential effect, and impacts to historic 

properties from construction and operation are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to go over the analysis and results in the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Highway 24 South, 

Waynesboro, Georgia 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 

10 p.m., as necessary. In addition, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 

6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff 

members on an informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.92 and 36 CFR 800.2(c), the NRC wishes to ensure that Indian Tribes 

that might have an interest in any potential historic properties in the areas of potential effect are 

afforded the opportunity to identify their concerns, provide advice on the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties including those of traditional, religious, and cultural importance; 

and if necessary, participate in the resolution of any adverse effects to such properties. 

In accordance with our December 10, 2009, letter, the NRC staff is forwarding the DSEIS for your 

review and comments. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c), we are requesting your comments on the 

DSEIS, specifically, on our preliminary conclusions regarding historic properties. Please provide any 

information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment period, which ends on 

November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment period, to the 

extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration 

Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. 

Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-148 March 2011 
Appendix F 

S. Rolin - 3-

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, 

NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or via e-mail to 

Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos. 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-149 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Carol Bernstein 

Savannah District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1000 West Oglethorpe Avenue 

Savannah, GA 31401-3640 

September 2, 201 0 

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON 

THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 

THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED 

LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Bernstein: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has completed NUREG -1947; "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4." The NRC is reviewing the application submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several co-applicants for two (COLs) to 

construct and operate two new nuclear units at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site in 

Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the 

draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) to include an analysis of relevant 

environmental issues. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination regarding the 

environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of two new 

nuclear units. This notice advises the public that the DSEIS is available for public inspection at 

the NRC Public Documents Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of the 

NRC Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is 

accessible from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public 

Electronic Reading Room) and directly from the NRC website at www.nrc.gov. In addition, the 

Burke County Library, 130 Highway 24 South, Waynesboro, GA has agreed to make the DSEIS 

available for public inspection. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final EIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on 

August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a Commission approval of a 

site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. Under Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP 

need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in 

the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially 

significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC staff considered whether 

new and significant information has been identified. 

NUREG-1947 F-150 March 2011 
Appendix F 

C. Bernstein - 2-

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting on the DSEIS at the Augusta Technical College, 

Waynesboro Campus Auditorium, 216 Hwy 24 South, Waynesboro, GA 30830 on Thursday, 

October 7, 2010. The meeting will convene at 7:00p.m. and will continue until10:00 p.m., as 

necessary. For your information, the meeting will be transcribed and will include: (1) a 

presentation of the contents of the DSEIS and (2) the opportunity for interested government 

agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the DSEIS report. 

Additionally, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., 

during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff members on an informal 

basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

As discussed in Section 11.7 of the DSEIS, the staff's preliminary recommendation is that the 

COL should be issued. This preliminary recommendation is based on (1) the Environmental 

Report (ER) submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, as revised, and responses to 

staff requests for additional information; (2) the staff's review conducted for the early site permit 

referenced by the COL application and the staff assessment documented in the ESP 

environmental impact statement; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies; (4) 

the staff's own independent review of potential new and significant information available since 

preparation and publication of the ESP EIS; and (5) the assessments summarized in the DSEIS, 

including the potential mitigation measures identified. 

Please provide any information or comments you may have on the DSEIS during the comment 

period, which ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may consider additional comments after 

the comment period, to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to 

the Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-B01 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

March 2011 F-151 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

C. Bernstein - 3-

A separate notice of filing of the DSEIS will be placed in the Federal Register through the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If you have any questions regarding this matter, 

please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, NRC Environmental Project Manager at 301-415-0673 or 

via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos.: 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc w/encl: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA! 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-152 March 2011 
Mr. David Bernhart 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southeast Regional Office 

263 13th Avenue South 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

Appendix F 

September 3, 201 0 

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE 

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED 

LICENSE APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. Bernhart: 

On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of 

NUREG -1947, "Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses 

(COLs) for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4." The NRC is reviewing the 

application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two COLs to construct and operate two new nuclear units at the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the proposed action, the NRC 

staff has prepared the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) to include an 

analysis of relevant environmental issues. The DSEIS documents the NRC determination 

regarding the environmental impacts at the proposed site from the construction and operation of 

two new nuclear units. 

The DSEIS is available for public inspection at the NRC Public Documents Room or from the 

Publicly Available Records component of the NRC Agency-wide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC website at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room) and directly 

from the NRC website at www.nrc.gov. In addition, the Burke County Library, 130 Highway 24 

South, Waynesboro, GA has agreed to make the DSEIS available for public inspection. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final EIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on 

August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a Commission approval of a 

site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. Under Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP 

need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the 

ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC staff considered whether new and 

significant information has been identified. 

March 2011 F-153 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

D. Bernhart - 2-

During the ESP environmental review, the NRC consulted with the Southeast Regional Office 

and, by letter dated August 11, 2008 (Enclosure 1), received concurrence on a biological 

assessment evaluating the impacts of construction and operation of two new reactors at the 

VEGP site on the shortnose sturgeon. The draft SEIS's analysis of impacts to the shortnose 

sturgeon did not change from the characterization in the ESP FEIS (NUREG-1872) and remains 

small with no additional mitigation warranted. The Staff has concluded that the COL action 

involves similar impacts to the same Federally listed species in the same geographic area as 

analyzed in the ESP, that no new species have been listed or proposed and no new critical habitat 

designated or proposed for the action area, and that with respect to potential impacts to the 

shortnose sturgeon, no relevant information has changed regarding the project since the earlier 

BA was submitted. Therefore, pursuant to 50 C. F. R. § 402.12(g), the Staff hereby proposes to 

incorporate that biological assessment by reference. Enclosed is a copy of the draft SEIS, 

NUREG-1947, along with a CD containing the environmental impact statement for the ESP, 

NUREG-1872, to aid your review. 

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting on the DSEIS at the Augusta Technical College, 

Waynesboro Campus Auditorium, 216 Hwy 24 South, Waynesboro, GA 30830 on Thursday, 

October 7, 2010. The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. and will continue until 10:00 p.m., 

as necessary. For your information, the meeting will be transcribed and will include: (1) a 

presentation of the contents of the DSEIS and (2) the opportunity for interested government 

agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the DSEIS report. Additionally, 

the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., during which 

members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff members on an informal basis. You 

and your staff are invited to attend. 

To ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and fulfill 

consultation requirements as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), please 

provide any information and comments you consider appropriate under the provisions of the ESA 

or FWCA during the comment period, which ends on November 24, 2010. With respect to the 

incorporation by reference of the ESP biological assessment as discussed above, if no response 

from the Southeast Regional Office is received during the comment period, the NRC will consider 

the consultation closed. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-B01 M, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or via e-mail to 

Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. Your comments will be addressed in the final SEIS. 

NUREG-1947 F-154 March 2011 
Appendix F 

D. Bernhart - 3-

A separate notice of filing of the DSEIS will be placed in the Federal Register through the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If you have any questions regarding this matter, 

please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, NRC Environmental Project Manager at 301-415-0673 or via 

e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos.: 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc w/encl: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-155 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Mr. Robert D. Perry 

Special Projects Manager 

Office of Environmental Programs 

South Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources 

1000 Assembly Street, Room 310A 

P.O. Box 167 

Columbia, SC 29202 

September 3, 201 0 

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON 

THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 

COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION REVIEW 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of 

NUREG-1947; Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses 

(COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 for your review and comments. The 

NRC is reviewing the application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

(SNC) and several co-applicants for two COLs to construct and operate two new nuclear units 

at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, GA. As part of its review 

of the proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the DSEIS to include an analysis of relevant 

environmental issues. 

The NRC staff completed the DSEIS and the associated Federal Register Notice of Availability. 

The notice advises the public that the DSEIS is available for public inspection at the NRC Public 

Documents Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of the NRC Agency-wide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC 

Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, which provides access through the NRC 

Electronic Reading Room link. The accession number in ADAMS for the DSEIS is 

ML 102370278. The DSEIS can also be found at the NRC VEGP COL-specific webpage at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.html. In addition, the Burke County Library 

located at 130 Hwy 24 South, Waynesboro, GA 30830 has agreed to maintain a copy of the 

DSEIS and make it available for public inspection. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final EIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on 

August 26, 2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a Commission approval of a 

site suitable for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. Under Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP 

need not submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in 

the ESP EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially 

significant information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC staff considered whether 

new and significant information has been identified. 

NUREG-1947 F-156 March 2011 
Appendix F 

R. Perry - 2-

The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to present the analysis and results of the DSEIS on 

October 7, 2010, at the Augusta Technical College, Waynesboro Campus, 216 Hwy 24 South, 

Waynesboro, GA 30830. The meeting will convene at 7:00p.m., and will continue until 10:00 

p.m., as necessary. For your information, the meeting will be transcribed and will include a 

presentation of the contents of the DSEIS and the opportunity for interested government 

agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft report. Additionally, 

the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 6:00p.m. to 7:00p.m. during 

which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff members on an informal basis. 

You and your staff are invited to attend. 

As discussed in Section 11.7 of the DSEIS, the staff's preliminary recommendation is that the 

COLs and requested Limited Work Authorization (LWA) should be issued. This preliminary 

recommendation is based on (1) the Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, as revised; and responses to staff requests for additional information; (2) 

the staff's review conducted for the early site permit referenced by the COL application and the 

staff assessment documented in the ESP environmental impact statement (EIS); (3) 

consultation with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; (4) the staff's own independent 

review of potential new and significant information available since preparation and publication of 

the ESP EIS, and; (5) the assessments summarized in the DSEIS, including the potential 

mitigation measures identified. Finally, the staff concludes that the requested LWA construction 

activities defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a) and described in the site redress plan would not result in 

any significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be redressed. 

Please provide any information or comments on the DSEIS that you consider appropriate during 

the comment period, which ends on November 24, 2010. Please include in these comments 

any information you consider appropriate consistent with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act. The NRC may consider additional comments after the comment period ends 

to the extent practicable. Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, 

Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 

Administration, Mailstop TWB-05-801 M, Washington DC 20555-0001 or by e-mail to 

Voqtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov. 

March 2011 F-157 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

R. Perry - 3-

A separate notice of filing of the DSEIS will be placed in the Federal Register through the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. If you have any questions or require additional information, 

please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, NRC Environmental Project Manager at (301) 415-0673 or 

via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos.: 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosures: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-158 March 2011 
Ms. Sandra Tucker 

Field Supervisor 

Georgia Ecological Services 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1 05 West Park Drive 

Athens, GA. 30607 

Appendix F 

September 3, 201 0 

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF THE ISSUANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON THE 

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED 

LICENSES APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Tucker: 

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, I am forwarding a copy of the "Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4," for your review and comments. The NRC is reviewing 

the application submitted by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) and several 

co-applicants for two COLs to construct and operate two new nuclear units at the VEGP site in 

Burke County, GA. As part of its review of the proposed action, the NRC staff has prepared the 

DSEIS to include an analysis of relevant environmental issues. 

This notice advises the public that the draft report is available for public inspection at the NRC 

Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of the NRC 

Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible 

from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, which provides access 

through the NRC Electronic Reading Room link. The accession number in ADAMS for the 

DSEIS is ML 102370278. The DSEIS can also be found at the NRC Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant COL-specific webpage at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.html. The 

Burke County Library located at 130 Hwy 24 South, Waynesboro, GA 30830 has agreed to 

maintain a copy of the DSEIS and make it available for public inspection. A separate notice of 

filing of the DE IS will be placed in the Federal Register through the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

This DSEIS is a supplement to the Final EIS for the early site permit (ESP) issued on August 26, 

2009, to SNC and the same co-applicants. An ESP is a Commission approval of a site suitable 

for construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units. Under Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR) CFR 51.50(c), a COL applicant referencing an ESP need not 

submit information or analyses regarding environmental issues that were resolved in the ESP 

EIS, except to the extent the COL applicant has identified any new and potentially significant 

information. Accordingly, in preparing the DSEIS, the NRC staff considered whether new and 

significant information has been identified. 

March 2011 F-159 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

S. Tucker - 2-

The notice also informs the public that the NRC plans to hold a public meeting to present the 

analysis and results of the DSEIS on October 7, 2010, at the Augusta Technical College, 

Waynesboro Campus, 216 Hwy 24 South, Waynesboro, GA 30830. The meeting will convene at 

7:00p.m., and will continue until1 0:00p.m., as necessary. For your information, the meeting will 

be transcribed and will include a presentation of the contents of the DSEIS and the opportunity for 

interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft 

report. Additionally, the meeting will be preceded by an open house session from 6:00p.m. to 

7:00p.m. during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff members on an 

informal basis. You and your staff are invited to attend. 

During the ESP environmental review, the NRC consulted with your office and, by letter dated 

September 19, 2008 (Enclosure 1), received concurrence on a biological assessment evaluating 

the impacts of site preparation and preliminary construction at the VEGP site on potentially 

occurring Federally listed threatened or endangered species. The draft SEIS's analysis of impacts 

to potentially occurring Federally listed threatened or endangered species did not change from 

the characterization in the ESP FEIS (NUREG-1872). The Staff is preparing a biological 

assessment documenting potential impacts on potentially occurring Federally listed threatened or 

endangered species as a result of operation of the proposed new units and construction and 

operation of the proposed transmission line right-of-way associated with the development of the 

VEGP site, and will be providing that assessment for your consideration. 

To ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and fulfill 

consultation requirements as required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), please 

provide any information and comments you consider appropriate under the provisions of the ESA 

or FWCA during the comment period, which ends on November 24, 2010. The NRC may 

consider additional comments after the comment period ends to the extent practicable. 

Comments should be submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules, Announcements, and 

Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop 

TWB-05-B01M, Washington DC 20555-0001 or by e-mail to Vogtle.COLAEIS@nrc.gov 

NUREG-1947 F-160 March 2011 
S. Tucker - 3-

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Ms. Mallecia Sutton, NRC 

Environmental Project Manager at 301-415-0673 or by e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos.: 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosures: 

As stated 

cc: See next page 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory P. Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

Appendix F 

March 2011 F-161 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

VogtleEISCEmails 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Bryant J. Celestine [celestine.bryant@actribe.org] 

Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:01 AM 

VogtleCOLAEIS Resource 

Draft SEIS 

On behalf of Mikko Oscola Clayton Sylestine and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe, our appreciation is expressed on your 

efforts to consult us regarding the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant, Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application in Burke County. 

Our Tribe maintains ancestral associations within the state of Georgia despite the absence of written documentation to 

completely identify Tribal activities, villages, trails, or burial sites. However, it is our objective to ensure significances of 

Native American ancestry, especially of Alabama-Coushatta Tribal origin, are administered with the utmost 

considerations. 

Upon review of your September 2, 2010 submission, we reiterate our January 7, 2010 electronic message to decline the 

opportunity to participate in this consultation. Burke County currently exists beyond our scope of interest for the state of 

Georgia. No known impacts to religious, cultural, or historical assets of the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas will occur 

in conjunction with this proposal. No further consultation with our Tribe regarding this project is anticipated at this time. 

Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

Bryant J. Celestine 

Historic Preservation Officer 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

571 State Park Rd 56 

Livingston, TX 77351 

936 - 563 - 1181 

celestine.bryant@actribe.org 

NUREG-1947 F-162 March 2011 
REGION 4 

SAMNUNN 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA GEORGlA 30303-8960 

November 15,2010 

Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch 

Office of Administration 

Mail Stop: TWB-05-80 I M 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-000L 

RE: EPA Review and Comments 

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSElS) for the 

Appendix F 

Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 

Construction and Operation, Application for Combined Licenses (COLs), NUREG- 1947 

CEQ No. 20100351 

Dear Sir: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental lmpact Statement (DSEIS) for the Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, pursuant to Section l02(2)(C) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The purpose of this letter is to inform 

you of the results of our review, and our detailed comments are enclosed. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Jnc. (Southern) and four co-applicants applied for 

combined constntction permits and operating licenses (combined licenses or COLs) for Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4. The proposed action is NRC issuance of COLs 

for two new nuclear power reactor units (Units 3 and 4) at the VEGP site near Waynesboro, 

Georgia. 

EPA previously reviewed and submitted written commems regarding the Draft and Final 

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the Early Site Permit (ESP) for the new units, and 

for the Joint Public Notice for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Permit. Since these 

documents stated that there were no transmission line impacts, our comments at that time 

pertained to the plant site only. The US ACE permit action on an Individual Permit application 

pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 401 water quality certification for 

the Plant VEGP expansion were fmalized in September 2010. The current DSEJS provides 

updated information and focuses on the proposed issuance of the COLs to authorize constmction 

and operation of the new units and ancillary facilities. 

The NRC issued an Early Site Permit (ESP) on August 26, 2009, approving the VEGP site 

as suitable for the construction of Units 3 and 4. NRC issuance of a Limited Work Authorization 

March 2011 F-163 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

(LWA) enabled specific pre-construction activities at the site to begin. The NRC is currently 

reviewing the Westinghouse APIOOO pre urized reactor design in a design certification proces . 

Radioactive waste torage and disposal are ongoing concern with exi ting and proposed 

nuclear power plants. The NRC approved final revisions to the Wa~te Confidence findings and 

regulation (10 CFR Part 5 L.23) in September 2010. This update ex pre se confidence that 

commercial high-level radioactive waste and pent fuel generated by any reactor '' .. . can be stored 

safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life 

for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed License) of that reactor.' This 

refers to torage in a spent fuel basin or at either onsite or off ite independent pent fuel storage 

installations. 

Since appropriate torage of spent fuel assemblie and other radioactive wastes i 

necessary to prevent environmental impacts, the FSEIS should provide a thorough consideration 

of impacts resulting from such storage. Given the uncertainty regarding ultimate disposal at a 

repo itory, on-site storage may continue for many years. 

Southern indicated that there would be an operations-related three percent increase in the 

thermal discharge flow in the DSEIS. The NRC determined that the thermal plume would remain 

small compared to the width of the Savannah River at this location, and that it would not impede 

fi h passage in the river. The Final Supplemental Environmental impact Statement (FSEIS) 

should include a graph of the plume showing the temperature profile, and a discussion of how the 

increa e will (or will not) cau e a violation of Georgia' water qua.lity tandard for temperature at 

the point of di charge. 

In addition, the design and location of the proposed new cooling water intake structure has 

changed. The NRC determined that this new location would not alter conclusions pre ented in the 

previou ESP FEIS. Continuing measures to limit bioentrainment and other impacts to aquatic 

species from urface water withdrawal and di charge should be referenced in the FSEIS, and 

should continue to be addressed as the project progresses, in compliance with the NPDES Permit. 

The FSEIS hould include further information regarding plan to reduce Greenhou e 

Gases (GHGs) and other air emissions during constmction of the facility. Specifically, energy 

efficiency and renewable energy ·hould be a con ideration in the construction and operation of 

facility buildings, equipment, and vehicles. We also recommend that the FSEIS explicitly 

reference the draft guidance from CEQ related to evaluating GHGs in Federal actions, describe 

the elements of the draft guidance, and to the relevant extent, provide the assessments sugge ted 

by the guidance. Ba ed on your analysis using the CEQ NEPA Guidance, further data collection 

may be nece ary in the future. 

Based on EPA' review of the DSEIS, the document received a rating ofEC-2, meaning 

that the EPA review identified environmental concerns. (A summary of EPA's rating definition 

is enclosed.) In particular, EPA recommends that the FSEIS include updated information about 

radioactive waste storage and disposal, impact of macro-right-of-way transmi ion lines, a 

consideration of GHGs using CEQ's draft guidance for GHGs, and a di cu ion of opportunitie 

to reduce GHG and other air emissions during constmction and operation of the facility. In 

2 

NUREG-1947 F-164 March 2011 
addition, the FSEIS should include a status update regarding the We: tinghouse APlOOO 

certification review. 

Thank you for your continuing coordination with u . We look forward to reviewing the 

FSEIS. If you have any question or need additional infonnation, please contact Ramona 

McConney of my staff at (404) 562-9615. 

Sincerely, 

Heinz J. Mueller. Chief 

NEPA Program Office 

Office of Policy and Management 

Enclosures: EPA Review and Comment 

Summary of Rating Definition and Follow Up Action 

3 

Appendix F 

March 2011 F-165 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

EPA Review and Comments Regarding 

Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (DSEIS) for the 1 

Combined Licen es (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 3 and 4 

Con truction and Operation, Application for Combined Licen es (COLs), NUREG-1947 

CEQ No. 20100351 

General 

Thl. DSEIS provides updated information (subsequent to the ESP FEIS) regarding 

preconstruction activities and environmental data, and focu. es on the proposed i suance of COLs 

for the two new reactor units and ancillary facilities. 

In the DSEIS, the NRC conclude that there are no new and ignificant data or change to 

conclusion since the ESP FElS regarding the following: land-use impacts, meteorolpgy and air 

quality impacts, water quality impact , terre trial and aquatic ecosy terns, socioecon?mic impacts, 

historic and cultural resource impacts, environmental justice, nonradiological health impacts, 

radiological impacts of normal operations, environmental impacts of po tulated accidents. 

Alternatives 

Alternatives in the DSEIS include the no-action alternative, energy source alternatives and system 

design alternatives. The NRC's evaluation of alternative ites is documented in the EIS for the 

ESP, which EPA previously reviewed and submitted cornrnents. 

Radioactive wa tes 

Appropriate on- ite ·torage of pent fuel a semblies and other radioactive waste is neces ary to 

prevent environmental impacts. Given the uncertainty regarding ultimate dispo al at a repo itory, 

on-site torage may continue for a longer term than currently expected. 

Yucca Mountain was formerly considered a po sible final repo itory for pent nuclear fuel but 

this plan was withdrawn by the U.S. Department of Energy by the motion of March 3 20LO. The 

abandonment of the plan to create a Yucca Mountain permanent geologic repository has been 

recently countered by NRC's Atomic Safety and Licen ing Board. If another repo itory in the 

contiguous United States (other than Yucca Mountain) is ever selected, the environmental impact 

e timates from the transportation of spent reactor fuel to the repository should be cal~ulated as 

required under 42 USC 432 L Fuel Cycle, Transportation and Decommissioning. ' 

In the Waste Confidence Rule (10 CFR 5 L.23), the Commission generically determined that the 

pent fuel generated by any reactor can be safely tored on- ite for at lea t 30 year beyond the 

licensed operating life of the reactor. The NRC approved final revisions to the Waste Confidence 

findings and regulation in September 2010, extending the storage period until " .. . Joryears beyond 

the licensed Life for operation (which may include the tenn of a revised or renewed license) of that 

reactor'' in its spent fuel basin or at either onsite or offsite independent pent fuel st6rage 

installations. 

4 

NUREG-1947 F-166 March 2011 
The FSEIS should clarify the impact of this revision on the proposed project, as this new 

determination finds that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely and securely without significant 

environmental impact for at lea t 60 years after operation at any nuclear power plant. EPA 

recommends that the FSEIS cite any new analyses for longer-term storage regarding scientific 

knowledge relating to spent fuel storage and dispo al. The FSEIS should also mention any 

developments with the Presidential Blue Ribbon Commis ·ion on alternatives for dealing with 

high-level radioactive waste, if there are uch update before FSEIS publication. 

Appendix F 

We understand that shipping casks have not yet been designed for the spent fuel from advanced 

reactor design such as the Westinghouse APJOOO. lnformation in the Early Site Permit 

Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003) indicated that 

advanced light water reactor (LWR) fuel designs would not be significantly different from 

existing LWR designs; therefore, current shipping cask designs were used for the analysis of 

Westinghouse APlOOO reactor pent fuel hipments. EPA recommends that when shipping ca ks 

are designed for the spent fuel for the Westinghouse APlOOO, the analysis hould be repeated. 

EPA undertands that concerns have been rai ed by the NRC that certain structural components of 

the revised APIOOO ·hield building may not be uitable to withstand design loads. The shield 

building is designed to protect the reactor's primary containment from evere weather and other 

events, as well as serving as a radiation barrier and al o upporting an emergency cooling water 

tank. It is EPA' understanding that the NRC is currently reviewing the remainder of the nextgeneration reactor' · design certification amendment application. and that We tinghouse is 

expected to make design modifications and conduct safety testing to ensure the shield building 

design can meet its safety functions. 

The FSEIS should addre · the tatus of the Westinghouse APlOOO certification review and related 

is ue , particularly the analy is of the tructural integrity of the APlOOO. We understand thac the 

Safety Evaluation Report will address these i sue in even more detail, and that the certification 

review may be completed a soon as December2010. EPA understand that Revision 15 of the 

APJOOO de ignis codified in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. EPA concur with NRC' plan to 

conduct an additional environmental review if changes result in the final de ign being 

ignificantly different from the design considered in the DEIS. 

Transmission lines 

We note that the NRC con ider transrni sian lines to be "preconstruct ion" activitie (di ' CU 'ed in 

the EIS for the ESP), and that precon truction activities are con idered in the context of 

cumulative impacts. EPA is concerned about the impacts of transmission lines and supporting 

infrastructure for the project and, in accordance with NEPA, consider' these activitie as part of 

the project, and not a separate action. 

The DSEIS (pages 3-7 and 3-8) di cus e the con Inaction of a new transmission line through a 

"macro-right-of-way." Thi term hould be defined in the text. with details given regarding the 

proposed extent and impacts of this new transmission line. The FSEIS should also clarify whether 

there are plans to issue a Limited Work Authorization (LWA) for these lines pursuant to the 

NRC's LWA process. 

5 

March 2011 F-167 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Wetlands and Streams 

Jurisdictional determinations for all site wetlands are complete, with the exception of the required 

metes and bound urvey. A joint a·pplication package was submitted for all permits under the 

jurisdiction of the US ACE (Section 404, Section 10, and Dredge and Fill) on January 7, 2010. 

EPA reviewed the impacts to wetlands and streams in response to the USACE's public notice for 

the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application, and transmitted a comment letter in 

accordance with Section 404 coordination procedure . We note that the Dredge and Fill di charge 

permit was for the transmis ion line corridor. 

NPDES Permitting 

Southern indicated that there would be an operations-related three percent increase in the thermal 

discharge flow. The NRC determined that the thetmal plume would remain mall compared to the 

width of the Savannah River at this location, and that it would not impede fish pas age in the river 

(Section 5.4.2). In addition, the design and location of the proposed new cooling water intake 

structure has changed. The NRC determined that this new location would not alter conclusion m 

the previou. ESP FEIS. Pursuant to our review, the following areas need clarification: 

• Temperature: The discussion of the 3% increase in the thermal discharge should include a 

graph of the plume showing the temperature profile, and a discu ion of how the increase 

will (or will not) cause a violation of Georgia's water quality standard for temperature at 

the point of di charge. 

• Cooling Water Intake: For clarity, the FSEIS should restate the requirements for the 

cooling water intake stmcture. 

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 

We appreciate your djscu sion of climate change and GHGs in the DSElS. The DSEIS state that 

the majority of the potential carbon dioxide (C02) emissions of the proposed nuclear power plant 

would be the life cycle contributions as ociated with the uranium fuel cycle (Section 7.2). The 

DSEIS notes that such emissions primarily result from the operation of fo il-fueled power plants 

that provide the electricity needed to manufacture the nuclear fuel. 

CEQ Draft Guidance on GHG Analysis within NEPA: On February 18,2010, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) proposed four steps to modernize and reinvigorate NEPA. ln 

particular, the CEQ i ued draft guidance for public comment on, among other issues, when and 

how Federal agencies must con ider greenhou e gas emi sions and climate change in their 

proposed actions. 

(Reference: http://www. whitehouse.gov/administrationleop/ceq/initiatives/nepa) 

The draft guidance explains how Federal agencies should analyze the environmental impacts of 

greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when they describe the environmental impacts of a 

6 

NUREG-1947 F-168 March 2011 
Appendix F 

proposed action under NEPA. £t provides practical tool for agency reponing, including a 

presumptive thre hold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e) emissions from 

the proposed action to trigger a quantitative analysis, and instructs Federal agencie. regarding 

how to assess the effect of climate change on the proposed action and their design. The draft 

guidance does not apply to land and resource management actions and does not propose to 

regulate greenhouse gase . 

While this guidance i not yet final (and thus. not required), we recommend that the FSEIS 

explicitly reference the draft guidance, describe the elements of the draft guidance, and to the 

relevant extent, provide the assessments suggested by the guidance. (Note that the discussion in 

Section 7.2 and referencing the Sovacool paper (see footnote 1 below) regarding the derivation of 

447,000 metric ton /year of C02 emis ions from a 1000 MW nuclear power plant is difficult to 

follow. For example, we could not fmd the "L percent to 5 percent" citation noted as being in the 

Sovacool paper. It would be helpful to show a detailed derivation of the amount of direct and 

indirect C02-equivalent em is ions expected pecificaHy from this project.) 

EPA also recommends a discussion of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce GHGs and 

other air emission' during construction and operation of the facility. Specifically, clean energy 

options such as energy efficiency and renewable energy hould be a onsideration in the use of 

construction and maintenance equipment and vehicles. For example, equipment and vehicles that 

u e conventional petroleum (e.g., diesel) should i.ncorporate clean diesel technologies and fuels to 

reduce emission· of GHGs and other pollutants, and should adhere to anti-idling policies to the 

extent po ·sible. Alternate fuel vehicl (e.g., natural gas electric) are also po ·ibilities. 

( I) Sovncool, BK. Valuing rhe Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey. Energy Policy 36 

(2008) 2940 - 2953. 

Diesel Exhaust 

In addition to the EPA's concerns regarding climate change effects and GHG erni sions, the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NTOSH) has determined that diesel exhau t 

is a potential human carcinogen, based on a combination of chemical, genotoxicity, and 

carcinogenicity data. In addition, acute exposure to diesel exhau t have been linked to health 

problems uch a eye and no e irritation, headache , nausea, and asthma. 

Although every con truction site is unique, common actions can reduce expo ure to diesel 

exhaust. EPA recommends that tbe following actions be considered for construction equipment: 

• Using low-sulphur diesel fuel (less than 0.05% sulphur). 

• Relrofit engine with an exhau t fiJtrati_on device to capture DPM before it enters the 

workplace. 

• Position the exhaust pipe so that diesel fumes are directed away from the operator and 

nearby workers, thereby reducing the fume concentration to which personnel are expo ed. 

• A catalytic converter reduces carbon monoxide, aldehydes, and hydrocarbon in die el 

fumes. These device mu t be u ed with low ·ulphur fuel . 

• Ventilate wherever diesel equipment operates indoors. Roof vent • open doors and 

window , roof fans, or other mechanical systems help move fresh air through work area . 

7 

March 2011 F-169 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

As buildings under construction are gradually enclosed, remember that fumes from diesel 

equipment operating indoors can build up to dangerou levels without adequate 

ventilation. 

• Attach a hose to the tailpipe of a die el vehicle ruooing indoors and exhaust the fumes 

outside, where they crumot reenter the workplace. lnspect hoses regularly for defects and 

damage. 

• Use enclosed, climate-controlled cabs pres urized and equipped with high efficiency 

particulate air (HEPA) filters to reduce operators' exposure to diesel fume . Pre surization 

en ures that air moves from in ide to outside. HEPA filter ensure that any air coming in 

i · filtered fir t. 

• Regular maintenance of diesel engines is essential to keep exhaust emissions low. Follow 

the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and procedure . Smoke color can 

·ignal the need for maintenance. For example, blue/black moke indicates that an engine 

requires servicing or tuning. 

• Work practices and training can help reduce expo ure. For example, measures such as 

turning off engines when vehicle are stopped for more than a few minutes; training 

die ·et-equipment operators to perform routine inspection and maintenance of filtration 

devices. 

• When purchasing a new vehicle, ensure that it is equipped with the most advanced 

emission control systems available. 

• With older vehicles, use electric tarting aids such as block heater to warm the engine, 

avoid difficulty starting, and thereby reduce diesel emis ions. 

• Respirator are only an interim measure to control exposure to die el emissions. In most 

cases an N95 respirator is adequate. Respirators are for interim use only, until primary 

controls such as ventilation can be implemented. Workers mu t be trained and fit-tested 

before they wear respirators. Personnel familiar with the selection, care, and use of 

respirators must perform the fit te ting. Respirator. mu t bear a National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approval number. Never u e paper mask or 

urgical masks without NIOSH approval number . 

Endangered and Threatened Species 

The DSEIS states that a biological as essmeot documenting potential impact on the federally 

listed threatened or endangered terrestrial pecial as a result of operation of the propo ed new 

units and proposed transmission line is in development. The FSEIS hould provided updated 

information on this assessment. 

Historic Presen1ation 

We appreciate the thorough di cu ion of cultural and historic resource in the DSEIS. Pursuant 

to the location of a historic cemetery on the VEGP site, Southern entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding (SHPO) with the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Weal o note 

SCE&G's cultural resources awareness training and inadvertent di covery procedure training for 

taff working at the site. The FSEIS should include an update of coordination activities with the 

SHPO. 

8 

NUREG-1947 F-170 March 2011 
SUMMARY OF RATlNG DEFINITIONS AND FOLLOW UP ACTION• 

Environmental Impact of the Action 

LO-Lack of Objections 

The EPA review has not. identified any potential environmental impa ts requiring sub tantive change to the 

proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities tor application of mitigation measures that could be 

accompli hed with no more than minor changes to the propo al. 

EC-Environmemal Concerns 

The EPA review has identified environmental impact that . hould be avoided in order to fully protect the 

environment. Corrective measure may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation 

measure that can reduce the environmental impacts. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these 

impactl. 

EO-Environmental Objections 

Appendix F 

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that mu t be avoided in order to provide adequate 

protection for the environment. Correcti ve measures may require substantial change to the preferred alternative or 

consideration of orne other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends 

to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. 

EU-Environmentally UnsatisfactorY 

The EPA review has identified adver e environmental impact that are of ufficient magnitude that they are 

unsati factory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with 

the lead agency to reduce these impacts. lf the potential un ati factory impacts are not orrected at the Draft EIS 

sate, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ. 

Adequacy of the lmpact Statement 

Category l-Adeauate 

The EPA believes the draft EIS adequately ets forth the environmental impa t(s) of the preferred alterative and those 

of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or ac tion. No further analy is or data collecting i nece ary, 

but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. 

Category 2-lnsufficient Information 

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for the EPA to fully as es the environmenml impacts that 

should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably 

available alterna ti ves that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the 

environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional informati n, data. ana ly es, or discussion should be 

included in the Draft ElS. 

Category 3-Inadeguate 

EPA does nor believe that the draft ElS adequately assesse potentially significant environmental impacts of the 

action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new. reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of 

alternative analyzed in the draftErS. which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant 

environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identit'ied additional information, data analyses or discussion are of 

such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is 

adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus hould be formally revi ed and made 

available for public comment in a supplemental or revi ed draft EIS. On the basi of the potential significant impacts 

involved, this propo al could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. 

'From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and ProcedW'CS for the Review of the Fc'<lernl Actions Impacting the Enoironment 

9 

March 2011 F-171 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

ER10/0767 

United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Richard B. Russell Federal Building 

75 Spring Street, S.W. 

AtlantlL Georgia :>mm 

November 29, 2010 

Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch 

Of1ice of Administration 

Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

TAKE 

--

~ PRIDE' 

INAMERICJI 

Re: Comments for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Vogtle Nuclear 

Plant Units 3 and 4, Application for Combined Licenses (COLs), NUREG-1947, Burke 

County, Georgia 

The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DE IS) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the proposed addition of 

two nuclear reactors (Units 3 and 4) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP). The 

license applicant is Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), on behalf of itself 

and four co-applicants (two private and two municipal utilities). The project involves building 

two pressurized water nuclear reactors and associated facilities adjacent to the existing VEGP 

Units 1 and 2. The VEGP site is located in Burke County, Georgia, approximately 26 mi 

southeast of Augusta, Georgia. The reactors would draw cooling water from the Savannah 

River. Constructing the new reactors and associated on-site facilities would disturb about 556 

acres at the VEGP site. The exact route of new transmission lines associated with the new 

reactors is not yet determined, but would extend from the VEGP west into Jefferson County, and 

then north into Warren and McDuffie Counties. Our comments follow. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

By letter dated September 19, 2008, we concurred with the findings ofNRC's Biological 

Assessment for the effects of early site preparation and preliminary construction activities at the 

VEGP site. The list of species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that occur in 

the project area has not changed since September 2008, and includes the wood stork, redcockaded woodpecker, indigo snake, and Canby's dropwort. The DEIS indicates that the NRC is 

preparing a second Biological Assessment for construction and operations effects. As 

transmission line corridors and other pertinent construction details are more precisely defined, 

NUREG-1947 F-172 March 2011 
Appendix F 

please coordinate directly with the US Fish and Wild Life Service's Coastal Georgia Sub-office 

supervisor, Strant Colwell, at (912) 832-8739, to conclude the ESA consultation process for the 

project. 

The Department had been concerned about the possible impacts of dredging the channel for 

barge delivery of reactors, containment vessels, and other large equipment however, the DEIS 

notes (page 7-6) that Southern will instead deliver large components and materials by rail, and 

will not construct a barge slip or seek dredging of the Savannah River navigation channel. This 

change in the project plans eliminates our concerns related to ESA-protected aquatic species, 

such as the robust redhorse. 

Avian Protection Plan 

The DEIS notes that bird collisions with tall structures and transmission lines are among the 

impacts of building and operating the proposed project (pages 4-6 and 5-3), but does not describe 

mitigation measures for these impacts. The Department recommends that the NRC and Southern 

coordinate with us and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division in the 

development of an Avian Protection Plan (APP). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

prohibits take of migratory birds except when specifically authorized by the Department of the 

Interior. The regulations implementing the MBT A (50 CFR Part 21) do not provide for permits 

authorizing take of migratory birds that may be killed or injured by activities that are otherwise 

lawful, such as by the construction and operation of power transmission lines. The Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act provides for very limited issuance of permits that authorize take of 

eagles when such take is associated with otherwise lawful activities, is unavoidable despite 

implementation of advanced conservation practices, and is compatible with the goal of stable or 

increasing eagle breeding populations. The overall goal of the APP would be to minimize avian 

mortality associated with the proposed facilities. 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have questions 

or concerns about our comments, I can be reached on ( 404) 331-4524 or via email at 

gregory_ hogue@ios.do! .gov. 

cc: Jerry Ziewitz- FWS 

Brenda Johnson- USGS 

David Vela- NPS 

OEPC- WASH 

March 2011 

Sincerely yours, 

~ ~ 

Gregory Hogue 

Regional Environmental Officer 

F-173 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Ms. Sandra Tucker 

Field Supervisor 

Georgia Ecological Services 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

105 West Park Drive, SuiteD 

Athens, GA 30606 

February 24, 2011 

SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC 

GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 COMBINED LICENSES APPLICATION 

Dear Ms. Tucker: 

The U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared the enclosed Biological 

Assessment (BA) associated with Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) and its 

four co-applicants request for combined licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

(VEGP) Units 3 and 4. The assessment examines the potential impacts of construction and 

operation of the facility on threatened or endangered species. The purpose of this letter is to 

request the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) concurrence with the NRC staff's 

determination in the assessment that threatened and endangered species are not likely to be 

adversely affected by the proposed action. 

The proposed action is NRC issuance of COLs for tvvo new nuclear power reactor units at the 

VEGP Site near Waynesboro, GA. The BA evaluates the effects of the proposed action on four 

Federally listed threatened or endangered species identified in your October 20, 2010, letter. 

The Federally listed species are: (1) one plant: Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyt), (2) two 

birds: the vvood stork (Mycteria americana) and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

and (3) one reptile: eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon coupen). In developing the BA, the NRC 

staff performed research, reviewed information provided by the applicant, and relied on 

information provided by FWS (i.e ., current listings of species provided by the FWS Field Office, 

Brunswick, GA) in reaching its conclusion. 

The FWS previously reviewed the NRC staff's BA developed in connection with Southern's 

VEGP, Units 3 and 4 Early Site Permit (ESP) request. The VEGP ESP Site is located adjacent 

to the existing VEGP, Units 1 and 2. The proposed Federal action at that time was issuance of 

a permit for a site suitable for constructing and operating additional nuclear power facilities and 

to conduct site preparation and limited construction activities under provisions of Title 10, 

Part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Because issuance of COLs would authorize both 

construction and operation of the proposed new units, the enclosed assessment addresses the 

potential impact to threatened and endangered species, including impacts associated with 

construction and operation of offsite transmission lines. 

NUREG-1947 F-174 March 2011 
Appendix F 

S. Tucker - 2-

The Federally listed species considered in the BA for the ESP included (1) three plants: smooth 

coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canby1), and relict trillium 

(Trillium reliquum), (2) two birds: the wood stork (Mycteria americana) and red-cockaded 

woodpecker (Picoides borealis), (3) one reptile: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), 

and (4) one amphibian: flatvvoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum). The USFWS reviewed 

the BA associated with the ESP and in a letter dated September 19, 2008, concluded that" .... 

that the species under the jurisdiction of the Service have been adequately addressed for 

limited site-preparation activities at the Vogtle site." The ESP and limited work authorization 

was subsequently approved by the NRC on August 26, 2009. 

If you have any questions regarding this BA or the staff's request, please contact 

Ms. Mallecia Sutton, NRC Environmental Project Manager via telephone at 301-415-0673 or 

via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos.: 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc w/o encl: See next page 

March 2011 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-175 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

S. Tucker - 2-

The Federally listed species considered in the BA for the ESP included (1) three plants: smooth 

coneflovver (Echinacea /aevigata), Canby's dropwort (Oxypo/is canby1), and relict trillium 

(Trillium reliquum), (2) two birds: the wood stork (Mycteria americana) and red-cockaded 

woodpecker (Picoides borealis), (3) one reptile: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), 

and (4) one amphibian: flatvvoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum). The USFWS reviewed 

the BA associated vvith the ESP and in a letter dated September 19, 2008, concluded that " .... 

that the species under the jurisdiction of the Service have been adequately addressed for 

limited site-preparation activities at the Vogtle Site." The ESP and limited work authorization 

was subsequently approved by the NRC on August 26, 2009. 

If you have any questions regarding this BA or the staff's request, please contact 

Ms. Mallecia Sutton, NRC Environmental Project Manager via telephone at 301-415-0673 or 

via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos.: 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc w/o encl: See next page 

Distribution: 

Public P Moulding 

N Chokshi T Chandler, R1 

K Leigh(PNNL) S Flanders 

RidsNroDser RidsNroDnrl 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

N Kuntzelman 

G Hatchett 

MCain, SRI 

Sackschewsky (PNNL) OPA 

M Sutton G Hawkins 

S Coffin (NWE1) K Clark, R2 

ADAMS Accession No· ML 103410229 [MI103410233-pkg] NR0-002 

Office NRO/DSER/PM DSER/LAIRAP1 DSER/RENV OGC DSER/BC 

Name MSutton GHawkins NKuntzelman PMoulding(NLO subject to edits) GHatchett 

Date 12/7/2010 12/8/2010 12/8/2010 1/26/2011 2/24/2011 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 

NUREG-1947 F-176 March 2011 
Southern Nuclear- Vogtle Mailing List 

Mr. M. Stanford Blanton 

Esquire 

Balch and Bingham, LLP 

P.O. Box 306 

Birmingham, AL 35201 

Ms. Michele Boyd 

Legislative Director 

Energy Program 

Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy 

and Environmental Program 

215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20003 

Mr. Marvin Fertel 

Senior Vice President 

and Chief Nuclear Officer 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

1776 I Street, NW 

Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20006-3708 

Lucious Abram 

County Commissioner 

Office of the County Commissioner 

Burke County Commission 

PO Box 1626 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

0 . C. Harper, IV 

Vice President - Resources Planning and 

Nuclear Development 

Georgia Power Company 

241 Ralph McGill Boulevard 

Atlanta, GA 30308 

Mr. Steven M. Jackson 

Senior Engineer- Power Supply 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 

1470 Riveredge Parkway, NW 

Atlanta, GA 30328-4684 

Mr. Louis B. Long 

Vice President Technical Support 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

March 2011 

Director 

Consumer's Utility 

Counsel Division 

Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs 

2 Martin Luther King , Jr. Drive 

Plaza Level East, Suite 356 

Atlanta, GA 30334-4600 

Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Esquire 

Troutman Sanders 

Nations Bank Plaza 

600 Peachtree Street, NE 

Suite 200 

Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 

Mr. Jeffrey T. Gasser 

Executive Vice President 

Appendix F 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Laurence Bergen 

Oglethorpe Power Corp. 

2100 E Exchange PI, 

PO Box 1349 

Tucker, GA 30085-1349 

Mr. Charles R. Pierce 

Vogtle Deployment Licensing Manager 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. 

PO Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Resident Inspector 

Vogtle Plant 

8805 River Road 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

F-177 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Southern Nuclear- Vogtle Mailing List 

Resident Manager 

Mr. Reece McAlister 

Executive Secretary 

Georgia Public Service Commission 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

Mr. Thomas 0. McCallum 

Site Development Project Engineer 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. 

PO Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Mr. Joseph (Buzz) Miller 

Executive Vice President 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Mr. Thomas Moorer 

Environmental Project Manager 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. 

PO Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

David Bernhart 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

for Protect Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

263 131

h Avenue South 

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 

Sam Booher 

Concerned Citizen 

4387 Ros\Nell Drive 

Augusta, GA 30907 

Claude Howard 

394 Nathaniel Howard Rd 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

Glenn Carroll 

Nuclear Watch South 

PO Box 8574 

Atlanta, GA 31106 

NUREG-1947 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation 

Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant 

7821 River Road 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

Mr. Jerry Smith 

Commissioner 

District 8 

Augusta-Richmond County Commission 

1332 Brown Road 

Hephzibah, GA 30815 

Mr. Robert E. Sweeney 

IBEX ESI 

4641 Montgomery Avenue 

Suite 350 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Bentina C. Terry 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

PO Box 1295, Bl N B-022 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Courtney Hanson 

250 Georgia Avenue 

Atlanta, GA 30312 

Annie Laura Stephens 

146 Nathanield Howard Rd 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

Lucious Abrams 

Burke County Commissioner 

2032 Bough Red Hill 

Keysville, GA 30816 

Richard H. Byne 

537 Jones Avenue 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

F-178 March 2011 
Southern Nuclear- Vogtle Mailing List 

Tommy Mitchell 

Burke County Schools 

352 Southside Dr 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

George Deloach 

Mayor of Waynesboro 

201 Oak Lane 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

Robin Baxley 

Best Office Solutions 

142 S. Liberty St 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

March 2011 

Appendix F 

F-179 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Email 

APH@NEI.org (Adrian Heymer) 

awc@nei.org (Anne W. Cottingham) 

robin@bestofficesolutions.net (Robin Y. Baxley) 

BrinkmCB@VIIestinghouse.com (Charles Brinkman) 

deloachjane@hotmail.com (George Deloach) 

chris .maslak@ge.com (Chris Maslak) 

crpierce@southernco.com (C.R. Pierce) 

cwaltman@roe.com (C. Waltman) 

david.hinds@ge.com (David Hinds) 

david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com (David Lewis) 

dlochbaum@UCSUSA.org (David Lochbaum) 

erg-xl@cox.net (Eddie R. Grant) 

frankq@hursttech .com (Frank Quinn) 

greshaja@westinghouse.com (James Gresham) 

james.beard@gene .ge.com (James Beard) 

jgutierrez@morganlewis.com (Jay M. Gutierrez) 

jim.riccio@wdc.greenpeace.org (James Riccio) 

jim@ncwarn.org (Jim Warren) 

JJNesrsta@cpsenergy.com (James J. Nesrsta) 

Joseph_Hegner@dom.com (Joseph Hegner) 

KSutton@morganlewis.com (Kathryn M. Sutton) 

kwaugh@impact-net.org (Kenneth 0. Waugh) 

lynchs@gao.gov (Sarah Lynch - Meeting Notices Only) 

maria .webb@pillsburylaw.com (Maria Webb) 

mark.beaumont@wsms.com (Mark Beaumont) 

matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com (Matias Travieso-Diaz) 

mcaston@southernco.com (Moanica Caston) 

media@nei.org (Scott Peterson) 

mike_moran@fpl.com (Mike Moran) 

tmitche@eburke.k12.ga.us (Tommy Mitchell) 

nirsnet@nirs.org (Michael Mariotte) 

eogleyoliver@gmail.com (Emma Ogley-Oiiver) 

patricial.campbell@ge.com (Patricia L. Campbell) 

paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com (Paul Gaukler) 

bobby@waud.org (Bobbie Paul) 

Paul@beyondnuclear.org (Paul Gunter) 

phinnen@entergy.com (Paul Hinnenkamp) 

pshastings@duke-energy.com (Peter Hastings) 

RJB@NEI.org (Russell Bell) 

RKTemple@cpsenergy.com (R.K. Temple) 

Crivard (?) 

roberta.swain@ge .com (Roberta Swain) 

burkechamber@roelco.net (Ashley Roberts) 

sandra.sloan@areva .com (Sandra Sloan) 

sfrantz@morganlewis.com (Stephen P. Frantz) 

sbooher@aol.com (Sam Booher) 

steven.hucik@ge.com (Steven Hucik) 

tomccall@southernco.com (Tom McCallum) 

diannevalentin@gmail.com (Dianne Valentin) 

pvince20@gmail.com (Patricia Vincent) 

waraksre@westinghouse.com (Rosemarie E. Warak) 

NUREG-1947 F-180 March 2011 
March 2011 

Biological Assessment 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Combined Licenses Application 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Combined Licenses Application 

Docket Nos. 52-025; 52-026 

Burke County, Georgia 

February 2011 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Rockville, Maryland 

F-181 

Appendix F 

NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Contents 

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

2.0 VEGP Site Description ................ .... .............. ............... ..... ............. ...... .. ................. 5 

2.1 Wildlife Habitat .... ... ............... ... .... ... .... ............ ........ .. .......... .. ............... .......... 6 

3.0 Proposed Federal Actions .......... ..... .... ... ......... .. ... ... ....... .. .. ..... .................. .... .. .. ... ... 8 

4.0 Potential Environmental Impacts .. .. ......... ................... .................. ... ............. .. ........ . 8 

4.1 Construction lmpacts .. ... ........ .......... ...... .......... .. ...... .. .......... .. ................ ........ . 8 

4.2 Operational Impacts ..... .. ....... ..................... ...... .. ........ .. ....... .. ....................... 1 0 

5.0 Evaluation of Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species ..... ...... .................. . 15 

5.1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker- Endangered .. ... ................ .................... .. ...... 16 

5.2 Wood Stork- Endangered ..... ................ .... .... .. .... .................. .......... ............ 18 

5.3 Canby's Dropwort- Endangered .. ... ...... ......... ... ..... .. .......... ....... ...... ... ... ...... . 20 

5.4 Eastern Indigo Snake- Threatened .. ................ .................. ........... .......... .... 22 

6.0 Cumulative Effects .... .......... .. ......... ......... ............ ..... .. ...... ............ ...... ........... .. ...... 23 

6.1 VEGP Site .. .. .............. .. ................................................................................ 23 

6.2 Transmission Line ROW .................................. ................... ......... .... ... .. .... .. . 25 

6.3 Summary ....... ......... ...... ... ......... ......... ... ....... ... ........... .... ...... .... ......... .. ...... .... 26 

7.0 Conclusions .. .......... ... ............ ..... ... ......... ... .............. .. .. ....... .. ....... .... ............ ........ . 26 

8.0 References .... .. ... ... .... .. .... .. ... .... ..... ... .... ... ... .... .. ...... ... .. ................ ... .... ........... ....... 28 

Figures 

Figure 1. Proposed VEGP Site Footprint ............ ..................................... ............ .. ....... 35 

Figure 2. Representative Delineated Corridor ...... .. .......... .......... .......... .. ....................... 36 

Tables 

Table 1. Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring on and in the Vicinity 

of the VEGP Site and the Proposed Transmission Line Right-of-Way .. .... ...... 5 

Table 2. Federally Listed Species Potentially Affected by Operation of the 

Proposed Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP Site and Construction and 

Operation of the Proposed Transmission Line Right of Way ...... .................. . 27 

ii 

NUREG-1947 F-182 March 2011 
Abbreviations/ Acronyms 

ac 

AP1000 

APP 

BA 

CCAA 

CFR 

em 

COL 

cws 

dBA 

DOE 

EA 

Eco-Sciences 

EMFs 

EPP 

EPRI 

ESA 

ESP 

FONSI 

FR 

ft 

FWS 

GDNR 

GElS 

GPC 

GTC 

ha 

in. 

kg/ha/mo 

km 

kV 

lbs/ac/mo 

LWA 

m 

March 2011 

acre(s) 

Advanced Passive 1 000 

Avian Protection Program 

biological assessment 

Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances 

Code of Federal Regulations 

centimeter(s) 

combined license 

circulating water system 

decibel(s) (acoustic) 

U.S. Department of Energy 

environmental assessment 

Eco-Sciences of Georgia 

electromagnetic fields 

environmental protection plan 

Electric Power Research Institute 

Endangered Species Act 

early site permit 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Federal Register 

foot/feet 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife SeNice 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

generic environmental impact statement 

Georgia Power Company 

Georgia Transmission Corporation 

hectare(s) 

inch(es) 

kilograms per hectare per month 

kilometer(s) 

kilovolt(s) 

pounds per acre per month 

Limited Work Authorization 

meter(s) 

Ill 

F-183 

Appendix F 

NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

mi 

MW(t) 

NEPA 

NRC 

NRCS 

Plant Wilson 

ROC 

ROW 

SCDNR 

SCE&G 

SEIS 

SERPPAS 

SPL 

Southern 

TDS 

TRC 

USACE 

VEGP 

Westinghouse 

NUREG-1947 

mile(s) 

megavvatts thermal 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Allen B. Wilson Combustion Turbine Plant 

Representative Delineated Corridor 

right(s)-of-vvay 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

supplemental environmental impact statement 

Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability 

sound pressure level 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

total dissolved solids 

Third Rock Consultants, LLC 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

iv 

F-184 March 2011 
Appendix F 

1.0 Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an application from Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), acting on behalf of itself and several co-applicants 

(i.e ., Georgia Power Company [GPC], Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric 

Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia) for combined licenses (COLs) to construct 

and operate two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 

1000 (AP1 000) pressurized water reactors (Units 3 and 4) on the site of the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (VEGP) in Burke County, Georgia. The VEGP Site and existing facilities are 

owned and operated by GPC, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of 

Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia . Southern is the licensee and operator of the existing 

VEGP Units 1 and 2, and has been authorized by the VEGP co-owners to apply for COLs to 

construct and operate t\NO additional units (Units 3 and 4) at the VEGP Site. 

On August 26, 2009, the NRC approved issuance of an early site permit (ESP) and a limited 

work authorization (LWA) for t\NO additional nuclear units at the VEGP Site (NRC 2009) to 

Southern and the same four co-applicants. This approval was supported by information 

contained in N U R EG-1872, Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit 

(ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site, Volumes 1 and 2 and errata (NRC 2008a). 

The ESP resolved many safety and environmental issues and allowed Southern to "bank" the 

VEGP ESP Site for up to 20 years. The LWA authorized Southern to conduct certain limited 

construction activities at the site in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), Sections 50.10 and 52.24(c). As permitted by NRC regulations, the COL application 

references the VEGP ESP. 

Southern's COL application addressed the impacts of constructing and operating two new 

nuclear units at the existing VEGP Site in Burke County, Georgia. The VEGP Site is 

approximately 42 km (26 mi) south of Augusta, Georgia. The proposed COL site is completely 

within the confines of the existing VEGP Site, with the new units to be constructed and operated 

adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2 (Figure 1). In October 2009, as part of the COL 

application, Southern requested a second LWA that \NOUid authorize installation of reinforcing 

steel, sumps, drain lines, and other embedded items along with placement of concrete for the 

nuclear island foundation base slab. 

Independent of the COL application and LWA request, Southern and GPC intend to construct 

and operate a new 500-kV transmission line to serve the proposed Units 3 and 4. The two new 

units would use some combination of the new and existing transmission lines. The exact route 

of the new transmission line has not been determined, but the new transmission line right-ofMarch 2011 F-185 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

way (ROW) would be routed northwest from the VEGP Site, passing west of Fort Gordon, a 

U.S. 

Army facility west of Augusta, Georgia , and then north to the Thomson substation. The 

Thomson substation is located about 32 km (20 mi) west of Augusta, Georgia. The 

transmission line ROW would be approximately 46 m (150ft) wide and approximately 97 km (60 

mi) long (NRC 2008a). The new transmission line would require approximately 390 towers 

(NRC 2008a). Each tower would require foundation excavations. Transmission line siting in 

Georgia is regulated under Title 22 of the Georgia Code. Construction and operation of the 

potential transmission line is not authorized by the NRC and approval of that activity is thus not 

part of the NRC's determination on the COL application. However, that activity is considered in 

the environmental review in assessing potential impacts of the major Federal action of issuing 

the requested COLs. Using the Electric Power Research Institute-Georgia Transmission 

Corporation (EPRI-GTC) Transmission Line Siting Methodology (EPRI-GTC 2006), Southern 

and GPC (GPC 2007) identified a set of potential transmission routes within what they termed 

the Representative Delineated Corridor (ROC), as depicted in Figure 2. The ROC was used as 

the basis for environmental impact analysis. Although the precise route for the planned new 

transmission line has not yet been determined, it will be within the ROC. 

As permitted by NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 52, which contains NRC's reactor licensing 

regulations, the COL application references the VEGP ESP. In accordance with the applicable 

provisions of 10 CFR Part 51, which are the NRC regulations implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), NRC is required to prepare a supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS) as part of its review of a COL application referencing an 

ESP. As required by 10 CFR 51 .26, the NRC published the draft SEIS for public comment in 

the Federal Register (FR) on September 3, 2010. 

During April, May, and June, 2010, Southern submitted requests for three ESP license 

amendments associated with the previously authorized LWA construction activities. These 

amendment requests sought authorization to use Category 1 and Category 2 backfill materials 

from additional onsite sources, including three new borrow areas, and to change the 

classification of engineered backfill over the side slopes of the excavations for Units 3 and 4 

(Southern 201 Oa, b, c, d). NRC prepared environmental assessments (EA) and Findings of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for each license amendment request (NRC 201 Oa, b, c). These 

ESP license amendments were issued in May 2010 (NRC 2010d), June 2010 (NRC 2010e), 

and July 2010 (NRC 2010f). The ESP license amendments requesting authorization to use 

backfill materials from three new borrow areas resulted in changes to the construction footprint 

on the VEGP Site. The change in the site preparation footprint for additional borrow areas 

resulted in an additional108 ha (267 ac) that was cleared and excavated for backfill material. 

2 

NUREG-1947 F-186 March 2011 
Appendix F 

The SEIS, together with the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the ESP hearing proceedings, and the ESP 

license amendment EAs, provides the NRC staff's evaluation of the environmental effects of 

constructing and operating two new AP1 000 reactors at the VEGP Site. 

During the review of the ESP application, as part of the NRC's responsibilities under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the NRC staff prepared a biological assessment (BA) 

documenting potential impacts on the Federally listed threatened or endangered species as a 

result of the site preparation (including construction of the onsite portion of the new 500-kV 

transmission line) and construction of Units 3 and 4 on the VEGP Site. The BA was submitted 

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on January 25, 2008 (NRC 2008b), and FWS concurred 

with the findings on September 19, 2008 (FWS 2008). 

The NRC staff has concluded that, with respect to site preparation activities and construction of 

Units 3 and 4 on the VEGP Site (including construction of the onsite portion of the proposed 

transmission line) , the COL action involves similar impacts to the same Federally listed species 

in the same geographic area as analyzed in the ESP; that no new species have been listed or 

proposed and no new critical habitat designated or proposed for the action area; and that, with 

respect to potential impacts to listed species from the activities previously analyzed, no relevant 

information has changed regarding the project since the earlier BA was submitted. Therefore, 

pursuant to 50 CFR 402 .12(g), the ESA of 1973, as amended, the NRC staff proposes to 

incorporate the earlier BAby reference. Furthermore, NRC has prepared this BA to document 

potential impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species resulting from 

operation of Units 3 and 4, including potential impacts anticipated from construction and 

operation of the proposed transmission line ROW. Operation of the transmission lines includes 

maintenance activities, such as herbicide applications, tree removal, and mowing . 

In a letter dated January 7, 2010, NRC requested that the FWS Field Office in Brunswick, 

Georgia, provide information regarding Federally listed species and critical habitat that may 

have changed since the 2008 consultation (NRC 2010g). On February 12, 2010, FWS provided 

a response letter indicating listed species under FWS had been adequately addressed for 

limited site-preparation activities on the VEGP Site (FWS 201 Oa). On October 20, 2010, FWS 

provided an updated list of Federally listed threatened or endangered species that can be 

expected to occur in the project area (FWS 201 Ob). In addition to the federally listed species, 

FWS provided information on the bald eagle (Ha/iaeetus leucocephalus) and the gopher tortoise 

(Gopherus polyphemus) in the response letter. 

The bald eagle was Federally delisted under the ESA in August 2007. In May 2007, National 

Bald Eagle Management Guidelines were published to assist in understanding protections 

afforded to and prohibitions related to the bald eagle under the Bald Eagle Act (FWS 201 Ob). 

There are bald eagle nests in Jefferson and McDuffie Counties in Georgia, and one known 

location of an active nest in McDuffie County in the vicinity of the proposed new transmission 

line (FWS 201 Ob). GPC stated that it would ensure the new transmission line ROW would not 

3 

March 2011 F-187 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

come within 180m (600ft) of this known bald eagle nesting site (GPC 2007). Eagle nests on 

transmission/distribution structures or other electrical equipment have not been documented in 

Georgia (GPC 2006): nevertheless, one of GPC's procedures in its Avian Protection Program 

(APP) includes contacting the FWS to advise the agency of the situation and to obtain additional 

instructions or permits, if an eagle's nest is encountered on a transmission/distribution structure 

(GPC 2006). Potential impacts to the bald eagle related to construction and operation of 

proposed Units 3 and 4, including impacts from construction and operation of the proposed 

transmission line, are discussed in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). 

The gopher tortoise is a Georgia state threatened species and is currently under review by the 

FWS to be listed as threatened (FWS 201 Ob). There are no known populations of the gopher 

tortoise on the VEGP Site or within the proposed transmission corridor (GDNR 2009; FWS 

2010b). Southern submitted a draft Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances 

(CCAA) for the gopher tortoise at the VEGP Site . This CCAA is currently under review by FWS 

(SERPPAS 201 0). The draft CCAA does not include the offsite portions of the proposed 

transmission line . In the October 20, 2010 letter to NRC, FWS recommended that tortoise 

surveys be included in surveys that are conducted where sandhills habitat exists . FWS stated 

that there are several areas within the proposed transmission line corridor that have sandhills 

habitat that may contain gopher tortoises (FWS 201 Ob). Potential impacts to the gopher tortoise 

related to construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4, including impacts from 

construction and operation of the proposed transmission line, will be included in the final COL 

SEIS. 

Pursuant to Section 7(c) of the ESA of 1973, as amended, NRC has prepared this BA, which 

examines the potential impacts of facility operation related to the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the 

VEGP Site on threatened or endangered species , including potential impacts from transmission 

line construction and operation activities. This BA evaluates the effects of the proposed action 

on four Federally listed threatened or endangered species identified by FWS in its October 20, 

2010, letter that may occur on or in the vicinity of the VEGP Site and/or in habitats crossed by 

the proposed transmission line (Table 1). The consultation is between NRC and FWS. 

4 

NUREG-1947 F-188 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Table 1. Federally Listed Species Potentially Occurring on and in the Vicinity of the VEGP 

Site and the Proposed Transmission Line Right-of-Way 

Federal 

Scientific Name Common Name StatuslaJ 

Vascular Plant 

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort E 

Birds 

Mycteria americana wood stork E 

Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E 

Reptile 

Drymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo Snake T 

a. Federal status ran kings determined by the PNS under the Endangered Species Act: 

E = Endangered, T = Threatened. 

Source: FWS 2010b 

2.0 VEGP Site Description 

The VEGP Site is located on the Savannah River shoreline approximately 24 km (15 mi) eastnortheast of Waynesboro, Georgia, and 42 km (26 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia. The 

existing site consists of two Westinghouse pressurized \/Vater reactors, a turbine building, a 

switchyard, intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. Two generating units 

(Units 1 and 2) are currently operating at the site (Figure 1). The Allen B. Wilson Combustion 

Turbine Plant (Plant Wilson), a six-unit, oil-fueled combustion turbine facility built in 197 4 and 

owned by GPC, and ancillary structures and systems related to Units 1 and 2 also are located 

onsite. The existing Units 1 and 2 and Plant Wilson would not be affected by this action. 

The footprint for Units 3 and 4 is in a previously disturbed area adjacent to the existing VEGP 

Units 1 and 2 (Figure 1). The existing Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Units 3 and 4 would 

share certain support structures such as office buildings and \/Vater, \Naste\Nater, and \Nastehandling facilities; however, the new intake and discharge facilities for Units 3 and 4 would be 

separate from the intake and discharge facilities for Units 1 and 2. Each proposed 

Westing house AP1 000 reactor would have a rated thermal power level of 3400 mega\Natts 

thermal MW(t) (NRC 2008a) . For the circulating \/Vater cooling system for Units 3 and 4, 

Southern proposed natural-draft cooling towers, and for the service \/Vater system, mechanicaldraft cooling towers. 

The VEGP Site is approximately 1282.5 ha (3169 ac) in size and is located in the sandhills of 

the Upper Coastal Plain Region, approximately 48 km (30 mi) southeast of the Fall Line 

(Eco-Sciences 2007; NRC 2008a). The site has 12 soil types and several major habitat types, 

including ponds, pine plantations, native upland pines, and the bottomland hardwoods that are 

5 

March 2011 F-189 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

found along stream drainages onsite and adjacent to the Savannah River (NRCS 2003; TRC 

2006). 

Directly across the Savannah River from the VEGP Site is the Savannah River Site, a 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility with restricted access (NRC 2008a). River swamp, 

bottomland hardwood, and upland pine-hardwood communities occur on the Savannah River 

Site within 10 km (6 mi) of the VEGP Site (NRC 2008a). The Savannah River Swamp 

comprises about 3800 ha (9400 a c) and borders the Savannah River on the southwestern edge 

of the Savannah River Site, adjacent to the VEGP Site (Wike et al. 2006). 

2.1 Wildlife Habitat 

The VEGP Site is characterized by low, gently rolling sandy hills. Scrub oaks, including turkey 

(Quercus laevis) , post (Q. stellata), and willow oak (Q. phellos), and longleaf pine (Pinus 

palustris) occur in the upland wooded areas that were not previously cultivated. Red oak 

(Q. rubra), water oak (Q. nigra), and maple (Acersp.) dominate the lowland hardwood areas. 

Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) characterize the 

Savannah River floodplain. 

The longleaf pine-scrub oak community is found on ridge tops as well as south and vvest slopes 

in undisturbed upland areas on the VEGP Site. Common canopy species in this habitat include 

longleaf pine, turkey oak, and bluejack oak (Q. incana) . The north and east slopes in the 

undisturbed uplands support the more mesic oak-hickory community. The canopy in this 

community is mainly composed of white oak (Q. alba), white ash (Fraxinus americana), 

mockernut hickory (Carya alba), and flowering dogwood (Comus florida) . A few turkey oaks 

and a scattering of shortleaf pine (P. echinata) are also present (TRC 2006). A steep bluff 

separates the dry upland forest from the intermittently flooded bottomland along the Savannah 

River. Common canopy species include oak, mockernut hickory, tuliptree (Liriodendron 

tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American elm (Ulmus americana), basswood 

(Tilia americana), and Florida maple (A. barbatum). The planted pine plantations on the VEGP 

Site are of various ages and differ in the stocking rates. The plantations vary from a nearly 

closed canopy with very little understory, to areas that resemble old fields with only scattered 

pine. Loblolly (P. taeda) and longleaf pines are the primary overstory species (TRC 2006). 

Pine plantations are managed through prescribed burning every 3 to 5 years, timber thinning 

after 20 years , and aesthetic cuts after thinning. Burning is limited to 25 to 30 percent of the 

upland and planted pine acreage each year (NRC 2008a). 

The wetlands associated with the VEGP Site include those near the Savannah River, as vvell as 

those near ponds and streams located onsite . Principal water bodies onsite include Mallard 

Pond and two streams in the southern portion of the VEGP Site (Figure 1). Southern contracted 

with Eco-Sciences of Georgia (Eco-Sciences) to survey the VEGP Site in December 2006 to 

determine where jurisdictional waters of the United States occur. Approximately 69 ha (170 ac) 

6 

NUREG-1947 F-190 March 2011 
Appendix F 

of potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified on the site during the Eco-Sciences survey 

(NRC 2008a). These include 48 wetlands, 6 perennial streams, 13 intermittent streams, and 3 

ephemeral streams. 

The proposed transmission line ROW is within the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Physiographic 

Regions of Georgia . The Piedmont is characterized by rolling hills and irregular plains. The 

soils are finely textured and can be highly erodible. The Coastal Plain is composed of mostly 

flat areas with some rolling hills with well-drained soils (GPC 2007). Using the Electric Power 

Research Institute-Georgia Transmission Corporation (EPRI-GTC) Transmission Line Siting 

Methodology (EPRI-GTC 2006), Southern and GPC identified a set of potential transmission 

routes within the ROC (Figure 2) (GPC 2007) that was used as the basis for environmental 

impact analysis. The ROC ranges from approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) to a little of 5 km (3 mi) in 

width and is approximately 80 km (50 mi) long. The actual routing of the 45m (150ft) wide, up 

to about 97 km (60 mi) long transmission ROW vvould be within the ROC. The siting model 

takes into consideration important features, including residential and other developed areas, 

mining activities, wetlands and sensitive land uses, cultural resources, and endangered and 

other species of special interest. GPC conducted an aerial field verification of the ROC, and 

identified a narrowing of the modeled corridor to avoid wetlands and stream crossings and 

reduce the overall length and land area that potentially vvould be affected. The ROC depicts 

areas in which a transmission line should minimize adverse impact on people, places, and 

cultural resources; protect water resources, plants, and animals; maximize co-location of the 

new line; and balance these considerations to reduce the overall impact of the transmission line 

(GPC 2007). 

In siting the new transmission line ROW, GPC would consult with the Georgia State Historic 

Preservation Officer, FWS, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Southern 2008) . If wetlands are disturbed, construction would 

be conducted in accordance with necessary State and Federal permits to protect wetland areas 

(Southern 2008). 

There are no U.S. Forest Service Wilderness Areas, Wild/Scenic Rivers, Wildlife Refuges, State 

Parks, or National Parks within the ROC (GPC 2007). The Savannah River and Brier Creek, a 

tributary of the Savannah River, are the primary waterways located in the ROC. The general 

wildlife habitats within the ROC include forested land, planted pine stands, open land, and open 

water. The exact habitat types within the new 500-kV transmission line ROW are not known at 

this time, but it is assumed they comprise similar habitats to those on the VEGP Site. GPC has 

estimated the total acreage for a 46-m (150-ft)-wide hypothetical representative ROW within the 

ROC to be 416 ha (1029 ac) (Southern 2007). 

7 

March 2011 F-191 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

3.0 Proposed Federal Actions 

The proposed Federal action is issuance of COLs, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, for 

two AP1 000 reactors at the VEGP Site, and an LWA for requested construction activities. The 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a) disclosed the staff's analysis of the environmental impacts that could 

result from the construction and operation of these two new units. The draft COL SEIS (NRC 

201 Oi) evaluated whether any new and potentially significant information has been identified that 

would alter the staff's conclusions regarding issues resolved in the ESP proceeding. In the draft 

ESP EIS and the COL SEIS, the NRC staff evaluated the impacts of construction and operation 

of two AP1 000 units, with a total combined thermal power rating of 6800 MW(t). The proposed 

units would use a closed-cycle cooling system and require a single natural draft cooling tower 

for each unit. 

4.0 Potential Environmental Impacts 

This section provides information on the terrestrial impacts related to operation of the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP Site, including potential impacts from construction and operation of 

the proposed transmission line ROW. Construction and operation activities associated with the 

issuance of the COLs and LWA, including cumulative impacts, that could affect the Federally 

protected terrestrial species based on habitat affinities and life-history characteristics and the 

nature and spatial and temporal considerations of the activity are listed below: 

• Construction 

- Transmission line ROW clearing and grading 

Installation of new or upgraded transmission lines and towers 

• Operation 

- Vegetation control in the transmission line ROW 

- Transmission line repairs or upgrades 

- Avian collisions with structures 

- Cooling tower operation. 

4.1 Construction Impacts 

The exact extent and types of wildlife habitats within the proposed new transmission line ROW 

are not known . Currently, Southern and GPC are evaluating the actual ROW alternatives for 

the transmission line within the ROC. The proposed transmission line ROW would be routed 

northwest from the VEGP Site, passing through Jefferson, McDuffie and Warren Counties. The 

ROW would pass west of Fort Gordon, and then continue north to the Thomson substation, 

8 

NUREG-1947 F-192 March 2011 
Appendix F 

which is approximately 32 km (20 mi) west of Augusta, Georgia . It is anticipated that the 

transmission line would be about 46 m (150ft) wide and 97 km (60 mi) long and would cover 

approximately 416 ha (1 029 a c) (Southern 2007). A hypothetical transmission line ROW that 

represents what the GPC believes is a feasible route within the ROC was identified as part of a 

2007 study (GPC 2007). Based on the GPC analysis, habitats within the ROW could include 

approximately 60 ha (148 a c) of forested habitat, 37 ha (91.5 a c) of forested wetlands, 133 ha 

(329 ac) of planted pine, 2.6 ha (6.4 ac) of open water, and 64 ha (158 ac) of open land (GPC 

2007). Other land-use categories identified as potentially being impacted, such as mine/quarry, 

utility, transportation, and row crops, provide little value as wildlife habitat. Construction 

activities would avoid wetlands to the extent practicable. In the event that wetlands are 

encountered , construction would be conducted in accordance with the necessary permits 

obtained to protect wetland areas (GPC 2007) . 

A wide variety of wildlife common to Georgia is expected to occur within the transmission line 

ROW. The greatest extent of wildlife diversity is expected to occur within areas that support an 

interspersion of native upland, wetland, and aquatic habitats, and less diversity is expected in 

disturbed or developed lands. Lower-quality wildlife habitat is represented by areas cleared for 

utilities, roads, agricultural and residential development; and disturbed habitats such as 

pastureland, and open land. 

Potential impacts on Federally listed threatened and endangered species from construction on 

the proposed transmission line ROW vvould include loss of habitat (temporary and permanent), 

presence of humans, heavy-equipment operation, traffic, noise, and avian collisions . The use of 

heavy equipment would likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabit the areas that will be 

developed. Larger and more mobile animals would likely flee the area, while less mobile 

animals such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals vvould be at greater risk of death. 

Although the surrounding forest and wetland habitat vvould be available for displaced animals, 

the movement of wildlife into surrounding areas would increase competition for available space 

and could result in increased predation and decreased fecundity for certain species. These 

conditions could lead to a temporary localized reduction in population size for particular species. 

When construction activities are completed , species that can adapt to disturbed or developed 

areas may readily re-colonize portions of the site where suitable habitat remains, is replanted, or 

restored. 

Forests or forested wetlands within the corridors vvould be converted to and maintained in an 

herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition . Species dependent on forest habitats or those that are 

sensitive to forest fragmentation could decline or be displaced, such as the red-cockaded 

woodpecker (Picoides borealis) . Wildlife also would be affected by equipment noise and traffic, 

and birds could be injured if they collide with new transmission towers and conductors or the 

equipment used to install these components. However, increased noise levels associated with 

installation of the transmission lines vvould be of short duration and likely intermittent. Thus , the 

9 

March 2011 F-193 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. Similarly, the potential for 

traffic-related wildlife mortality also is expected to be low because relatively small cre\N'S would 

spend only a limited time in each area as construction progresses over large geographic areas. 

GPC would site the transmission line in accordance with Georgia Code Title 22, 

Section 22-3-161 . GPC's procedures for implementing this code include consultation with FINS 

as well as an evaluation of impacts to special habitats (including wetlands) and threatened and 

endangered species. In addition, GPC would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and 

permit requirements, and would use good engineering and construction practices (Southern 

2008). GPC has developed an APP that includes guidelines for siting new transmission lines. 

When siting new transmission lines, substations, or other GPC facilities, available information 

on migratory and resident bird populations will be taken into account to ensure that the lines or 

facilities will have as little adverse impact as practicable on these bird species (GPC 2006). 

In areas where agencies are concerned about the safety of protected birds, consideration of 

appropriate siting and placement will reduce the likelihood of collisions. When possible, areas 

with known bird concentrations will be avoided, and such vegetation or topographic 

characteristics that would naturally lead to shielding the birds from collision will be used. If this 

is not possible, installing visibility devices also may reduce the risk of collision. Examples of 

these devices are marker balls or other line visibility devices placed in varying configurations, 

depending on the line or locations. The effectiveness of these devices has been validated by 

Federal and state agencies in conjunction with Edison Electric Institute (GPC 2006). 

When designing power transmission lines in high-bird-use areas or on Federal Lands, GPC 

construction standards for transmission, distribution, and substation equipment and facilities will 

reflect the most appropriate and practicable "raptor-safe" stands for new construction consistent 

with available information. The objective is to provide 1.5 m (60 in .) between energized 

conductors and grounded hardware, or to insulate energized hardware if such spacing is not 

possible. The design standards are consistent with raptor-safe specifications recommended by 

Federal wildlife agencies (GPC 2006). 

4.2 Operational Impacts 

Potential impacts on terrestrial habitats and Federally listed species related to the operation of 

the proposed Units 3 and 4 may result from cooling-system operation and operation of the 

transmission system. The proposed cooling system for Units 3 and 4 is a closed-cycle system 

employing natural draft cooling towers. The heat would be transferred to the atmosphere in the 

form of water vapor and drift. Vapor plumes and drift may affect wildlife habitat. In addition, bird 

collisions and noise-related impacts are possible with natural draft cooling towers. 

Electric transmission systems potentially can affect terrestrial habitat and Federally listed 

species through ROW maintenance, bird collisions with transmission lines, and electromagnetic 

10 

NUREG-1947 F-194 March 2011 
Appendix F 

fields (EMFs). Southern estimates that one additional 500-kV transmission line vvould be 

necessary to distribute the additional po\1\fer generated by Units 3 and 4 (Southern 2008). 

Maintenance activities on the new transmission line ROW vvould be the responsibility of GPC 

(Southern 2008). Each of these topics is discussed in the following paragraphs. 

4.2.1 Impacts on Vegetation 

Impacts on Federally listed species may result from cooling to\1\fer drift, icing, fogging, or 

increased humidity. Through the process of evaporation, the total dissolved solids (TDS) 

concentration in the circulating water system (CWS) increases. A small percentage of the water 

in the CWS is released into the atmosphere as fine droplets containing elevated levels of TDS 

that can be deposited on nearby vegetation. Operation of the CWS would be based on fourcycles of concentration, which means the TDS in the make-up water would be concentrated 

approximately four times before being released. 

Depending on the make-up source water body, the TDS concentration in the drift can contain 

high levels of salts that, under certain conditions and for certain species, can be damaging. 

Vegetation stress can be caused from drift with high levels of deposited TDS, either directly by 

deposition onto foliage or indirectly from the accumulation in the soils. The maximum estimated 

cumulative deposition rate is less than 10.0 kg/ha/mo (9 lbs/ac/mo) at 490 m (1600 ft) north of 

the cooling to\1\fers (NRC 2008a). The location of the maximum deposition rate is in the vicinity 

of the proposed switchyard for Units 3 and 4, which is more than 1.6 km (1 mi) from the northern 

site boundary. General guidelines for predicting effects of drift deposition on plants suggest that 

many species have thresholds for visible leaf damage in the range of 10 to 20 kg/ha/mo 

(9 to 18 lbs/ac/mo) on leaves during the growing season (NRC 1996). The maximum deposition 

for the proposed Units 3 and 4 is below the level that could cause visible leaf damage in many 

common species. 

Southern expects the longest vapor plume associated with the new towers would be 10 km 

(6 mi), but would only occur 3.9 percent of the time (NRC 2008a). The longest plume length 

would occur in the winter months and the shortest in the summer months. Ground-level fogging 

and icing do not occur currently at the cooling towers for the existing Units 1 and 2 and are not 

expected to occur at the new cooling towers associated with the proposed Units 3 and 4. 

4.2.2 Bird Collisions with Cooling Towers 

The natural draft cooling to\1\fers associated with the proposed Units 3 and 4 would be 180 m 

(600ft) high (Southern 2008). The VEGP Site is located adjacent to the Savannah River, and 

although migratory birds pass through the vicinity of the VEGP Site, it is not located on a major 

American flyway. No formal bird collision surveys have been conducted at the VEGP Site. 

However, the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for VEGP Units 1 and 2 stipulates that any 

excessive bird-impact events be reported to NRC within 24 hours (Southern 1989). No 

11 

March 2011 F-195 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

excessive bird-impact events have been reported onsite. The conclusion presented in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants is that 

bird collisions vvith natural draft cooling towers are of small significance at all operating nuclear 

plants, including those with multiple cooling towers (NRC 1996). 

4.2.3 Noise 

The effects of noise on most vvildlife species are not vvell understood partly because noise 

disturbance cannot be generalized across species or genera, and there may be response 

differences among individuals or groups of individuals of the same species (Larkin 1996; AMEC 

Americas Limited 2005). An animal's response to noise can depend on a variety of factors 

including the noise level, frequency distribution, duration, background noise, time of year, 

animal activity, age, and sex (AMEC Americas Limited 2005). The potential effects of noise on 

wildlife include acute or chronic physiological damage to the auditory system; increased energy 

expenditure; physical injury incurred during panic responses; and interference with normal 

activities, such as feeding; and impaired communications among individuals and groups (AMEC 

Americas Limited 2005). The impacts of these effects might include habitat loss through 

avoidance, reduced reproductive success, and mortality. Long-term noise thresholds have not 

been established for vvildlife; evidence for habituation is limited; long-term effects are generally 

unknown; and how observed behavioral and physiological response might be manifested 

ecologically and demographically are poorly understood (AMEC Americas Limited 2005). 

The noise levels from natural-draft cooling tower operation and diesel generators are estimated 

to be approximately 55 decibels (dBA) SPL (sound pressure level) at 300m (1000 ft) (NRC 

2008a). Researchers have found that dBA measurements contain frequencies that are out of 

the hearing bandwidth of birds and some mammals and are not inclusive of the total hearing 

range for other animals. Consequently, the dBA vveighting system does not accurately 

characterize sound exposure or hearing response for wildlife (Dooling 2002; AMEC Americas 

Limited 2005). Natural-draft cooling tovvers emit broadband noise that is spectrally very similar 

to environmental (vvind) noise. In the case of relatively flat spectra, the spectrum level of cooling 

tovver and diesel generator noise, given the estimated dBA SPL, would be approximately 15 dB 

SPL. Cooling tower noise does not change appreciably with time (i.e., it is at steady state), and 

the estimated noise level at 300m (984ft) is well below the 80 to 85-dBA SPL threshold at 

which birds and small mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Using the startle 

criterion reported by Golden et al. (1980), the noise level expected to be generated by cooling 

tovver and diesel generator operations would only approach startle levels in the immediate 

vicinity (within 5 m [16.4 ft]) for noise with approximately 60 dBA SPLat 300 m [984ft]) of the 

tovver or generator. In addition, birds and other animals show habituation to acoustic deterrents 

(complex sounds designed with spectral components to be within the hearing band of the target 

animal). Thus, noise generated by natural draft cooling towers would be unlikely to disturb 

12 

NUREG-1947 F-196 March 2011 
Appendix F 

transient wildlife beyond the VEGP Site perimeter fence, which is over 300m (984ft) from the 

to\Ners. Seasonal or long-term resident wildlife could be expected to habituate to cooling to\Ner 

and generator noise. 

Impacts to species as a result of their response to noise (i.e., ranging from startle to avoidance) 

within the distance of the VEGP perimeter fence, if any, would be negligible because of the 

large expanses of open habitat available into which mobile wildlife species could move if 

disturbed. In addition, the new towers would be near the existing VEGP Unit 1 and 2 facilities, 

where wildlife have likely acclimated to typical operating facility noise levels. Consequently, the 

potential for startle and avoidance responses by wildlife posed by the incremental noise 

resulting from the operation of the two new natural-draft cooling towers for the proposed Units 3 

and 4 and other facilities at the VEGP Site would be minimal. 

4.2.4 Transmission Line Right-of-Way Management (Cutting and Herbicide 

Application) 

Southern stated that the same vegetation management practices currently employed by GPC 

for the existing Units 1 and 2 transmission line ROWs (such as hand-cutting on an as-needed 

basis) would be applied to the proposed new 500-kV transmission line ROW (Southern 2008). 

GPC performs aerial inspections of transmission line ROWs five times each year to support 

routine maintenance activities. These surveys are normally conducted using a helicopter. The 

noise may startle and temporarily displace wildlife . However, these impacts are of short 

durations and occur in very localized areas. Woody growth is cleared from transmission line 

ROWs on a 5-year maintenance cycle . This cycle may vary based on public concerns, local 

ordinances, line maintenance, or environmental considerations. Vegetation management 

includes use of herbicides, hand tools, and light equipment. Hand cutting or herbicides are 

used in areas that cannot be mo\Ned either because it is impractical or because of 

environmental concerns. Herbicide use is conducted in accordance with manufacturer 

specifications and by licensed applicators. Any spills of fuel and/or lubricants that occur as a 

result of equipment use in the transmission line ROWs are immediately cleaned up and 

reported. GPC cooperates with GDN R to manage sites considered environmentally sensitive 

within the transmission line ROWs (Southern 2008). GPC has developed recommendations for 

maintenance practices for the protection of pitcher plants, caves, nests, rookeries, and habitat 

such as rock outcrops that occur within GPC transmission line ROWs (Southern 2007). 

GPC also has developed an APP that includes recommendations on procedures for GPC 

personnel to follow if a Federally Endangered Species nest is encountered within the 

transmission line ROW. The GPC Environmental Field Service office will provide GPC staff with 

FWS-compliant guidelines and/or recommendations for management of these nests (GPC 

2006). 

13 

March 2011 F-197 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Avian mortalities resulting from collisions with conductors, guy wires, and overhead ground 

(static) wires have not been specifically documented on GPC system components, but are 

known to occur on other utilities' systems and communication systems. GPC has installed 

spiral vibration dampers to increase visibility on some of the transmission lines, especially along 

the coastal areas where the wood stork is known to nest and forage (GPC 2006). Section 4.1 of 

the EPP for the existing Units 1 and 2 stipulates that any excessive bird-impact events be 

reported to NRC within 24 hours (Southern 1989). Transmission line and ROW maintenance 

personnel have not reported bird deaths attributed to collisions or contact with Units 1 and 2 

transmission lines (Southern 2008). 

EPRI (1993) notes that factors appearing to influence the rate of avian impacts with structures 

are diverse and related to bird behavior, the structure attributes, and weather. Structure height, 

location, configuration, and lighting also appear to play a role in avian mortality. Weather such 

as low cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog also contribute to this phenomenon. Larger 

birds such as waterfowl are more prone to collide with transmission lines, especially when they 

cross wetland areas used by large concentrations of birds (EPRI 1993). 

EPRI (1993) documents electrocution of large birds, particularly eagles, as a source of mortality 

that could be significant to listed species. However, electrocutions do not normally occur on 

lines whose voltages are greater than 69 kV because the distance between lines is too great to 

be spanned by birds (EPRI 1993). The voltage of the proposed new transmission line is greater 

than 69 kV; therefore, bald eagles and other large bird populations should not be noticeably 

affected by transmission-line electrocutions. GPC has implemented an APP to monitor and 

address the impacts of transmission lines on birds. Any impact events would be coordinated 

with GPC's Environmental Field Services and, if necessary, coordination also would involve 

FWS (GPC 2006). 

4.2.5 Impact of EMFs on Flora and Fauna 

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are unlike other agents that have an adverse impact (e .g., toxic 

chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and 

long-term effects, if they exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). As discussed in the GElS (NRC 1996), a 

careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did not reveal consistent evidence 

linking harmful effects with field exposures. Thus, the conclusion presented in the GElS 

(NRC 1996) was that the impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna were of small 

significance at operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable 

numbers of transmission lines. Since 1997, over a dozen studies have been published that 

looked at cancer in animals that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives 

(Moulder 2003). These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of 

cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2003). 

14 

NUREG-1947 F-198 March 2011 
Appendix F 

5.0 Evaluation of Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species 

This section describes Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species and 

designated and proposed critical habitat that may occur on or in the vicinity of the VEGP Site 

and/or in habitats that would be crossed by the proposed transmission line ROW (Table 1 ). 

This list is composed of the Federally listed species identified in the October 20, 2010, FWS 

letter to NRC (FWS 2010b). 

Surveys for species of interest, including those Federally listed species classified as threatened 

or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidate species were performed in spring, summer, 

and fall 2005 at the VEGP Site by Third Rock Consultants, LLC (TRC). The surveys were 

conducted on 675 ha (1669 a c) of the 1283 ha (3169 a c) that comprise the VEGP Site (TRC 

2006). The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) was the only Federally listed species 

observed on the VEGP Site during the 2005 surveys. One adult alligator was observed in 

Mallard Pond during the summer survey (TRC 2006). It is Federally listed as threatened 

because it is similar in appearance to the endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). 

It is not included in this assessment based on input from FWS in its October 20, 2010 letter to 

NRC (FWS 201 Ob). Furthermore, based on the contents of the October 2010 letter, three other 

species that were addressed in the ESP BA (the smooth coneflower, relict trillium, and 

flatwoods salamander) were not further considered in this assessment because they were not 

identified as occurring in the project area or the proposed transmission line ROW. 

The ROC is based on the EPRI-GTC siting model, developed in Georgia, to identify a 

reasonable corridor for locating the proposed 500 kV transmission line. The siting model takes 

into consideration important features, including wetlands and sensitive land uses and 

endangered and other species of special interest. The ROC represents a narrowing of the 

modeled corridor to avoid wetlands and stream crossings and reduce the overall length and 

land area potentially affected (GPC 2007). GPC would site the transmission line in accordance 

with Georgia Code Title 22, Section 22-3-161, and has developed an APP that includes 

provisions for siting new transmission lines (GPC 2006). GPC's procedures for implementing 

this code include consultation with FWS as well as an evaluation of impacts to special habitats 

(including wetlands) and threatened and endangered species (Southern 2008). At this time, onthe-ground surveys for Federally listed species have not been conducted in the ROC. 

Four Federally listed terrestrial plant and animal species may occur on or in the vicinity of the 

VEGP Site and/or in the vicinity of the ROC (FWS 2010b). These four species- the red 

cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the wood stork (Mycteria americana), Canby's 

dropwort (Oxypolis canby1), and the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon coupen)- are 

discussed below. No designated or proposed critical habitat for terrestrial species occurs on or 

in the general area of the site or the ROC. 

15 

March 2011 F-199 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

5.1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker - Endangered 

The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) , was listed by the FWS as endangered in 

1970 (35 FR 16047). The red-cockaded vvoodpecker's historic range extended from north 

Florida to New Jersey and Maryland , as far west as Texas and Oklahoma, and inland to 

Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee. This species has been extirpated in New Jersey, 

Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky (FWS 2007a), and currently, it is estimated that 

about 6000 family groups of red-cockaded woodpeckers, or 15,000 birds, remain from Florida 

north to Virginia and west to southeast Oklahoma and eastern Texas. Critical habitat has not 

been established for red-cockaded woodpeckers (FWS 2007b). In 1998, there were 665 family 

groups of red-cockaded woodpeckers in Georgia (GDN R 1999). 

The red-cockaded vvoodpecker is endemic to open, mature, and old growth pine ecosystems in 

the southeastern United States. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require open pine woodlands and 

savannahs with large old pines for nesting and roosting habitat for family groups (clusters). 

Large old pines are required as cavity trees because the cavities are excavated completely 

within inactive heartvvood and the higher incidence of heartwood decay in older trees greatly 

facilitates excavation. Cavity trees must be in open stands with little or no hardwood midstory 

and few or no overstory hardvvoods. Suitable foraging habitat consists of mature pines with an 

open canopy, low densities of small pines, little or no hardvvood or pine midstory, few or no 

overstory hardwoods, and abundant native bunchgrass and forb groundcovers (FWS 2003). 

Red-cockaded vvoodpeckers are a cooperatively breeding species, living in family groups that 

typically consist of a breeding pair with or without one or two male helpers. In red-cockaded 

woodpeckers (and other cooperative breeders), a large pool of helpers is available to replace 

breeders when they die. Helpers do not disperse very far and typically occupy vacancies on 

their natal territory or a neighboring one (FWS 2003). A typical territory for an active group 

ranges from approximately 51 to 80 ha (125 to 200 ac), but can be as large as 240 ha (600 ac). 

The size of the particular territory is related to both habitat quality and population density (FWS 

2007a). Dispersal is primarily undertaken by young birds; mate loss and an apparent avoidance 

of inbreeding sometimes cause adults to disperse, and adults may also occasionally move to 

neighboring territories for unknown reasons (Walters et al. 1988). In a North Carolina study, 

females dispersed a maximum of 31.4 km (19.5 mi) and males a maximum of 21 .1 km (13.1 mi) 

(Walters et al. 1988). 

In June 2007, Southern enrolled approximately 380 ha (940 ac) of the VEGP Site in the GDNR 

Safe-Harbor Program for red-cockaded woodpeckers (Southern 201 Oc, e). Safe-Harbor 

Agreements are arrangements that encourage voluntary management for red-cockaded 

woodpeckers while protecting the participating landowners and their rights for development in 

the event these woodpeckers become established on the private property. Landowners 

entering into safe-harbor agreements must establish a baseline number of individuals that would 

be maintained in the event that they are observed. Currently, Southern has no baseline 

16 

NUREG-1947 F-200 March 2011 
Appendix F 

responsibilities under the red-cockaded woodpecker safe-harbor agreement because there are 

no active clusters or nest trees onsite, and there are no red-cockaded vvoodpecker clusters on 

neighboring lands within foraging distance (Southern 201 Oc, e; NRC 201 Oh). 

Surveys at the VEGP Site conducted in February 2006 found no occurrence of red-cockaded 

woodpeckers onsite (NRC 2008a). There are no recorded occurrences of the red-cockaded 

woodpecker in Burke County, Georgia (GDNR 2007, GDNR 2009), and no active colonies exist 

within 16 km (1 0 mi) of the VEGP Site in South Carolina (SCDN R 2007; SCDN R 2009; Wike et 

al. 2006). There are no known occurrences of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the proposed 

RDC (GDNR 2007; GDNR 2009) . However, red-cockaded woodpeckers are listed as having 

the potential to occur in the project area (FWS 201 Ob). The red-cockaded woodpecker has 

been recorded on Fort Gordon (Mitchell 1999), which is located in Richmond County adjacent to 

the RDC. In 1998, there were two active groups on Fort Gordon representing less than 

1 percent of the total number of groups in Georgia. At this time, surveys for red-cockaded 

woodpeckers have not been conducted in the RDC, and it is not known if suitable nesting or 

foraging habitats exist in the vicinity of the proposed 500-kV transmission line ROW. 

Red-cockaded vvoodpeckers are found mainly in large stands of old longleaf pine, and this type 

of habitat vvould not be disturbed during operation of Units 3 and 4. Based on the distance to 

the closest known active colony, and the fact that red-cockaded woodpeckers have not been 

recorded on the VEGP Site or in the general vicinity of the site, it is unlikely that red-cockaded 

woodpeckers vvould be affected during operational activities onsite. 

Clearing activities (e.g., tree removal, noise, increased habitat fragmentation, etc.) in the 

transmission line ROW have the potential to affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and its 

habitat. Because the final transmission line ROW would be narrow (46-m [150-ft] wide), the 

actual extent of clearing would be limited, thereby minimizing the potential for impact on 

redcockaded woodpeckers. However, increased habitat fragmentation and/or removal of cavity 

trees could negatively impact the red-cockaded woodpecker. GPC would site the transmission 

line ROW in accordance with Georgia Code Title 22, Section 22-3-161. GPC's procedures for 

implementing this code include consultation with FWS. GPC also has developed an APP that 

includes guidelines for siting new transmission lines. Available information on resident bird 

populations will be taken into account to ensure that the lines will have as little adverse impact 

as practicable on bird populations (GPC 2006). 

Potential operational impacts associated with the transmission line ROW maintenance include 

mowing close enough to an active colony to disturb the nesting effort and removing trees during 

side clearing or building access roads. GPC has implemented procedures that recommend 

identification of all active colony areas within 3.2 km (2 mi) of a transmission line ROW and to 

identify active "hot-spots" within 229 m (750ft) of a ROW. GPC recommends maintenance 

activities around "hot-spots" be conducted during non-breeding periods (Southern 2007). Avian 

mortalities resulting from collisions with conductors, guy wires, and overhead ground (static) 

17 

March 2011 F-201 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

wires have not been specifically documented on the GPC system components. Hoi!Vever, 

electrocution of birds is unlikely on lines with voltages greater than 69 kV because the distance 

beti!Veen lines is too great to be spanned by birds (EPRI 1993). Therefore, it is unlikely that 

operational impacts would adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker. 

In summary, based on the distance to the closest known active colony, and the fact that redcockaded woodpeckers have not been recorded on the VEGP Site, it is unlikely that redcockaded woodpeckers are foraging on the VEGP Site, and there is no evidence of nesting 

onsite. It is unlikely that red-cockaded woodpeckers would be encountered during operational 

activities onsite with the exception of possible transient individuals. There are no known 

occurrences of red-cockaded woodpeckers within the ROC; ho\/Vever, on-the-ground surveys 

have not been conducted at this time. If nest trees are removed during clearing for the 

proposed transmission line, red-cockaded woodpeckers could be affected. Hoi!Vever, as 

previously noted, there are no known nest locations within the ROC. GPC has procedures to 

protect red-cockaded woodpeckers encountered during maintenance activities, and 

electrocution of birds is unlikely. Therefore, operation of the transmission system is not likely to 

adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker. 

Based on the available information, the NRC staff has determined that operation of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 and construction and operation of the proposed transmission system 

may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the red-cockaded woodpecker. 

5.2 Wood Stork - Endangered 

Breeding populations of the wood stork (Mycteria americana), which are Federally listed as 

endangered, currently occur or have recently occurred only in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, 

and North Carolina (FWS 2007c). From 1975 to 1984, Georgia averaged three colonies and 

had an average total of 210 nesting pairs. Beginning in 1992, surveys in Georgia were 

expanded, and 1091 breeding pairs \/Vere documented at nine colonies. In 2005, 1817 breeding 

pairs were documented at 19 colonies. In 2006, there were 1928 breeding pairs at 21 colonies. 

Wood storks have nested at 43 different locations in the Georgia coastal plain, and the number 

of colonies averaged 14 during the years from 1997 to 2007 (FWS 2007c). No critical habitat 

has been designated for this species (FWS 2007d). 

The wood stork is a highly colonial species, usually nesting and feeding in flocks. Its habitat 

includes freshwater and brackish I!Vetlands, and it normally nests in bald cypress or red 

mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) swamps. At freshwater sites, nests are often constructed in 

bald cypress and swamp tupelo (Nyssa bif/ora). Wood storks in Georgia and South Carolina lay 

eggs from March to late May, with fledging occurring in July and August (FWS 1997). 

Wood storks have a unique feeding technique (tacto-location) and typically require higher prey 

concentrations than other birds. They tend to rely on depressions in marshes or swamps where 

18 

NUREG-1947 F-202 March 2011 
Appendix F 

prey can become concentrated during low-water periods (FWS 1997). A study from a wood 

stork colony in east-central Georgia found the diet was mostly composed of fish, including 

sunfishes (Lepomis spp.), bowfin (Amia calva), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus americanus), 

and lake chubsuckers (Erimyzon spp.) (FWS 1997). 

Although forage areas may be 60 to 70 km (37 to 43 mi) from the colony, 85 percent are INithin 

19 km (12 mi) (Coulter and Bryan 1993). Wood storks in east-central Georgia forage in a wide 

variety of wetland habitats, including hardwood and cypress swamps, ponds, marshes, drainage 

ditches, and flooded logging roads. Typical wood stork foraging sites have reduced quantities 

of both submerged and emergent macrophytes. The water in the foraging areas is either still or 

very slowly moving, and the depth is normally between 5 and 41 em (2 and 16 in.). It has been 

suggested storks may have difficultly feeding in water with a depth more than 50 em (20 in.) 

(Coulter and Bryan 1993). 

Differences among seasons, rainfall, and surface-water patterns often cause storks to change 

where and when certain habitats are used for nesting, feeding, or roosting. These hydrological 

changes may cause storks to shift the timing or intensity of feeding at a local wetland, or cause 

entire regional populations of birds to make large geographic shifts between one year and the 

next. Successful colonies are those that are in regions where birds have options to feed under 

a variety of rainfall and surface-water conditions. Maintaining a wide range of feeding site 

options requires that many different types of wetlands, both large and small, and relatively long 

and short annual hydro-periods be available for foraging (FWS 1997). 

Wood storks have the potential to occur in the project area (FWS 201 Ob). However, no wood 

storks were identified in the VEGP threatened and endangered species surveys completed in 

2005, and there are no known records of wood storks occurring on the VEGP Site or within 

the RDC (NRC 2008a; TRC 2006; GDNR 2007; GDNR 2009). The closest known wood stork 

colonies to the VEGP Site are located in Jenkins and Screvin Counties, Georgia, which are 

south of the project area. The Birdsville colony is located at Big Dukes Pond, a 570-ha 

(1400-ac) cypress swamp, which is 12.6 km (7.8 mi) northwest of Millen in Jenkins County, 

Georgia. The VEGP Site is approximately 45 km (28 mi) from the Birdsville colony. The Chew 

Mill Pond colony in Jenkins County is approximately 6 km (3.7 mi) southwest of the Birdsville 

colony. Chew Mill Pond has a history of being a wood stork foraging site and a wading bird 

rookery. Researchers consider it to be an overflow or satellite colony of the Birdsville colony 

(Wike et al. 2006). The Jacobsons Landing colony in Screven County is approximately 43 km 

(27 mi) southeast of the VEGP Site. In 1996, it contained an estimated 40 wood stork nests. 

The distance from the VEGP Site to these colonies is within the maximum radius that wood 

storks travel during daily feeding flights (i.e., 60 to 70 km [37 to 43 mi]) (Coulter and Bryan 

1993). Foraging wood storks have been recorded throughout Burke County, Georgia (Coulter 

and Bryan 1993; Wike et al. 2006), and in the Savannah River Swamp on DOE's Savannah 

River Site in South Carolina, which is adjacent to the VEGP Site (Wike et al. 2006). 

19 

March 2011 F-203 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Wood storks were reported in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site before the site was 

established in 1952, and before the discovery of the Birdsville colony. Storks have been 

followed from the Birdsville colony to the Savannah River Site. However, data from the aerial 

wood stork surveys of the Savannah River Swamp and the studies at the Birdsville colony 

suggest that the Savannah River Swamp probably is not used extensively during the breeding 

or pre-fledging phases of the Birdsville colony. Most of the observations of storks on the 

Savannah River Site occur during the late-nestling or the post-fledging period, which occurs 

betvveen June and September. Some of the birds observed foraging in the Savannah River 

Swamp may be storks from farther south, either non-breeders or birds that already have 

finished breeding for the year (Wike et al. 2006). 

Foraging habitats for wood storks exist on the VEGP Site and in the ROC, and wood storks 

have been seen within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the site in the Savannah River Swamp and on Fort 

Gordon, which is adjacent to a portion of the ROC. In the October 20, 2010, letter from FWS to 

NRC, FWS noted that there are no documented occurrences of wood stork rookeries in the 

project area; hovvever, FWS stated that foraging wood storks may occur in the project streams 

and vvetlands, and their locations should be noted (FWS 201 Ob). Foraging from June to 

September on the VEGP Site and on the ROC appears possible in vvetland areas along stream 

drainages, ponds, drainage ditches. However, there are no records of wood stork colonies in 

the ROC or on the VEGP Site or within 32 km (20 mi) of the site and the proposed transmission 

line. This species does not likely nest in the ROC or on the VEGP Site . The wood stork is 

highly mobile and impacts associated with foraging during operation on the VEGP Site and 

construction and operation activities within the proposed transmission line ROW would be 

negligible. 

GPC maintenance recommendations include identifying all active nesting wood stork colony 

rookeries that are within 1.6 km (1 mi) of a transmission line ROW. In areas within 230 m 

(750ft) of an active rookery, GPC recommends mowing during the non-nesting season 

(Southern 2007). Therefore, activities related to the maintenance of the transmission line ROW 

are not expected to adversely affect the wood stork. 

Based on the available information, the NRC staff has determined that operation of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 and construction and operation of the proposed transmission system 

may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the wood stork. 

5.3 Canby's Dropwort- Endangered 

Canby's dropwort ( Oxypolis canbyt) was listed as endangered by the FWS in 1986 

(51 FR 6690). This species is native to the Coastal Plain from Delaware (historical only), 

Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Historically, this plant was found in 

Burke, Dooly, Lee, and Sumter Counties in Georgia. There is no critical habitat designated for 

this species (FWS 1990). 

20 

NUREG-1947 F-204 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Canby's dropwort has been found in a variety of habitats, including ponds dominated by pond 

cypress (Taxodium ascendens), grass-sedge-dominated Carolina bays, wet-pine savannahs, 

shallow-pineland ponds, and cypress-pine swamps or sloughs. The largest and most vigorous 

populations occur in open bays or ponds, which are wet throughout most of the year and have 

little or no canopy cover. Sites occupied by this species generally have infrequent and shallow 

inundations (5 to 30 em [2 to 12 in.]). The species water requirements are narrow, with too little 

or too much water being detrimental (FWS 1990). Suitable habitat is normally on a sandy loam 

or loam soil underlain by a clay layer, which along with the slight gradient of the areas results in 

the retention of water. 

Canby's dropwort has the potential to occur in the project area (FWS 2010b). However, 

Canby's dropwort was not found on the VEGP Site during the 2005 threatened and endangered 

species surveys, and there are no historical records of it occurring onsite (NRC 2008a, TRC 

2006). There are two historical records of occurrence in Burke County around Waynesboro, 

Georgia (51 FR 6690), and these populations are currently thought to be extirpated (FWS 

1990). There are no recorded occurrences within 16 km (10 mi) of the VEGP Site (GONR 2007, 

GONR 2009). Known soil types that support populations of Canby's dropwort are Rembert 

loam, Portsmouth loam, McColl loam, Grady loam, Coxville fine sandy loam, and Rains sandy 

loam. These soil types are similar in that they have a medium-to-high organic matter content, a 

high water table , and are deep, poorly drained, and acidic (FWS 1990). None of these soil 

types occur on the VEGP Site. Soil types found on the site include soils in the ChastainTawcaw association; Lucy, Osier, and Bibb soils; the Tawcaw-Shellbluff association; and 

Fuquay, Bonifay, and Troup series soils (NRCS 2003). It is unlikely that the VEGP Site contains 

suitable habitat for Canby's dropwort. Because of the lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely there 

would be adverse impacts during operational activities at the VEGP Site. 

There are no known occurrences of Canby's dropwort within the ROC. The nearest known 

occurrence is about 5.6 km (3.5 mi) from the ROC in Burke County (GONR 2007). Soils known 

to support Canby's dropwort occur in the ROC (USGS 2001). These soils are associated with 

pond or wetland areas. GPC has committed to avoiding wetlands to the extent practicable 

during construction. In the event that wetlands are encountered, construction would be 

conducted in accordance with the necessary permits to protect wetland areas (GPC 2007). 

Therefore, it is unlikely that Canby's dropwort will be adversely affected during construction and 

operation activities along the transmission line ROW. GPC has implemented transmission line 

ROW maintenance procedures that include hand cutting in areas, such as wetlands, that have 

special environmental concerns (Southern 2008). In the October 20, 2010, letter from FWS to 

NRC, FWS noted that there are no documented occurrences of Canby's dropwort in the direct 

project area; however, FWS recommends that Canby's dropwort should be surveyed for, if 

habitat is encountered (FWS 201 Ob). 

21 

March 2011 F-205 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Based on the available information, the NRC staff has determined that operation of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 and construction and operation of the proposed transmission system 

may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, Canby's dropwort. 

5.4 Eastern Indigo Snake- Threatened 

The eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon coupen) was Federally listed as threatened by FWS in 

1978 (FWS 1978). Historically, the eastern indigo snake occurred through Florida and in the 

coastal plain of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi (FWS 2006). Most, if not all, of the 

remaining viable populations of the eastern indigo snake occur in Georgia and Florida. Diemer 

and Speak (1983) conducted a 2-year study to survey the distribution of the eastern indigo 

snake and to characterize and delineate its habitat in Georgia. Results from this study indicated 

that the stronghold for the species was in a contiguous block of approximately 41 southeastern 

and south-central Georgia counties. The status and distribution in Georgia was recently 

reviewed by Stevenson (2006). He determined that populations of eastern indigo snakes still 

remain widespread in Georgia with recent records from 25 of the original 41 counties identified 

in the study by Deimer and Speak (1983). There are no historic or recent records for the upper 

Coastal Plain or Fall Line sandhill region of Georgia, including Burke, McDuffie, Jefferson, and 

Warren Counties (FWS 2006; Deimer and Speake 1983; Stevenson 2006). In its October 20, 

2010, letter to NRC, FWS noted that there are no documented occurrences of the indigo snake 

in the area; hovvever, FWS recommends that any pedestrian surveys of sandhill habitats, 

especially those with gopher tortoise burrows, should include cursory indigo snake surveys 

(FWS 2010b). 

The eastern indigo snake occupies a broad range of habitats, including pine flatwoods, scrubby 

flatwoods, high pine, dry prairie, edges of freshwater marshes, agricultural fields, and human 

altered habitats (FWS 1982). In the northern parts of its range, including southeastern Georgia, 

eastern indigo snakes are tied to the use of gopher tortoise burrows and longleaf pine habitat 

(FWS 2006). The gopher tortoise burrows are used by the eastern indigo snakes not only to 

protect against cold in the winter and heat in the summer, but also for foraging, nesting, mating, 

and shelter prior to shedding (FWS 2006). Habitat use often varies seasonally betvveen upland 

and wetland areas in Georgia (FWS 2006). Movement between habitat types may relate to the 

needs for thermal refugia, differences in habitat use by the juveniles and adults, or seasonal 

differences in availability of food resources. For these reasons, it is particularly vulnerable to 

habitat fragmentation (FWS 2006). 

The eastern indigo snake is not documented in Burke County or any of the counties crossed by 

the proposed transmission line ROW. Suitable habitat may occur in the RDC, and gopher 

tortoise burrows are in the vicinity. However, the project area is outside the historic and current 

range of the eastern indigo snake. 

22 

NUREG-1947 F-206 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Based on the available information, the NRC staff has determined that operation of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4 and construction and operation of the proposed transmission system 

may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, the eastern indigo snake. 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the VEGP Site vvere evaluated to 

determine the magnitude of their contribution to regional cumulative adverse impacts on 

terrestrial ecological resources. An assessment of potential impacts caused by plant 

construction was made for important terrestrial species (animal and plant) and habitats (as 

defined in the publication Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 

Plants [NRC 2000]) by evaluating the impact of construction in light of other past, present, and 

future actions in the region. An assessment of potential impacts caused by plant operation was 

made for resource attributes normally affected by cooling tower operation , transmission line 

operation, and ROW maintenance. For this analysis, the geographic region encompassing 

past, present, and foreseeable future actions is the area immediately surrounding the VEGP 

Site, including adjoining sections of the Savannah River bottomland. GPC completed a 

transmission line study in 2007 to identify potential ROWs for the proposed 500-kV transmission 

line (GPC 2007). For the analysis of cumulative impacts related to the addition of the 

transmission line and its ROW, the geographic region encompassing past, present, and 

foreseeable future actions is the original study area identified by the GPC (GPC 2007). 

6.1 VEGP Site 

Approximately 353 ha (873 a c) of land would be disturbed by construction of the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 (NRC 2010i), including hardwood forest, planted pine plantations, open fields, and 

previously disturbed industrial areas. An estimated 3.7 ha (9.23 ac) of wetlands habitat on the 

site would be disturbed (USACE 201 0). Most of the vvetlands acreage involved would be in the 

Savannah River floodplain. The amount of wetland acreage that would be disturbed represents 

about 5 percent of the total 69 ha (170 ac) of wetlands currently present onsite. There are no 

Federally listed threatened or endangered species that would be adversely affected during 

construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 (NRC 2008b; FWS 2008). 

The area around the VEGP Site is rural and primarily forested and farmland. The habitats that 

would be disturbed at VEGP are not considered to be critical for the survival of any species, 

including those that are Federally protected. In addition, the percent of vvetlands that would be 

disturbed represents only a small portion of the available wetlands in the vicinity of the site. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that the impact of development of the VEGP Site on the 

cumulative habitat loss and important species in the region associated with construction impacts 

would be negligible. 

There are five fossil-fueled power generating stations within 145 km (90 mi) of the VEGP Site : 

the South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) Urquhart station, 34 km (21 mi) from the VEGP 

23 

March 2011 F-207 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Site; the SCE&G D area powerhouse station, 32 km (20 mi) from the VEGP Site; the GPC Plant 

Mcintosh, 134 km (83 mi) from the VEGP Site; the GPC Port Wentworth, 124 km (77 mi) from 

the VEGP Site; and Plant Wilson, located on the VEGP Site. Fossil-fueled power plants release 

a variety of emissions to the air, including carbon dioxide, mercury, nitrous oxides, and sulfur 

dioxide. Nitrous oxides and sulfur dioxides can combine INith water to form acid rain, which can 

lead to erosion and changes in soil pH levels. Mercury can deposit on soils and surface water, 

which may then be taken up by terrestrial plant and animal species, and poses the risk of 

bioaccumulation in the soil. For these reasons, these fossil-fueled power plants are likely to 

have current and future impacts to the environment on the VEGP Site and surrounding area 

(NRC 2008a). 

There are three non-power generating plants that are on the Savannah River within the 

geographic area: the International Paper Corporation, the Savannah Industrial and Domestic 

Water plant, and the Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer authority wastewater treatment plant 

chemical discharges and the resulting bioaccumulation from these plants have the potential to 

have impacts on the surrounding area, including vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands (NRC 

2008a). 

DOE's Savannah River Site could impact terrestrial habitats, including habitats used by 

Federally listed threatened or endangered species. The Savannah River Site facility includes 

non-operational nuclear reactors, a currently operational coal-fired generating plant, and a 

proposed facility to convert weapons-grade plutonium into nuclear reactor fuel. The Savannah 

River Site, when originally constructed, added runoff from additional roads and impervious 

surfaces, increased development on wetlands and riparian zones, and decreased forest habitat. 

Current operations at the Savannah River Site, through chemical discharges and water 

withdrawal, could also have a cumulative impact on the geographic area. Future actions, such 

as additional construction and maintenance of buildings and facilities could affect the VEGP Site 

and the surrounding area (NRC 2008a). 

Because the proposed Units 3 and 4 are nuclear plants, there would be little additional impact to 

the nearby environment from airborne releases typical of fossil fuel or other industrial facilities. 

Therefore, even when combined INith emissions from the facilities described above, the 

operation of Units 3 and 4 would not result in unacceptable deposition rates of airborne 

pollutants. Furthermore, terrestrial habitat loss or alteration for the proposed action would be 

confined primarily to the VEGP Site . This loss or alteration of habitat, even in combination INith 

chemical discharges and habitat modification associated with the other facilities in the region as 

discussed above , would not destabilize terrestrial resources, including Federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. 

No other past, present, or future actions in the region were identified that could significantly 

affect Federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitat in ways similar to 

those associated INith the proposed Units 3 and 4 site cooling tower operation (cooling tower 

24 

NUREG-1947 F-208 March 2011 
Appendix F 

noise, drift from cooling towers, and bird collisions with cooling towers). The impacts associated 

with cooling tower operation were considered to be negligible for the VEGP Site; the cumulative 

adverse impact of these types of activities in the region also would be considered to be minor. 

Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that contributions of VEGP Site cooling tower operation 

to cumulative impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitat 

in the region would be minimal. 

6.2 Transmission Line ROW 

The exact extent and type of wildlife habitat within the proposed new transmission line ROW is 

not known at this time because Southern and the GPC are evaluating ROW alternatives within 

the ROC. It is anticipated that the transmission line would cross Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie, and 

Warren Counties and would be 45 m (150ft) wide and 97 km (60 mi) long (NRC 2008a). There 

are no U.S. Forest Service Wilderness Areas, Wild/Scenic Rivers or Wildlife Refuges, or State 

or National Parks within the ROC (GPC 2007). If possible, wetland areas would be avoided in 

the routing (GPC 2007). 

A hypothetical transmission line ROW that represents what the GPC believes is a feasible route 

within the ROC was identified as part of a 2007 study (GPC 2007) . Based on the GPC analysis, 

habitats within the ROW could include approximately 60 ha (148 ac) of forested habitat, 37 ha 

(91 .5 ac) of forested wetlands, 133 ha (329 ac) of planted pine, 2.6 ha (6.4 ac) of open water, 

and 64 ha (158 ac) of open land (GPC 2007). Other land-use categories identified as potentially 

being impacted, such as mine/quarry, utility, transportation , and row crops, provide little value 

as wildlife habitat. In the region surrounding the proposed transmission line ROW, there are 

approximately 18,085 ha ( 44,688 a c) of forest, 16,956 ha ( 41 ,898 a c) of forested wetlands, 

1354 ha (3346 ac) of open water, and 17,262 ha (42,656 ac) of open land (GPC 2007). 

Assuming the actual routing would be similar to the hypothetical route, the number of acres of 

forested habitat, forested wetlands, open water, open land, and planted pine forest that would 

be affected represent a very small portion of the available habitat. If the actual route would be 

similar to the hypothetical route, impacts on wildlife habitat in the region would be negligible. 

However, if the actual route differs from the hypothetical route, wildlife habitat impacts could 

either be greater or smaller. 

There are no known occurrences of Federally listed threatened and endangered species within 

the ROC. However, suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood 

stork (Mycteria americana), Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyt), and the eastern indigo snake 

(Drymarchon coupert) could exist within the ROC. The GPC would site the transmission line in 

accordance with Georgia Code Title 22, Section 22-3-161. Part of the GPC procedures for 

implementing this regulation include consultation with FWS and GDNR and an evaluation of 

impacts to special habitats and threatened and endangered species. In addition, the GPC has 

guidelines for transmission line maintenance practices for nests and rookeries in Georgia 

(Southern 2007), has developed an APP that provides guidance for minimizing impacts to bird 

25 

March 2011 F-209 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

species when siting new transmission lines (GPC 2006), would use good engineering and 

construction practices, and would comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit 

requirements (Southern 2008). Based on this review, cumulative impacts on important species 

and habitat loss in the region associated with construction of the transmission line ROW would 

be negligible. 

No other past, present, or future actions in the region were identified that could significantly 

affect Federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitat in ways similar to 

those associated INith transmission line operation and ROW maintenance (i.e., bird collisions 

with transmission lines, flora and fauna affected by EMFs and ROW maintenance, and 

floodplains and wetlands affected by ROW maintenance). Therefore, because these impacts 

were considered negligible for the VEGP Site transmission line operation and ROW 

maintenance, the cumulative adverse impacts of these types of activities in the region also 

would be minor. Consequently, the staff concludes that the contribution of transmission line 

operation and the maintenance of transmission line ROWs to cumulative impacts on INildlife and 

wildlife habitat in the region would be minimal. 

6.3 Summary 

The cumulative terrestrial resource impacts of the proposed action, including to Federally listed 

threatened or endangered species, may be detectable, but they are expected to be minor and 

not destabilizing to the resource. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that cumulative impacts to 

terrestrial resources resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4, 

including consideration of impacts from transmission line ROW construction and operation, 

would be minor. 

7.0 Conclusions 

The potential impacts to the protected species listed in Table 1 from operating the proposed 

Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP Site, considered cumulatively with the potential impacts of 

construction and operation of the offsite transmission line, are shown in Table 2. The known 

distributions and records of these species, in combination INith the potential ecological impacts 

of the proposed action on the species, their habitat, and their prey, have been considered in 

making the impact determinations in this BA. 

26 

NUREG-1947 F-210 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Table 2. Federally Listed Species Potentially Affected by Operation of the Proposed Units 3 

and 4 at the VEG P Site and Construction and Operation of the Proposed 

Transmission Line Right of Way 

Federal 

Scientific Name Common Name Status Determination 

Birds 

Mycteria americana wood stork E May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

Picoides borealis red-cockaded E May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

woodpecker 

Reptile 

Orymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo Snake T May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

Vascular Plant 

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort E May affect, not likely to adversely affect 

27 

March 2011 F-211 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

8.0 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, "Permits, Licenses, 

Certifications, and Licenses Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." 

35 FR 16047. October 13, 1970. "Conservation of Endangered Species and Other Fish or 

Wildlife." Federal Register. 

51 FR 6690. February 25, 1986. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Determination of Oxypolis Canbyi (Canby's dropwort) to be an Endangered Species." Federal 

Register. 

AMEC Americas Limited. 2005. Mackenzie Gas Project: Effects of Noise on Wildlife. 

Prepared for Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited. Accessed June 11, 2008 at 

http://www.ngps.nt.ca/upload/proponentlimperial%20oil%20resources%20ventures%201imited/b 

irdfield_wildlife/documents/noise_wildlife_report_filed.pdf. 

Coulter M.C. and A.L. Bryan. 1993. "Foraging Ecology of Wood Storks (Mycteria americana) in 

East-Central Georgia I. Characteristics of Foraging Sites." Colonial Waterbirds 16(1):59-70. 

Diemer J. E. and D.W. Speake. 1983. "The Distribution of the Eastern Indigo Snake, 

Drymarchon corais couperi, in Georgia." Journal of Herpetology 17(3): 256-264. 

Dooling R. 2002. Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines. NREL/TP-500-30844, 

National Renewwable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado . Accessed July 8, 2008 at 

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/30844.pdf. 

Eco-Sciences of Georgia (Eco-Sciences). 2007. Jurisdictional Waters Report, Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant. Found in Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit 

Application, Response to Requests for Additional Information on the Environmental Report. 

Letter report from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, D.C.). Accession number ML0760460323 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility 

28 

NUREG-1947 F-212 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Structure, International Workshop, September 13-16, 1992, Miami, Florida. EPRI TR-103268, 

Palo Alto, California. 

Electric Power Research Institute & Georgia Transmission Corp. 2006. EPRI-GTC Overhead 

Electric Transmission Line Siting Methodology,"., February 2006 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 1999. A Conservation Plan for RedCockaded Woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) on Private Lands in Georgia. Georgia Department 

of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame/Natural Heritage Section, 

Nongame-Endangered Wildlife Program, Forsyth, Georgia. Available at 

http://www.jonesctr.org/conservation/monitoring_mapping/Gahcp11 a.pdf. Accessed on 

August 7, 2007. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2007. E-mail from Greg Krakow (Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources) to Amanda Stegen (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Terrestrial Ecology Scientist), regarding "Digital Rare Element Data for Pacific [Northwest] 

National Laboratory." Accession No. ML070851855. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2009. E-mail and letter from Katrina 

Morris (Georgia Department of Natural Resources) to Mallecia Sutton (Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission), regarding Natural Heritage Database occurrences within the VEGP Boundary and 

the Transmission Line Macrocorridor. Accession No. ML 100490042. 

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2006. Avian Protection Program for Georgia Power 

Company, Rev 1. March 14, 2006. Accession No. ML063000228. 

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2007. Corridor Study- Thomson Vogtle 500-kV Transmission 

Project. Atlanta , Georgia. Accession No. ML070460368. 

Golden J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data 

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Larkin R.P. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. Technical Report 

96/21, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois. Accessed at 

http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/noise_and_wildlife.txt. 

Mitchell W.A. 1999. Species Profile: Wood stork (Mycteria americana) on Military Installations 

in the Southeastern United States. Technical Report SERDP-99-2, U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

29 

March 2011 F-213 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Moulder J.E. 2003. Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health: Power Lines and Cancer 

FAQs. Accessed February 4, 2008, at http://vvww.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/powerlines-cancerfaq/. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2003. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) 

Database for Burke County, GA. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National 

Cartography and Geospatial Center, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at 

http://SoiiDataMart.nrcs.usda.gov. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2007. E-mail from Julie Holling 

(SCDNR) to Amanda Stegen (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Terrestrial Ecology 

Scientist) Federal Threatened and Endangered Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant," April18, 2007. Accession No. ML071230462. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009. E-mail from Julie Holling 

(SCDNR) to Mallecia Sutton (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Threatened and Endangered 

Species in the Vicinity of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, December 15, 2009. Accession No. 

ML093491132. 

Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). 2010. Candidate 

Conservation Agreement for the Gopher Tortoise First Annual Report: October 1, 2008-

September 30, 2009. Published on February 2010. Accessed at 

www.serppas.org/ .. ./GTCCA%20First%20Annuai%20Report%202008-2009.pdf on November 

15, 2010. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 1989. Environmental Protection Plan, 

Appendix B to the Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and Facility Operating License 

No. NPF-81, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. Southern Nuclear, Docket 

Nos. 50-424 and 50-425. March 31, 1989. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML012350369. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. E-mail from Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Response to Follow-up Requests for 

Additional Information on the Environmental Report (AR-07-0924). Attachment: Maintenance 

Recommendations for Caves, Nests, and Rookeries (ML07171 0160). Letter report from 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (Washington, D.C.). May 14, 2007. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML071510102. 

30 

NUREG-1947 F-214 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2008. Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Revision 4. Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama . Accession No. ML081020073. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010a . Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis Report Change Request, Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Use of Category 1 and 2 Backfill Material for Additional Onsite 

Areas, on an Exigent Basis for Units 3 and 4. Letter ND-10-0795 dated April20, 2010. 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML 101120089. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010b. Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis 

Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of 

Backfill. Letter ND-10-0960 dated May 13, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML 101340649. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010c. Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Early Site Permit Site Safety Analysis 

Report Amendment Request, Revised Site Safety Analysis Report Markup for Onsite Sources of 

Backfill, Part 2. Letter N D-1 0-1005 dated May 24, 2010. Southern Company' Birmingham, 

Alabama. Accession No . ML 101470212. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 201 Od . Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Site Safety Analysis Report 

License Amendment Request, Revise Backfill Geometry. Letter ND-10-0964 dated May 24, 

2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101470213. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010e . Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application, Post 

New and Significant Audit Supporting Information. Letter ND-1 0-0923 dated May 10, 2010. 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML101320256. 

Stevenson, D.J. 2006. Distribution and Status of the Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon 

couperij in Georgia: 2006. Unpublished report to the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Forsyth, Georgia. 

Third Rock Consultants, LLC (TRC). 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Final 

Report. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and Associated Transmission Corridors. Lexington, 

Kentucky. 

31 

March 2011 F-215 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Joint Public Notice Savanna District/State of 

Georgia RE: Application for a Department of the Army Permit. February 2, 2010. Accessed on 

November 3 at VWJW.sac.usace.army.mil/assets/pdf/ .. ./PNs201 00212/200701837%20JPN .pdf 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1978. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

Listing of the Eastern Indigo Snake as a Threatened Species." Federal Register 43:4026. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1982. Eastern Indigo Snake Recovery Plan. Atlanta, 

Georgia. 23 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1990. Canby's Dropwort Recovery Plan. Atlanta, 

Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding 

Population of the Wood Stork. Atlanta, Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1999. Federally-Listed Species in South Carolina 

Counties. Accessed at http://VWJW.fvvs .gov/southeast/es/SCarolina.htm on April 25, 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red-Cockaded 

Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Second Revision. Atlanta, Georgia. 296 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi): 

5-Year Summary and Evaluation. Southeast Region, Mississippi Ecological Services Field 

Office, Jackson, Mississippi. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007a . Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. Accessed at 

http://VWJW.fws.gov/ncsandhills/rcw.htm on April4, 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007b. Species Profile: Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 

(Picoides borealis) . Accessed at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=B04F_on April17, 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007c. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) 5-Year 

Review: Summary and Evaluation. Southeast Region, Jacksonville Ecological Services Field 

Office. Jacksonville, Florida. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007d. Species Profile: Wood Stork (Mycteria 

americana). Accessed at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do ?spcode= 8060 

on April26, 2007. 

32 

NUREG-1947 F-216 March 2011 
Appendix F 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Athens, 

Georgia, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Re : USFWS 

Log# 08-FA-0473. September 19, 2008. Accession No. ML082760694. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a . Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Athens, Georgia, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Re: USFWS 

Log# 2009-1387. February 12, 2010. Accession No. ML 100500426. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , 

Townsend, Georgia, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Re: USFWS 

Log# 2010-1254. October 20, 2010. Accession No. ML 103010076. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. National Land Cover Database Zone 55 Land Cover 

Layer. Accessed February 11, 2010, at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php. 

Accession No. ML 100601081. 

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

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

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 

revisions. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1 

and 2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from NRC to FWS dated January 

25, 2008. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML0801 00512. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site 

Permit No. ESP-004. Washington, D.C. Accession No . ML092290157. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP 

Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No . ML 101380114. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP 

Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML 101670592. 

33 

March 2011 F-217 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site 

Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML 101660076. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010d. May 21, 2010, letter from C. Patel, Senior 

Project Manager, NRC, to J.A. Miller, Executive Vice President, SNC, Subject: Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant ESP Site - Issuance of Exigent Amendment Regarding Request for Changes 

to the Site Safety Analysis Report. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML 101400509. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 201 Oe . June 25, 2010, Letter from T. Spicher, 

Project Manager, NRC, to J.A. Miller, Executive Vice President, SNC, Subject: Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant ESP Site - Issuance of Amendment Regarding Request for Changes to the 

Site Safety Analysis Report Regarding Onsite Sources of Backfill. Washington , D.C. 

Accession No. ML 101760370. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010f. July 9, 2010, Letter from T. Spicher, 

Project Manager, NRC, to J.A. Miller, Executive Vice President, SNC, Subject: Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant ESP Site, Subject: Issuance of Amendment RE: Request for changes to the 

classification of backfill over the side slopes of Units 3 and 4 excavations. Washington, D.C. 

Accession No. ML 101870522. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010g. Letter from NRC to FWS dated 

January 7, 2010. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML092600684. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010h. Memorandum regarding the Site Audit 

Summary Concerning Environmental Impacts Associated with Acquisition of Additional Backfill 

Material for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Combined License Application Review. 

Washington, D.C. Accession No . ML 101550095. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010i. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

Combined Licenses (COLs) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Units 3 and 4. Draft 

Report for Comment. NUREG-1947, Washington, D.C. 

Walters J.R., P.O. Doerr, and J.H . Carter, Ill. 1988. "The Cooperative Breeding System of the 

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker." Ethology 78:275-305. 

Wike L.D., F.D. Martin, E.A. Nelson, N.V. Halverson, J.J. Mayer, M.H . Paller, R.S. Riley, 

M.G. Serrato, and W.L. Specht. 2006. SRS Ecology: Environmental Information Document. 

WSRC-TR-2005-00201, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. 

34 

NUREG-1947 F-218 March 2011 
Appendix F 

Figure 1. Proposed VEGP Site Footprint 

35 

March 2011 F-219 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1947 

Jefferson County 

2.5 10 Miles 

j! j l 11 j! j ! j I 1 1 

3.75 7.5 15 Kilometers 

Burke County 

South 

Carolina 

Figure 2. Representative Delineated Corridor 

36 

F-220 

Plant 

VogUe 

Site 

March 2011 
Mr. David Bernhart 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

for Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southeast Regional Office 

263 13th Avenue South 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

March 2, 2011 

SUBJECT: CONFERENCE CONSULTATION FOR THE ATLANTIC STURGEON 

FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 

COMBINED LICENSES APPLICATION 

Dear Mr. Bernhart: 

Appendix F 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an application, submitted on 

March 31 , 2008, from Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc (Southern) and its four coapplicants for combined licenses (COLs) to construct and operate t\NO Westinghouse AP1 000 

pressurized water reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site in Burke County, 

GA. The COL application referenced an early site permit (ESP) for the VEGP site that was 

issued to Southern and its co-applicants in 2009. As part of the ESP process, the NRC staff 

developed a draft and final environmental impact statement. 

As part of the NRC's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 

NRC staff prepared a biological assessment (BA) in connection with the VEGP ESP review 

documenting potential impacts on the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) as a result 

of preconstruction site-development activities of the two new units at the VEGP site. That BA, 

which was submitted to your office on January 25, 2008, concluded that the proposed action is 

not likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon. The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) concurred with that determination in a letter dated August 11, 2008. In a letter dated 

September 3, 201 0, the NRC confirmed with your office that the ESP-stage consultation 

encompassed the proposed actions included in the COL application. 

The shortnose sturgeon was the only applicable listed or proposed species under the purview of 

the NMFS during the NRC staff's ESP-stage consultation. On October 6, 2010, NMFS, 

published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904), a proposed rule for listing the Carolina and 

South Atlantic distinct population segments of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) as endangered under the ESA. To address this development, the NRC has 

prepared the enclosed document which describes the potential effects of the construction and 

operation of t\NO new nuclear units at the VEGP site on the Atlantic sturgeon and serves as our 

conference consultation under Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402, 

subpart B, Section 402.10 (50 CFR 402). This document is limited to consultation on the 

Atlantic sturgeon and does not affect the prior NRC or NMFS assessment regarding the 

shortnose sturgeon. The NRC is requesting NMFS concurrence with the NRC staff's 

determination that the proposed action is unlikely to adversely affect the Atlantic sturgeon. 

March 2011 F-221 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

D. Bernhart - 2-

If you have any questions regarding this consultation letter or the staff's request, please contact 

Ms. Mallecia Sutton, NRC Environmental Project Manager via telephone at 301-415-0673 or 

via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos.: 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc w/o encl: See next page 

NUREG-1947 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

F-222 March 2011 
Appendix F 

D. Bernhart - 2-

If you have any questions regarding this consultation letter or the staff's request, please contact 

Ms. Mallecia Sutton, NRC Environmental Project Manager via telephone at 301-415-0673 or 

via e-mail to Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov. 

Docket Nos.: 52-025 

52-026 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc w/o encl: See next page 

Distribution : 

Public 

P Moulding 

N Kuntzelman 

Sackschewsky (PNNL) OPA 

N Chokshi 

T Chandler, R1 

G Hatchett 

M Sutton 

G Hawkins 

K Leigh(PN N L) 

S Flanders 

MCain, SRI 

S Coffin (NWE1) 

KCiark, R2 

RidsNroDser 

RidsNroDnrl 

Sincerely, 

IRA/ 

Gregory Hatchett, Chief 

Environmental Projects Branch 1 

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews 

Office of New Reactors 

ADAMS Accession No:ML 110460152 or ML 110460317-pl k NR0-002 

Office NRO/DSER/PM DSER/LAIRAP1 DSER/RENV OGC DSER/BC 

Name MSutton GHawkins NKuntzelman PMoulding/NLO GHatchett 

subject to edits 

Date 02/15/11 03/01/11 03/02/11 02/25/11 03/02/11 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 

March 2011 F-223 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Southern Nuclear- Vogtle Mailing List 

Mr. M. Stanford Blanton 

Esquire 

Balch and Bingham, LLP 

P.O. Box 306 

Birmingham, AL 35201 

Ms. Michele Boyd 

Legislative Director 

Energy Program 

Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy 

and Environmental Program 

215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20003 

Mr. Marvin Fertel 

Senior Vice President 

and Chief Nuclear Officer 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

1776 I Street, NW 

Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20006-3708 

Lucious Abram 

County Commissioner 

Office of the County Commissioner 

Burke County Commission 

PO Box 1626 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

0. C. Harper, IV 

Vice President - Resources Planning and 

Nuclear Development 

Georgia Power Company 

241 Ralph McGill Boulevard 

Atlanta, GA 30308 

Mr. Steven M. Jackson 

Senior Engineer- Power Supply 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia 

1470 Riveredge Parkway, NW 

Atlanta, GA 30328-4684 

Mr. Louis B. Long 

Vice President Technical Support 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201 -1295 

NUREG-1947 

Director 

Consumer's Utility 

Counsel Division 

Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs 

2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive 

Plaza Level East, Suite 356 

Atlanta , GA 30334-4600 

Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Esquire 

Troutman Sanders 

Nations Bank Plaza 

600 Peachtree Street, N E 

Suite 200 

Atlanta , GA 30308-2216 

Mr. Jeffrey T. Gasser 

Executive Vice President 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Laurence Bergen 

Oglethorpe Power Corp. 

2100 E Exchange PI, 

PO Box 1349 

Tucker, GA 30085-1349 

Mr. Charles R. Pierce 

Vogtle Deployment Licensing Manager 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co ., Inc. 

PO Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Resident Inspector 

Vogtle Plant 

8805 River Road 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

F-224 March 2011 
Southern Nuclear- Vogtle Mailing List 

Resident Manager 

Mr. Reece McAlister 

Executive Secretary 

Georgia Public Service Commission 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

Mr. Thomas 0. McCallum 

Site Development Project Engineer 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. 

PO Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Mr. Joseph (Buzz) Miller 

Executive Vice President 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 

P.O. Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Mr. Thomas Moorer 

Environmental Project Manager 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. 

PO Box 1295 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

David Bernhart 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

for Protect Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

263 131

h Avenue South 

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 

Sam Booher 

Concerned Citizen 

4387 Roswell Drive 

Augusta, GA 30907 

Claude Howard 

394 Nathaniel Howard Rd 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

Glenn Carroll 

Nuclear Watch South 

PO Box 8574 

Atlanta, GA 31106 

March 2011 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation 

Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant 

7821 River Road 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

Mr. Jerry Smith 

Commissioner 

District 8 

Augusta-Richmond County Commission 

1332 Brown Road 

Hephzibah, GA 30815 

Mr. Robert E. Sweeney 

IBEX ESI 

4641 Montgomery Avenue 

Suite 350 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Bentina C. Terry 

Appendix F 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,lnc. 

PO Box 1295, BIN B-022 

Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 

Courtney Hanson 

250 Georgia Avenue 

Atlanta, GA 30312 

Annie Laura Stephens 

146 Nathanield Howard Rd 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

Lucious Abrams 

Burke County Commissioner 

2032 Bough Red Hill 

Keysville, GA 30816 

Richard H. Byne 

537 Jones Avenue 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

F-225 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Southern Nuclear- Vogtle Mailing List 

Tommy Mitchell 

Burke County Schools 

352 Southside Dr 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

George Deloach 

Mayor of Waynesboro 

201 Oak Lane 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

Robin Baxley 

Best Office Solutions 

142 S. Liberty St 

Waynesboro, GA 30830 

NUREG-1947 F-226 March 2011 
Email 

APH@NEI.org (Adrian Heymer) 

awc@nei.org (Anne W. Cottingham) 

robin@bestofficesolutions.net (Robin Y. Baxley) 

BrinkmCB@\Nestinghouse.com (Charles Brinkman) 

deloachjane@hotmail.com (George Deloach) 

chris .maslak@ge.com (Chris Maslak) 

crpierce@southernco.com (C.R. Pierce) 

cwaltman@roe.com (C. Waltman) 

david.hinds@ge.com (David Hinds) 

david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com (David Lewis) 

dlochbaum@UCSUSA.org (David Lochbaum) 

erg-xl@cox.net (Eddie R. Grant) 

frankq@hursttech.com (Frank Quinn) 

greshaja@westinghouse.com (James Gresham) 

james.beard@gene.ge .com (James Beard) 

jgutierrez@morganlewis.com (Jay M. Gutierrez) 

jim.riccio@wdc.greenpeace.org (James Riccio) 

jim@ncwarn.org (Jim Warren) 

JJNesrsta@cpsenergy.com (James J. Nesrsta) 

Joseph_Hegner@dom.com (Joseph Hegner) 

KSutton@morganlewis.com (Kathryn M. Sutton) 

kwaugh@impact-net.org (Kenneth 0. Waugh) 

lynchs@gao.gov (Sarah Lynch - Meeting Notices Only) 

maria.webb@pillsburylaw.com (Maria Webb) 

mark.beaumont@vvsms.com (Mark Beaumont) 

matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com (Matias Travieso-Diaz) 

mcaston@southernco.com (Moanica Caston) 

media@nei.org (Scott Peterson) 

mike_moran@fpl.com (Mike Moran) 

tmitche@eburke.k12.ga.us (Tommy Mitchell) 

nirsnet@nirs.org (Michael Mariotte) 

eogleyoliver@gmail.com (Emma Ogley-Oiiver) 

patricial.campbell@ge.com (Patricia L. Campbell) 

paul.gaukler@pillsburylaw.com (Paul Gaukler) 

bobby@waud.org (Bobbie Paul) 

Paul@beyondnuclear.org (Paul Gunter) 

phinnen@entergy.com (Paul Hinnenkamp) 

pshastings@duke-energy.com (Peter Hastings) 

RJB@NEI.org (Russell Bell) 

RKTemple@cpsenergy.com (R.K. Temple) 

Crivard (?) 

roberta.swain@ge.com (Roberta Swain) 

burkechamber@roelco.net (Ashley Roberts) 

sandra.sloan@areva.com (Sandra Sloan) 

sfrantz@morganlewis.com (Stephen P. Frantz) 

sbooher@aol.com (Sam Booher) 

steven.hucik@ge.com (Steven Hucik) 

tomccall@southernco .com (Tom McCallum) 

diannevalentin@gmail.com (Dianne Valentin) 

pvince20@gmail.com (Patricia Vincent) 

waraksre@westinghouse.com (Rosemarie E. Warak) 

March 2011 F-227 

Appendix F 

NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Analysis Regarding Potential Impacts on Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) 

Background 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an application from Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern), acting on behalf of itself and co-applicants 

(Georgia Power Company [GPC], Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of 

Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia). The application is for combined licenses (COLs) to 

construct and operate two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced 

Passive 1000 (AP1 000) pressurized water reactors (i.e., Units 3 and 4) on the site of the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) in Burke County, Georgia. The COL application (Southern 

2009) referenced an early site permit (ESP) for the VEGP site that was issued to Southern and 

the same co-applicants in 2009 (NRC 2009a). As part of the ESP process the NRC staff 

developed a draft and final environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC 2007 and 2008a). 

As part of the NRC's responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 

NRC staff prepared a biological assessment (BA) in connection with the VEGP ESP review. 

The BA, which documented potential impacts on the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum) as a result of preconstruction site-development activities of two new units at the 

VEGP site, was submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on January 25, 

2008, (NRC 2008b). In the BA, the staff concluded that the overall impact of preconstructionrelated activities (including constructing the intake and discharge systems and modifying the 

barge slip) would be temporary and unlikely to adversely impact shortnose sturgeon in the 

Savannah River. In its draft and final EIS (NRC 2007, 2008a) supporting the review of the ESP 

application, the NRC staff also analyzed the impacts of operation of two new nuclear units at the 

VEGP site and concluded that operation is unlikely to adversely impact shortnose sturgeon. 

NMFS reviewed the BA and the September 2007 draft ESP EIS (NRC 2007) and, in a letter 

dated August 11, 2008, (NMFS 2008), concluded that" ... effects on the species caused by 

exclusion from and temporary loss of spawning habitat due to construction activities are 

expected to be insignificant.. ." NMFS's basis for this conclusion was that," ... neither the water 

depths, substrate bottom type, time of year for construction [i.e., outside of the spawning 

season], nor the shape of the river at this location are conducive to shortnose sturgeon 

spawning . Shortnose sturgeon generally do not inhabit this section of the Savannah River at 

this time of year [i.e., outside of the spawning season]; sturgeon are generally found upstream 

from the site during the proposed construction months and no spawning studies have observed 

them in the river adjacent to the Vogtle Site." Further, based on its review of the draft ESP EIS, 

NMFS indicated that," ... the potential effect from thermal discharge will be insignificant as it is 

expected that fish and other organisms would avoid the elevated temperatures, as they can 

move through this part of the river unencumbered by any structures or physical features that 

would retain them in the plume; this also reduces the likelihood of cold shock when moving 

outside of the plume." NMFS concluded that," .. . the risk of sturgeon impingement within the 

intake structures will be discountable due to the very small chance of sturgeon being trapped." 

Finally, NMFS concluded" .. . potential effects from chemical effluents will be insignificant." In 

summary, after considering impacts of both construction and operation of two new units at the 

VEGP site, NMFS concluded that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect shortnose 

sturgeon. 

The shortnose sturgeon was the only applicable listed or proposed species under the purview of 

the NMFS during the NRC staff's ESP-stage consultation. On October 6, 2010, NMFS 

NUREG-1947 F-228 March 2011 
Appendix F 

published in the Federal Register (75 FR 61904) a proposed rule for listing the Carolina and 

South Atlantic distinct population segments of the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) as endangered under the ESA. To address this development, this document 

describes the potential effects of the construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the 

VEGP site on the Atlantic sturgeon, and serves as our conference consultation under Title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402, subpart B, Section 402.10 (50 CFR 402). 

This document is limited to consultation on the Atlantic sturgeon and does not affect the prior 

NRC or NMFS assessment regarding the shortnose sturgeon. In a letter dated September 3, 

2010 (NRC 201 Oa), NRC notified NMFS of the issuance and request for comments for the 

Vogtle draft supplemental EIS (SEIS) for the COL application. The letter further stated that no 

relevant information had changed regarding the project since the earlier BA was submitted. The 

NRC staff has incorporated by reference the ESP-stage consultation with respect to the 

shortnose sturgeon, pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(g). However, because of the similarities 

between the Atlantic sturgeon and the shortnose sturgeon, material supporting the previous 

consultation is referenced or included here as appropriate. 

Description of the Action 

NRC is reviewing an application, submitted on March 31, 2008, from Southern and the 

aforementioned co-applicants for COLs to construct and operate tvvo Westinghouse AP1 000 

pressurized water reactors at the VEGP site in Burke County, Georgia. The VEGP site and 

existing facilities are owned and operated by GPC, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal 

Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia. Southern is the licensee and 

operator of the existing VEGP, Units 1 and 2 and has been authorized by the VEGP co-owners 

to apply for COLs for the new Units 3 and 4. 

On August 26, 2009, NRC approved issuance to Southern and co-applicants of an ESP and a 

Limited Work Authorization (LWA) for tvvo additional nuclear units at the VEGP site (NRC 

2009a). This approval was supported by information contained in NUREG-1872, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Site (ESP EIS) (NRC 2008a) and errata. The ESP EIS considered the 

environmental issues and impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear units at the 

VEGP site. Issuance of the ESP allowed Southern to "bank" the VEGP ESP site for up to 20 

years. The LWA authorized Southern to conduct certain limited construction activities at the site 

in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10 and 52.24(c). As permitted by NRC regulations, Southern's 

COL application references the ESP. 

Southern has performed, or plans to initiate, the following site-preparation activities for the tvvo 

new Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP site which were considered in the BA prepared for the shortnose 

sturgeon and in the ESP EIS: 

• Prepare the site for construction of the facilities (including such activities as clearing, 

grading, constructing temporary access roads, and preparing borrow areas), 

• Install temporary construction support facilities (including items such as warehouses, shop 

facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and constructionsupport buildings), 

• Excavate for facility structures, 

2 

March 2011 F-229 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

• Construct service facilities (including items such as roadways, paving, railroad spurs, 

fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, transmission lines, and sanitary sewage 

treatment facilities), and 

• Construct structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the 

consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and safety 

of the public. These structures, systems, and components include, but are not limited to the 

following : 

- Cooling towers 

Intake and discharge structures 

- Circulating water lines 

- Fire protection equipment 

- Switchyard and onsite interconnections. 

The ESP BA concerning the shortnose sturgeon also described modification of a barge slip 

(NRC 2008b). Since then, Southern has decided not to modify the barge slip because large 

components will be delivered by rail (Southern 201 Oa) thus precluding the need to modify the 

barge slip. 

Under 10 CFR Part 52, which contains NRC's reactor licensing regulations and in accordance 

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

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) , the NRC is required to prepare a SEIS 

(NRC 201 Ob) as part of its review of a COL application referencing an ESP. As required by 10 

CFR 51 .26, the NRC published a notice of availability of the draft SEIS for public comment in 

the Federal Register (FR) on September 3, 2010, (75 FR 54145). The SEIS, together with the 

ESP EIS (NRC 2008a), the ESP hearing proceedings, and specifically the NRC staff's prefiled 

testimony (NRC 2009b), and environmental assessments for three ESP license amendments 

concerning onsite backfill activities authorized by the LWA, (NRC 2010c, NRC 2010d, NRC 

201 Oe) provide the NRC staff's evaluation of the environmental effects of constructing and 

operating two AP1000 reactors at the VEGP site. 

VEGP Site Description 

The VEGP site is located in Burke County, Georgia, adjacent to the Savannah River between 

river kilometers (RKM) 241 and 244 (river miles [RM]150 and 152). The site is approximately 

24 km (15 mi) east-northeast of Waynesboro, Georgia and 42 km (26 mi) southeast of Augusta, 

Georgia (see Figure 1 ). The proposed COL site is completely within the confines of the existing 

VEGP site with the new units to be constructed and operated adjacent to the existing Units 1 

and 2 (Figure 2). A more detailed site description was provided in the ESP BA (NRC 2008b). 

3 

NUREG-1947 F-230 March 2011 
March 2011 

~.forRce<S 

c:::J 00-Mile RsQw. 

Colrty Bo.i!Uuy 

c::::JLtbenl'<fez. 

l...dr;e;.IDIRi~ 

"""'"' lBnd 

LJ gtleEiedM GeoemtingPiool 

Appendix F 

0 5 10 20 30 Miles I 

Figure 1. VEGP Site and the Vicinity within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius (Southern 2007) 

4 

F-231 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

<:.// 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

• UMTSlAHJ• \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

I 

\ 

/ UN'T 2C(X)IJNG TOWER 

I UNIT 1 COOUNG TONER 

0 500 1000 1500FT 

' CIJII'IIEAM:l.E.150 

~ 

WilSON / 

1'\ANT I 

' I 

/ 

/ 

Figure 2. VEGP Site Footprint with the Existing and Proposed Nuclear Units (Southern 201 Ob) 

Potential Environmental Impacts from Preconstruction Site-Preparation Activities 

The activities that could potentially affect the habitat for the Atlantic sturgeon during construction 

of the intake and discharge structures are the same as those described in the ESP BA (NRC 

2008b), with the exception of the construction of a barge slip, dredging from the barge slip to the 

Savannah River Navigation Channel, and maintenance dredging of the Savannah River 

Navigation Channel, which are no longer planned to occur (Southern 201 Oa). 

On September 29, 2010, the Department of the Army issued an individual Section 10/404 permit 

(Permit Number SAS-2007 -01837) to Southern authorizing impacts to 9.23 acres of 

jurisdictional wetland, 734 linear feet of stream (only the Georgia side of the Savannah River, 

equivalent of 1.42 acres of open water), and 0.07 acre of ephemeral stream in the southeast 

corner of the site near the debris basins (USACE 201 Oa). Southern also received a Section 401 

Water Quality Certification from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) dated 

June 1, 2010, (USACE 201 Oa). 

5 

NUREG-1947 F-232 March 2011 
Appendix F 

The design and location of the cooling water intake structure for proposed Units 3 and 4 has 

changed since the original BA was sent to NMFS in January 2008. The cooling water intake 

structure has been repositioned upstream approximately 46 m (150ft), which places it 

approximately 650 m (2130 ft) upstream of the existing intakes for Units 1 and 2 and 

approximately 427 m (1400 ft) downstream of the outlet to the unnamed tributary of Mallard 

Pond. Southern also described a change in the dimensions of the intake structure (Southern 

201 Ob); this change will lower the intake structure floor from elevation 38.1 m to 32.0 m (125 to 

105ft). In addition, there will be a slight bend (i.e., approximately 30 degrees) about halfway 

down the canal to orient the mouth of the intake canal perpendicular to the river. Figure 3 

illustrates the revised intake structure and the wetlands in its vicinity. The design changes 

(Southern 2010b) do not substantially modify the width of the intake canal or the length of the 

canal extending beyond the existing river bank. The new location and design modifications did 

not alter the basis for the NRC staff's analysis of construction impacts in the COL SEIS. 

March 2011 

SAVANNAH.RIVER 

WETLANDS 

Feet 

DIRECTION OF 

RIVER FLOW 

" 

Figure 3. Revised Intake Structure and Surrounding Wetlands (Southern 2010b) 

6 

F-233 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

As discussed in the ESP BA (NRC 2008b), the proposed discharge structure will be placed near 

the southwest bank of the Savannah River, extending about 15 m (50ft) into the river (Southern 

2007). Details related to the design and placement of the discharge structure did not change. 

Potential Environmental Impacts of Operational Activities 

The potential impacts to the Atlantic sturgeon from the operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 

would include the loss of habitat from the consumption of water from the Savannah River, the 

entrainment of fish eggs or larvae, impingement against intake screens, the discharge of heated 

effluents, the discharge of chemicals, and the physical impact of bottom scouring from the 

discharge into the Savannah River. 

Although the design and location of the cooling water intake structure has changed, the 

orientation of the mouth of the intake canal in relation to the river (perpendicular) has not 

changed. There is a slight bend in the intake canal (approximately 30 degrees) as shown in 

Figure 3; however, the orientation of the mouth of the intake canal relative to the river will not 

change. The new location of the intake canal is in habitat similar to that in the previous location 

(i.e., on a straight portion of the river and in the same floodplain.) No changes were made to the 

water withdrawal rates, through-screen velocities, traveling screen mesh size, or the hydraulic 

zone of influence, which are the main factors that would impact entrainment or impingement 

rates of aquatic biota during operation of the cooling water intake structure (Southern 201 Ob). 

The staff evaluated the potential for fish, including the Atlantic sturgeon to be affected by the 

withdrawal of water from the Savannah River in the ESP EIS (NRC 2008a). The combined 

normal withdrawal rate of 2.35 m3/s (83 cfs) for both VEGP Units 3 and 4 represents 0.9 percent 

of the average river discharge measured at the Augusta gauge. This is significantly less than 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) national performance requirement of 5 percent 

for a cooling water intake structure located in a freshwater river or stream. 

The staff also considered in the ESP EIS, the percentage of water withdrawn during normal 

operations for the proposed Units 3 and 4 from the Savannah River at Drought Level 3 river flow 

levels (1 08 m3

/s [3800 cfs]). At normal withdrawal rates, Units 3 and 4 would withdraw 2.2 

percent of the river flow at the Drought Level 3 flow rates (NRC 2008a). Historically, these 

drought levels have occurred for short periods of time and this withdrawal rate is a small fraction 

of the water in the Savannah River at this location in the river. 

As part of the evaluation process for the ESP EIS and the COL SEIS, the NRC staff considered 

several factors related to the operation of the discharge structure: (1) the physical and thermal 

characteristics of the plume in relation to the receiving water body, (2) the potential for cold 

shock, and (3) impacts from the discharge of chemicals from operation of the tvvo proposed 

units. Regarding the physical and thermal characteristics of the plume in relation to the 

receiving water body, at the location of the discharge outfall and at a Drought Level3 flow rate, 

the Savannah River is approximately 95-m (312-ft) wide (NRC 2008a). In its COL 

Environmental Report (ER), Southern (2009) indicated that there would be a 3 percent increase 

in the discharge flow beyond what was assessed in the ESP EIS. Using the same conservative 

assumptions employed in the ESP EIS analysis, this change vvould result in only a small 

increase in the size of the 2.8°C (5° F)-above-ambient isotherm, from 4.6 m (15ft) to 5.2 m (17 

ft) in width and from 29.6 m (97ft) to 33.6 m (110ft) in length (NRC 201 Ob). Because the 

estimated extent of the thermal plume remains small in relation to the width of the Savannah 

River at the VEGP site, the staff concluded the thermal plume still vvould not impede fish 

passage up and down the river. The staff concluded that consistent with the reasoning 

7 

NUREG-1947 F-234 March 2011 
identified by the ESP EIS analysis, fish and other organisms likely would avoid the elevated 

temperatures and would be able to move through this part of the river unencumbered by any 

structures or physical features that INOuld retain them in the plume. In addition, the staff 

determined that the thermal plume would not create a barrier to the upstream or downstream 

movement of migratory fish (NRC 201 Ob). 

Appendix F 

Operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 could potentially result in cold shock, which occurs 

when aquatic organisms that have become acclimated to warm water such as fish in a power 

plant's discharge canal are exposed suddenly to a lower temperature. The staff concluded that 

cold shock would be less likely to occur at the VEGP site because multiple units would be 

operating, thus lowering the possibility of simultaneous shutdown of all the units. In addition, 

the volume of the discharge plume INOUid be very small in comparison with the river flow (NRC 

2008a). 

Regarding the discharge of chemicals from operation of the two proposed units, the cooling 

water will be treated with biocides and chemicals to control scaling, corrosion, and solids 

deposition. Operation of the cooling towers INOuld be based on four cycles of concentration, 

which means that the total dissolved solids in the make-up water would be concentrated four 

times before being discharged. Thus, the levels of solids and organics in the cooling tower 

blowdown would be approximately four times higher than ambient or upstream concentrations. 

Cooling water chemical treatment for the proposed Units 3 and 4 INOuld be similar to that used 

for the existing units. The final plant discharge from the proposed Units 3 and 4 INOuld be 

composed of circulating service water blowdown and other site wastewater streams, including 

sanitary waste, miscellaneous low-volume waste, and treated liquid radwaste. Slowdown from 

the cooling towers would be discharged to a common blowdown sump to provide retention time 

for settling of solids or treatment, if required to remove biocide residuals before the water is 

discharged to the Savannah River. Calculations performed by Southern and confirmed by the 

staff give an estimated in-river dilution factor of 60 to 120 during periods of average Savannah 

River discharge, depending on the time of the year and the river flow rate (NRC 2008a). 

The use of chemicals in the existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 is regulated by the GDNR, as set forth 

in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The chemical 

concentrations at the outfall for the existing units meet the N PDES limits. The chemical 

concentrations from Units 3 and 4 are anticipated to be the same as those for Units 1 and 2. No 

impacts to the aquatic ecology of the Savannah River have been observed from the operation of 

Units 1 and 2 and no impacts are anticipated from operation of Units 3 and 4. Southern would 

be required to obtain a NPDES permit from GDNR prior to operation of Units 3 and 4. To 

protect the aquatic environment, the NPDES permit will specify discharge limits for the various 

water-treatment chemicals. The NRC staff has determined that impacts to the aquatic 

environment from chemical discharges to the Savannah River during operation INOuld be 

minimal (NRC 2008a) . 

8 

March 2011 F-235 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Life History of Atlantic Sturgeon 

Based on information published by Marcy et al. (2005), the staff identified the Atlantic sturgeon 

as being present in the Middle Savannah River Basin. The Atlantic sturgeon is a member of the 

family Acipenseridae, which is a long-lived group of ancient anadromous and freshwater fishes. 

Historically, the Atlantic sturgeon was present in 38 rivers in the United States, ranging from St. 

Croix, Maine, to the Saint Johns River in Florida. Historical spawning populations were 

confirmed in 35 of the rivers. Currently, Atlantic sturgeon populations are present in 35 rivers 

and spawning occurs in at least 20 rivers, including the Savannah River (ASSRT 2007) 

Although the life history of the Atlantic sturgeon has been studied intensely since the 1970s, 

important aspects of the life history are still unknown. Generally, the Atlantic sturgeon is 

anadromous and spends the majority of its life in marine waters, but it reproduces in a 

freshwater habitat. Spawning is believed to occur in flowing water between the salt wedge and 

the fall line of large rivers. Like the shortnose sturgeon, spawning adults generally migrate 

upriver during the spring (February to March) in southern rivers. A fall-spawning migration also 

may occur in some southern rivers (ASSRT 2007). This appears to have first been reported by 

Smith (1985) indicating the occurrence of a fall run of fish that are in spawning condition in the 

south. Smith et al. (1984) note that the fall-run fish are typically smaller than those caught in the 

spring. Collins et al. (2000) provided additional evidence of a fall spawning period in the 

Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto river basins in South Carolina. This finding was based on 

movements of two male fish that spent the summer in the lower Edisto River and then moved 

upriver to RKM 190 during October 1998. In addition, a female Atlantic sturgeon that had 

recently spawned was captured near RKM 56 of the Edisto River during the fall during this 

study; however, no spawning sites were confirmed. 

Atlantic sturgeon eggs are highly adhesive and are deposited on the bottom substrate, usually 

on hard surfaces. Hatching occurs within approximately 94 to 140 hours after egg deposition at 

temperatures of 20°C and 18°C (68°F and 64.4°F), respectively. Embryos (age 1 to 8 days old) 

tend to seek cover and stay near the bottom after hatching (Kynard and Horgan 2002). When 

the yolk-sac larval stage is complete (after 8 to 12 days), the larvae move downstream over a 

6- to 12-day period to rearing grounds. Larvae are demersal and stay near the bottom of the 

water column (ASSRT 2007). During the first half of their migration, movement is limited to the 

night and during the day, they use the bottom (e.g., a gravel matrix) as refugia. As the larvae 

develop further, migration occurs during both the day and the night (Kynard and Horgan 2002). 

Juvenile sturgeon eventually arrive in estuarine waters, where they remain for months or years. 

Sub-adults may move to coastal waters and may make long migrations (ASSRT 2007). 

Status of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Savannah River 

Atlantic sturgeon have been found in the Savannah River, with records documenting 70 

individuals having been captured since 1999 (ASSRT 2007). It appears that they are spawning 

in the river, although specific spawning locations have not been identified. In 1997, a single 

running ripe male was found at the base of the dam near Augusta in the late summer (ASSRT 

2007) pointing to a potential fall migration in the Savannah also. 

lchthyoplankton studies conducted during a four-year period (1982-1985) near the Savannah 

River Site which is across the river from the VEGP site resulted in a total of 43 sturgeon larvae 

being collected. The larvae were taken from the river between RM 120 and 176. Differentiating 

shortnose sturgeon larvae from Atlantic sturgeon larvae is difficult because of the similarity in 

appearance; however, a total of 31 of the 43 sturgeon larvae were identified as Atlantic 

9 

NUREG-1947 F-236 March 2011 
Appendix F 

sturgeon. Of the 31 larvae, four were identified as being collected from near the top of the vvater 

column. The remainder were from near the bottom. The Atlantic sturgeon larvae were collected 

during April. Sampling vvas conducted from February through July, so a fall spawning season 

would not have been noticed (Paller et al. 1986). In addition, Collins et al. (2000) documented 

an early larval Acipenser sp. , tentatively identified as an Atlantic sturgeon located at RKM 42 

(RM 26) in the Savannah River. 

Cumulative Impacts 

On November 15, 201 0, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a draft General ReEvaluation Report (GRR) (USACE 201 Ob) and a Tier II EIS (USACE 201 Oc) related to 

determining the feasibility of improvements to the Federal navigation project at Savannah 

Harbor. The GRR and EIS assess mitigation plans for alternative channel depths from -42 to -

48ft mean lower low vvater. The Savannah Harbor expansion project has the potential to result 

in the loss of several hundred acres of habitat for fish that use the estuary. Many mitigation 

measures are being considered in connection with this project, including building a fish-vvay 

round the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam at Augusta, Georgia, which would open up an 

additional 32 km (20 mi) of habitat upstream of the dam (USACE 201 Oc). As explained 

previously, construction of the proposed units at the VEGP site would temporarily affect less 

than 0.6 ha (1 .5 ac) of sturgeon migratory habitat. Water withdravval rates during operation 

would be less than 1 percent of Savannah River flow during average flow conditions and the 

small zone of influence would have a negligible impact on pelagic spawning (NRC 2008a). 

Furthermore, the proposed activities associated with the VEGP expansion would not impede the 

mitigation measures being considered for the Savannah River expansion project. Accordingly, 

construction and operation of the proposed VEGP units would not have an adverse cumulative 

impact on important fish species when considered together with the Savannah Harbor 

expansion project. 

Evaluation of Potential Impacts from Preconstruction Site-Preparation Activities 

The construction activities previously described are expected to have minimal impacts on the 

aquatic ecology of the Savannah River. The extent of benthic habitat altered during 

construction of the intake canal would be small because most of the major construction activities 

would occur in the floodplain. Likewise, there would be limited disturbance of the benthic 

habitat during construction of the discharge structure. Disruption of silt and debris and its 

subsequent movement downstream during construction is expected to be minor because 

siltation curtains and cofferdams will be used, as discussed in the ESP BA. Noise impacts from 

pile-driving activities would be transient. Fish, including Atlantic sturgeon that may be inhabiting 

the river in the vicinity of the construction activities, would likely leave temporarily or avoid the 

Georgia side of the river. This temporary habitat loss would be a very small percentage of the 

total aquatic habitat in this area of the Savannah River. 

The NRC staff has concluded that, because of the limited scope of the activities and the best 

management practices employed by Southern, site preparation activities addressed in this 

analysis would be temporary and would be unlikely to adversely affect Atlantic sturgeon. 

Evaluation of Potential Impacts from Operational Activities 

The operational impacts previously described are expected to have minimal impact on the 

aquatic ecology of the Savannah River. The anticipated volume of vvater to be withdrawn from 

10 

March 2011 F-237 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

the river by the closed-cycle cooling system is a small fraction (1 .2 percent) of the water in the 

river. 

The anticipated approach velocities (about 3 em/sec [0.1 ft/sec]) in the proposed intake canal 

and a designed through-screen intake velocity of less than 15 em/sec (0.5 ft/sec) are low 

enough that healthy Atlantic sturgeon would be able to avoid impingement. Further, the staff is 

not aware of any documented case of healthy Atlantic sturgeon being impinged at any nuclear 

power station along the Atlantic coast including stations that employ once-through cooling 

systems. Sturgeon that migrate both upstream and downstream in the Savannah River are 

accustomed to flow rates higher than 15 em/sec (0.5 ft/sec). An impingement study undertaken 

from March 10, 2008 through February 26, 2009 at VEGP Units 1 and 2 which are similar in 

design to the proposed Units 3 and 4, resulted in a total of 168 organisms being impinged (GPC 

2009). Extrapolation of the results for a full year (365 days) of cooling-water vvithdrawal 

provided an estimate of 2580 impinged organisms with a biomass of 15 kg (33.1 lbs). No 

sturgeon were impinged. 

An entrainment study undertaken by Southern from March 10, 2008 through July 29, 2008, 

resulted in entrainment of a total of 910 fish eggs and larvae from 23 taxa, representing 13 

taxonomic families (GPC 2008). No sturgeon eggs or larvae were collected in either the source 

water or the entrainment samples. 

According to the Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team, it is believed that the inherent behavior 

of larval sturgeon to maintain an active migration and to seek deep water plays a role in helping 

them to avoid intake structures (ASSRT 2007) . Thus, they would not be susceptible to 

entrainment or impingement. 

The size of the modeled thermal plume is small in comparison to the width of the Savannah 

River at the VEGP site; therefore, the plume created by operations at VEGP would not create a 

barrier to the upstream or downstream migration of fish species, including the Atlantic sturgeon, 

in the Savannah River. 

Chemical discharges at the outfall for the existing Units 1 and 2 meet the limits specified in the 

NPDES permit and the discharge from the proposed Units 3 and 4 will be similar. No impacts to 

the aquatic ecology of the Savannah River have been observed from the operation of Units 1 

and 2, and no impact from chemical discharges from Units 3 and 4 would be expected for 

Atlantic sturgeon. 

Conclusion 

Based on its review of the proposed action and the biology of the Atlantic sturgeon, the staff 

concludes that the overall impact of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 construction- and operation-related 

activities would be unlikely to adversely affect Atlantic sturgeon in the Savannah River. 

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." 

11 

NUREG-1947 F-238 March 2011 
10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Early Site Permits , 

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined License for Nuclear Power Plants." 

50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 

"Interagency cooperation -Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ." 

Appendix F 

75 FR 54145 "Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability, EIS No. 20100351, Draft 

EIS, NRC, GA, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Construction and Operation, 

Application for Combined Licenses (COLs)." NUREG 1947. Vol. 75, No. 171. September 3, 

2010. 

75 FR 61904. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Listings for Two 

Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) in the 

Southeast." National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. October 6, 2010. 

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast 

Regional Office. February 23, 2007. Available at 

www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/CandidateSpeciesProgram/AtiSturgeonStatusReviewReport.pdf. 

Collins MR, TIJ Smith, WC Post, and 0 Pashuk. 2000. "Habitat Utilization and Biological 

Characteristics of Adult Atlantic Sturgeon in Two South Carolina Rivers ." Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 129:982-988. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. 16 USC 1531, et seq. 

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2008. Entrainment Assessment at the Plant Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant, Waynesboro, Georgia. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Georgia Power Company (GPC). 2009. Final Report of Fish Impingement at the Plant Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Waynesboro, Georgia. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Kynard Band M Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic Behavior and Migration of Atlantic Sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus, and Shortnose Sturgeon, A. brevirostrum, with Notes on 

Social Behavior. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:137-150. 

Marcy, Jr. B.C., D. E. Fletcher, F. D. Martin, M. Paller, and M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the 

Middle Savannah River Basin. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (N EPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Letter from Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D., Regional 

Administrator to William Burton, NRC, dated August 11, 2008, "A Biological Assessment for the 

Shortnose Sturgeon for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early Site Permit Application." 

Accession No. ML082480450. 

Paller MH , BM Saul, and DV Osteen. 1986. Distribution and Abundance of lchthyoplankton in 

the Mid-Reaches of the Savannah River and Selected Tributaries. Primary Report Number 

DIST.-86-798, Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

12 

March 2011 F-239 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

Smith TIJ . 1985. The Fishery, Biology, and Management of Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser 

oxyrhynchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 14(1):61-72. 

Smith, TIJ, DE Marchette and GF Ulrich. 1984. The Atlantic Sturgeon Fishery in South 

Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:164-176, 1984. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application: Environmental Report, Rev. 2. Southern 

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 1, August 23, 2009, 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010a . Large Component 

Transportation Method Decision. February 19, 2010. Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Accession No. ML 100550033. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010b. Response to Request for 

Additional Information Letter on Environmental Issues, January 8, 2010. Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML 100120479. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010a. Department of the Army Permit to expand the existing 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Permit Number SAS-2007-01837, issued September 29, 2010. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Regulatory Branch, Savannah, GA. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 201 Ob. Draft General Re-Evaluation Report for Savannah 

Harbor Expansion Project. Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina. 

Dated 15 November 2010. Accessed at January 6, 2010 at 

http://WINW.sas.usace.army.mil/shexpan/SHEPreport.html on January 6, 2010. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project. 201 Oc. Draft Tier II Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South 

Carolina. Accessed January 6, 2010 at 

http://WINW.sas .usace.army.mil/shexpan/SHEPTierll.html on Januarv 6, 2010. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from NRC to NMFS dated January 

25, 2008. Subject: Biological Assessment for the Shortnose Sturgeon for the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant Early Site Permit Application. Accession Number ML080070538 (cover letter) 

and ML080100588 (attachment). 

13 

NUREG-1947 F-240 March 2011 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a . Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Early 

Site Permit No. ESP-004. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML092290157. 

Appendix F 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. NRC Staff Prefiled Testimony (Revised) 

-Dr. Michael T. Masnik, Anne R. Kuntzleman, Rebekah H. Krieg, Dr. Christopher B. Cook, and 

Lance W. Vail Concerning Environmental Contention EC 1.2. February 26, 2009. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . 2010a. Letter from NRC to NMFS dated September 3, 

2010. Subject: Notification of the Issuance and the Request for Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Vogtle Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 

Combined License Application. Accession Number ML 102320162. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 

and 4. NUREG-1947, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP Site 

Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML 101380114. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010d. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP 

Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML 101670592. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010e. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ESP 

Site Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization Environmental Assessment and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. Docket No. 52-011. Accession No. ML 101660076. 

14 

March 2011 F-241 NUREG-1947 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1947 F-242 March 2011 

F.1 Reference 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vol. 2, 

Washington, D.C. 
Appendix G

Supporting Documentation for Radiological 

Dose Assessment

March 2011 G-1 NUREG-1947

Appendix G

Supporting Documentation for Radiological 

Dose Assessment

Appendix G of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant early site permit (ESP) environmental impact 

statement (EIS) (NRC 2008) provided information regarding the methodology and input data for 

dose estimates to the public from liquid effluents, from gaseous effluents, cumulative dose 

estimates, and dose estimates to biota from liquid and gaseous effluents. Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Inc. (Southern) indicated in the Environmental Report (ER) included in its 

combined operating license (COL) application that there is no new and significant information 

regarding construction, operation, and cumulative radiological impacts (Southern 2009). During 

its review of the COL application, the NRC staff independently verified that there is no new and 

significant information related to radiological impacts (see Sections 4.9, 5.9, and 7.8) by 

reviewing Southern’s ER, auditing Southern’s process for identifying new and significant 

information, examining other information available at the site audit, and considering applicable 

regulations and reference documents. While the ESP EIS is based on information from 

Revision 15 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) (Westinghouse 2005), this SEIS is 

based on information from Revision 17 of the DCD (Westinghouse 2008). No significant 

changes in radiation doses result from using the information from Revision 17 of the DCD rather 

than information provided in Revision 15. Based on this review, the staff determined that the 

information presented in Appendix G of the ESP EIS remains valid.

G.1 References 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009. 

Accession No. ML092740400.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, Vols. 1, 

2, and Errata, Washington, D.C. Accession Nos. ML082240145; ML082240165, ML082260203; 

ML082550040.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Package Accession No. ML053480403.
Appendix G

NUREG-1947 G-2 March 2011

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

ML083230868.
Appendix H 

Authorizations and Certifications

March 2011 H-1 NUREG-1947 

Appendix H 

Authorizations and Certifications 

This appendix contains a list of the authorizations, permits, and certifications potentially required 

by Federal, State, regional, local and affected Native American Tribal agencies related to the 

site preparation, construction, and operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant site. Tables 1.5-1 through 1.5-5 of the Environmental Report submitted by 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. on September 23, 2009 (Southern 2009) to the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as amended by information provided in Southern’s 

response to a request for additional information (2010a) Southern’s comments on the draft 

supplemental environmental impact statement (2010c), are reproduced in this appendix as 

Table H-1, Table H-2, Table H-4,Table H-5, and Table H-6. Table H-3 is reproduced from 

Table 1.4-1 in the Environmental Report for the Limited Work Authorization Request 

(Southern 2010b). Table H-1 also contains additional information, not provided by Southern, 

concerning Endangered Species Act consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service. Tables H-2 and H-5 contain information concerning permits 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2010). 
NUREG-1947

H-2 March 2011

Table H-1. Authorizations Required for Early Site Permit 

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

(USFWS)

Endangered 

Species Act

Consultation regarding 

potential to adversely 

impact protected species 

(non-marine species)

NA NA Concurrence with no 

adverse impact or 

consultation on 

appropriate mitigation 

measures.

On Oct 12, 2

wrote the US

the project a

list of protec

habitats at t

and alternat

any informa

jurisdiction o

that the age

pertinent to 

In a letter da

2008, the N

biological as

USFWS doc

potential im

threatened o

species as a 

limited site-p

activities at 

In a letter da

19, 2008, th

concurred w

findings that 

preparation 

not likely ad

threatened o

species at th

By letter dat

2011, the N

second biolo

assessment 

concerning 

of operation 

at the VEGP 

construction 

the propose
March 2011

H-3 NUREG-1947

transmission 

Table H-1. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

National Marine 

Fisheries 

Service (NMFS)

Endangered 

Species Act

Consultation regarding 

potential to adversely 

impact protected species 

(marine species)

NA NA Concurrence with no 

adverse impact or 

consultation on 

appropriate mitigation 

measures.

On Oct 12, 2

wrote the N

the project a

list of protec

habitats at t

and alternat

any informa

jurisdiction o

the agency 

pertinent to 

NMFS respo

2006 with a 

protected sp

jurisdiction o

Georgia and 

In a letter da

2008, The N

biological as

NMFS docu

impacts on s

sturgeon as 

limited site-p

activities at 

In a letter da

2008, NMFS 

the NRC bio

assessment 

ESP and co

project is no

adversely af

species und

jurisdiction.
NUREG-1947

H-4 March 2011

Table H-1. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

South Carolina 

Department of 

Archives and 

History

National 

Historic 

Preservation 

Act 

(36 CFR 800)

Consultation regarding 

potential to adversely 

affect historic resources

NA NA Confirm site 

construction or 

operation would not 

affect protected 

historic resources.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

Alabama 

Historical 

Commission

National 

Historic 

Preservation 

Act 

(36 CFR 800)

Consultation regarding 

potential to adversely 

affect historic resources

NA NA Confirm site 

construction or 

operation would not 

affect protected 

historic resources.

On Oct 12, 2

wrote the Al

Commission 

project and 

to consult w

regarding th

project. The 

responded w

on Oct 20, 2

Georgia 

Department of 

Natural

Resources 

(GDNR)

National 

Historic

Preservation 

Act 

(36 CFR 800)

Consultation regarding

potential to adversely

affect historic resources

NA NA Confirm site 

construction or 

operation would not

affect protected 

historic resources.

On Oct 12, 2

wrote the G

describing t

inviting the S

with the NR

proposed pr

Georgia SH

Dec 27, 200

their assess

eligibility of 

and sugges

protect eligi

construction 
March 2011

H-5 NUREG-1947

Table H-1. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

SNC submit

Memorandu

Understand

Georgia SH

2010 for rev

The MOU is 

installation o

intake piping 

duct bank a

the balance 

site 9BK416 

investigation

the Georgia 

GDNR Federal Clean 

Water Act 

(33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) 

(CWA)

Section 401 Certification NA NA Compliance with 

water quality 

standards.

GDNR issue

Certification 

dated June 

(Southern 2

Native American 

Nations:

Cherokee 

Nation of 

Oklahoma

Chickasaw 

Nation

Chickasaw 

Nation of 

Oklahoma

Georgia Tribe of 

Eastern 

Cherokee

Environmental

Protection

Regulations for

Domestic 

Licensing

and Related

Regulatory 

Functions

(10 CFR 51) 

require

Protection of 

Historic

Properties 

(36 CFR 800)

Consultation regarding

protection of traditional

Native American

religious or cultural

resources

NA NA Confirm that 

traditional Native 

American religious or 

cultural resources are

protected

On Oct 12, 2

2006 the NR

listed Native 

groups desc

and inviting 

with the NR

proposed pr

The Miccos

responded o

that it limited 

within the S

AlabamaQuassarte 

Tribal Town

Seminole Nation 

of Oklahoma

The United 

of Cherokee 

Oklahoma r

Oct 22, 200

objections to 
NUREG-1947

H-6 March 2011

Table H-1. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

Eastern Band of 

Cherokee 

Indians

United 

Keetoowah 

Band of 

Cherokee 

Indians

Poarch Band of 

Creek Indians

Coushatta Tribe 

of Louisiana

AbsenteeShawnee Tribe 

of Oklahoma

Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation 

of Oklahoma

AlabamaCoushatta Tribe 

of Texas

Catawba Indian 

Tribe

Seminole Tribe 

of Florida

Mississippi 

Band of 

Choctaw 

Indians

project.

The Semino

Oklahoma r

Oct 13, 200

interested in 
March 2011

H-7 NUREG-1947

Table H-1. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

Kialegee Tribal 

Town

Miccosukee 

Tribe of Indians 

of Florida

Thlopthlocco 

Tribal Town

Muscogee 

(Creek) Nation
NUREG-1947

H-8 March 2011

Table H-2. Authorizations Required for Site Preparation Activities that Do Not Require a Limited Work 

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

U.S. Army 

Corps

of Engineers

(USACE)

CWA Section 404 Permit SAS-2007-

01837

9/30/2015 Disturbance or 

crossing wetland 

areas or navigable 

waters. For site and 

rail corridor upgrade

(a)

SNC has co

jurisdictiona

for all site w

exception of 

metes and b

SNC has su

application p

permits und

of the USAC

Section 10, 

Fill) on Janu

The USACE 

an individua

the Army pe

September 

2010).

USACE 33 CFR 323 Dredge and Fill

Discharge Permit

SAS-2007-

01837

9/30/2015 Construction/ 

modification of intake/ 

discharge to 

Savannah River. For 

site and rail corridor 

upgrade.

(a)

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

SNC has su

application p

permits und

of the USAC

Section 10, 

Fill) on Janu

The USACE 

an individua

the Army pe

September 

2010).
March 2011

H-9 NUREG-1947

Table H-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

USACE Rivers and 

Harbors

Act

Section 10 Permit SAS-2007-

01837

9/30/2015 Barge slip 

modification impacts 

to navigable waters of 

the U.S.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

SNC has su

application p

permits und

of the USAC

Section 10, 

Fill) on Janu

In February 

deleted the 

modification

U.S. Department 

of 

Transportation 

(USDOT)

49 CFR 107, 

Subpart G

Certificate of 

Registration

051409 551 

044R

06/30/2010 Transportation of 

hazardous materials.

USDOT has 

certificate.

USFWS Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, 

50 CFR 21

Federal permit Adverse impacts on 

protected species 

and/or their nests. For 

site and rail corridor 

upgrade.

(a)

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

(FAA)

49 USC 1501 

14 CFR 77

Construction Notice Notice of erection of 

structures (>200 feet 

high) potentially 

impacting air 

navigation.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th
NUREG-1947

H-10 March 2011

Table H-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

Georgia Public 

Service 

Commission 

(GPSC)

GA Public 

Utilities Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

Section 46-3-1 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

515-3-4-.07

Certificate of Public 

Convenience and 

Necessity

Present and future 

public convenience 

and necessity require 

the operation of such 

equipment or facility.

SNC receive

certification 

March 17, 2

GDNR GA Endangered 

Wildlife Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

Section 27-3-130 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-4- 10

Depredation Permit Adverse impacts on 

state designated 

protected species 

and/or their habitat. 

For site and rail 

corridor.

(a)

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

GDNR Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA), 

GA Air Quality 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12-9-1 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-1

Part 70 Air Quality 

Construction Permit

1629-033-

0039-S01- 0

Construction air 

emission sources.

Shaw was is

Quality perm

2009. SNC 

application c

review by G

GDNR CWA, GA Water 

Quality Control 

Act

Revision of existing 

National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination 

System Permit

Regulates limits of 

pollutants in liquid 

discharge to surface 

water

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

GDNR CWA, GA Water 

Quality Control 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-5-20), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-6

General Permit 

Registration for Storm 

Water Discharges 

Associated with 

Construction Activity for 

Common Development 

Projects.

GAR 

100003

07/31/2013 Discharge storm 

water from site during 

construction

SNC does n

to file for co

GAR 10000

Sedimentati

Control plan

developed f

under GAR 
March 2011

H-11 NUREG-1947

Table H-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

GDNR CWA, GA Water 

Quality Control 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-5-20), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-6

General Permit 

Registration for Storm 

Water Discharges 

Associated with 

Construction Activity for 

Infrastructure 

Construction Projects

GAR 

100002

07/31/2013 Discharge storm 

water from linear 

construction sites 

(e.g., roadways and 

rail corridor)

SNC has de

Sedimentati

Control Plan

Notices of In

for coverage 

GAR 10000

GDNR GA Safe 

Drinking Water 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-5-170 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-5

Permit to operate a 

public water system

Operate a public, 

nontransient, noncommunity water 

system.

Based on di

GDNR, the 

system for V

will be a new 

submitted th

permit appli

construction 

on June 16, 

approved th

design on J

which allows 

construction 

water system 

wells for pot

GDNR GA Safe 

Drinking Water 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-5-170 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-5

Permit to operate a 

public water system

GDNR GA Groundwater 

Use Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-90 et seq.), 

GA Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-2- .03

Modification of Existing 

Permit to Use 

Groundwater

017-0003 08/06/2012 Consumptive use of 

100,000 gallons per 

day or more of 

groundwater.

Received.
NUREG-1947

H-12 March 2011

Table H-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

GDNR GA Groundwater 

Use Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-90 et seq.), 

GA Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-2- .09

Permit to Withdraw 

Groundwater

017-0006 03/13/2012 Dewater for 

foundation if needed 

for more than 

60 days.

Received.

GDNR GA Groundwater 

Use Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-90 et seq.), 

GA Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-2- .14

Certification of 

Abandoned Wells

Abandoned wells 

have been filled, 

plugged and sealed.

SNC provide

to EPD rega

one of two w

out of servic

February 18

remaining w

scheduled to 

from service 

GDNR GA Erosion and 

Sedimentation 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12-7-1 et 

seq.), GA Rules 

and Regulations 

391-3-7

Land Disturbing Activity 

Permit

GAR 

100001

07/31/2013 Permission to conduct 

land disturbing 

activities of one acre 

or larger, or within 

200 feet of the bank 

of any state waters. 

For site and rail 

corridor upgrade.

(a)

SNC has de

Sedimentati

Control Plan

Notices of In

for coverage 

GAR 10000

GDNR GA 

Comprehensive 

Solid Waste 

Management Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-8-20 et seq.), 

GA Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-4- .06

Permit by Rule - Inert 

Landfill Permit

On-site disposal of 

solid waste consisting 

of earth and earth-like 

products, concrete, 

cured asphalt, rock, 

bricks, and land 

clearing debris.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

GDNR GA 

Comprehensive 

Solid Waste 

Management Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

Private Industry Landfill 

Permit

Onsite disposal of 

solid waste consisting 

of construction and 

demolition debris.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th
March 2011

H-13 NUREG-1947

Table H-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

12-8-20 et seq.), 

GA Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-4

GDNR GA 

Comprehensive 

Solid Waste 

Management Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-8-20 et seq.), 

GA Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-4

Solid Waste Handling 

Permit

Disposal of industrial 

solid wastes. 

Transportation of 

putrescible waste for 

disposal in a 

permitted landfill.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

GDNR Federal Clean 

Air Act (FCAA), 

GA Air Quality 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12-9-1 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-1

Revision of existing 

Title V Operating Permit

Operation of air 

emission sources.

SNC submit

modification 

along with th

permit appli

on May 26, 

Burke County 

Building Office

Burke County 

Code of 

Ordinances, 

Article VII, 

Sec. 26- 331

Land Disturbing Activity 

Permit

All land disturbing 

activities within the 

boundaries of Burke 

County.

As a utility r

GA PSC, SN

from having 

Disturbing A

a Local Issu

(Burke Coun

Land Distur

request is s

to the GA E

100001 and 
NUREG-1947

H-14 March 2011

Table H-2. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

Burke County 

Building Office

Burke County 

Code of 

Ordinances, 

Article VII, 

Sec. 26- 336

Building Permit Construction, 

alteration, repair, or 

demolition of any 

building or structure 

within the boundaries 

of Burke County.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

(a) The VEGP rail spur was recently upgraded, and SNC will verify that additional upgrades are not needed. For completenes

assumes upgrades to the rail corridor will be made.
March 2011

H-15 NUREG-1947

Table H-3. Permits and Authorizations Required for Limited Work Authorization Activities 

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

GDNR Georgia Groundwater 

Use Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-5-90 et seq.); Georgia 

Rules and Regulation 

391-3-2-09

Permit to withdraw 

groundwater

017-0006 03/13/2012 Dewater for 

foundation if needed 

for no more than 

60 days.

Received

GDNR Federal Clean Air Act; 

Georgia Air Quality Act 

(O.C.G.A. 12-9-1 

et seq.); Georgia Rules 

and Regulation 391-3-1

Part 70 Air Quality 

Construction Permit

1629-033-

0039-S01-1

Construction of air 

emission sources.

Received

GDNR Georgia Erosion and 

Sedimentation Act 

(O.C.G.A. 12-7-1 

et seq.); Georgia Rules 

and Regulation 391-3-7

Land-Disturbing 

Activity Permit

GAR 

100001

07/31/2013 Permission to conduct 

land disturbing 

activities of one acre 

or larger, or within 

200 feet of the bank 

of any state waters. 

For site (and rail 

corridor) upgrades.

SNC has de

Sedimentati

Control Plan

Notices of In

Georgia Env

Protection D

coverage un

GDNR Federal Clean Water Act 

(CWA); Georgia Water 

Quality Control Act 

(O.C.G.A. 12-5-31 

et seq.); Georgia Rules 

and Regulation 391-3-6

Permit to discharge 

process waste water

GA0039276 

(pending 

EPD 

issuance)

5 years from 

date of 

issuance

Ready-mix concrete 

batch plant process 

wastewater 

discharges

EPD has iss

permit for pu

Issuance of 

expected in 

GDNR CWA, Georgia Water 

Quality Control Act 

(O.C.G.A. 12-5-31 

et seq.); Georgia Rules 

and Regulation 391-3-6

Industrial Storm 

Water Permit

GAR

000000

07/31/2011 Permit to discharge 

storm water 

associated with 

industrial activity.

SNC is prep

EPD a Storm 

Prevention P

of Intent for 

GAR 00000
NUREG-1947

H-16 March 2011

Table H-4. Authorizations Required for Redress Activities 

Agency Authority Requirement

License/ 

Permit No.

Expiration 

Date Activity Covered S

USACE CWA Section 404 Permit Disturbance or 

crossing wetland 

areas or navigable 

waters.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

USDOT 49 FR 107, 

Subpart G

Certificate of Registration Transportation of 

hazardous materials.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR CWA Section 401 Certification Compliance with 

water quality 

standards.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR CWA, GA 

Water Quality 

Control Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-20), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-6

General Permit 

Registration for Storm 

Water Discharges 

Associated with 

Construction Activity for 

Common Development 

Projects

Discharge storm 

water from site during 

construction.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR CWA, GA 

Water Quality 

Control Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-20), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-6

General Permit 

Registration for Storm 

Water Discharges 

Associated with 

Construction Activity for 

Infrastructure 

Construction Projects

Discharge storm 

water linear 

construction sites 

(e.g., roadways, 

transmission lines) 

during construction.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR GA Erosion and 

Sedimentation 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12-7-1 

et seq.), GA

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-7

Land Disturbing Activity 

Permit

Permission to conduct 

land disturbing 

activities of one acre 

or larger, or within 

200 feet of the bank 

of any state waters. 

For site and rail 

corridor.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p
March 2011

H-17 NUREG-1947

Table H-4. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

GDNR CAA, GA Air 

Quality Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

Section 12-9-1 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-1

Part 70 Air Quality 

Construction Permit

Construction air 

emission sources.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR GA Safe 

Drinking Water 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-5-170 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-5

Notice of Termination 

(NOT) - Permit to operate 

a Public Water System

Operate a public, 

non-transient, noncommunity water 

system.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR GA Safe 

Drinking Water 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-5-170 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-5

NOT - Permit to operate 

a Public Water System

Operate a public, 

transient, noncommunity water 

system.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR GA 

Groundwater 

Use Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-90 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-2-.03

NOT - Permit to Use 

Groundwater

Consumptive use of 

100,000 gallons per 

day or more of 

groundwater.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p
NUREG-1947

H-18 March 2011

Table H-4. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

GDNR GA 

Groundwater 

Use Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-90 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-2-.09

Permit to Withdraw 

Groundwater

Dewater for 

foundation if needed 

for more than 

60 days.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR GA 

Groundwater 

Use Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-90 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-2-.14

Certification of 

Abandoned Wells

Abandoned wells 

have been filled, 

plugged and sealed.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR GA 

Comprehensive 

Solid Waste 

Management 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-8-20 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-4- .06

Permit by Rule - Inert 

Landfill Permit

Onsite disposal of 

solid waste consisting 

of earth and earth-like 

products, concrete, 

cured asphalt, rock, 

bricks, and land 

clearing debris.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

GDNR GA 

Comprehensive 

Solid Waste 

Management 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-8-20 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-4

Private Industry Landfill 

Permit

Onsite disposal of 

solid waste consisting 

of construction and 

demolition debris.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p
March 2011

H-19 NUREG-1947

Table H-4. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/

Permit No.

Expiration

Date Activity Covered S

GDNR GA 

Comprehensive 

Solid Waste 

Management 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-8-20 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-4

Solid Waste Handling 

Permit

Disposal of industrial 

solid wastes. 

Transportation of 

putrescible waste for 

disposal in a 

permitted landfill.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

Burke County 

Building Office

Burke County 

Code of 

Ordinances, 

Article VII, 

Sec. 26- 331

Land Disturbing Activity 

Permit

All land disturbing 

activities within the 

boundaries of Burke 

County

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p

Burke County 

Building Office

Burke County 

Code of 

Ordinances, 

Article VII, 

Sec. 26- 336

Building Permit Construction, 

alteration, repair, or 

demolition of any 

building or structure 

within the boundaries 

of Burke County.

If redress ac

required SN

necessary p
NUREG-1947

H-20 March 2011

Table H-5. Authorizations Required for Construction

(a)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/ 

Permit No.

Expiration 

Date Activity Covered S

NRC 10 CFR 52,

Subpart C

or

10 CFR

50.10(e)(3)

Combined Operating 

License

or

Limited Work

Authorization

LWA is

part of

permit

ESP-004

09/26/2029

Safety-related 

construction for a

nuclear power facility.

NRC issued 

26, 2009 as 

FAA 49 USC 1501 

14 CFR 77

Construction Notice Notice of erection or 

structures (>200 feet 

high) potentially 

impacting air 

navigation.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

USACE CWA Section 404 Permit SAS-2007-

01837

09/30/2015 Disturbance or 

crossing wetland 

areas or navigable 

waters. For 

transmission line 

corridor.

SNC has co

jurisdictiona

for all site w

exception of 

metes and b

SNC submit

application p

permits und

of the USAC

Section 10, 

Fill) on Janu

The USACE 

an individua

the Army pe

September 

2010).
March 2011

H-21 NUREG-1947

Table H-5. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/ 

Permit No.

Expiration 

Date Activity Covered S

USACE 33 CFR 323 Dredge and Fill 

Discharge Permit

SAS-2007-

01837

09/30/2015 Construction/ 

modification of intake/ 

discharge to 

Savannah River. For 

transmission line 

corridor.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

submitted a 

package for 

the jurisdicti

(Section 404

Dredge and 

January 7, 2

The USACE 

an individua

the Army pe

September 

(USACE 20

USFWS Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, 

50 CFR 21

Federal Depredation 

Permit

Adverse impacts on 

protected species 

and/or their nests. 

For site transmission 

line corridor.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

GDNR GA 

Endangered 

Wildlife Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

Section 27-3-

130 et seq.), 

GA Rules and 

Regulations 

391- 4-10

Depredation permit Designated protected 

species and/ or their 

habitat. For 

transmission line 

corridor.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

GDNR CAA, GA Air 

Quality Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

Section 12-9-1 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Part 70 Air Quality 

Construction Permit

1629-033-

0039-S01-0

Construction air 

emission sources.

Shaw was is

Quality perm

2009. Sout

application c

review by G
NUREG-1947

H-22 March 2011

Table H-5. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/ 

Permit No.

Expiration 

Date Activity Covered S

Regulations 

391- 3-1

GDNR CWA, GA 

Water Quality 

Control Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-20), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-6

General Permit 

Registration for Storm 

Water Discharges 

Associated with 

Construction Activity for 

Infrastructure 

Construction Projects

GAR 

100002

07/31/2013 Discharge storm 

water from linear 

construction sites 

(e.g., roadways, 

transmission lines) 

during construction.

SNC has de

Sedimentati

Control Plan

Notices of In

for coverage 

100002.

GDNR GA 

Comprehensive 

Solid Waste 

Management 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-8-20 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-4

Solid Waste Handling 

Permit

Disposal of industrial 

solid wastes. 

Transportation of 

putrescible waste for 

disposal in a 

permitted landfill.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

GDNR GA Erosion and 

Sedimentation 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12-7-1 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391- 3-7

Land Disturbing Activity 

Permit

GAR 

100001

07/31/2013 Permission to conduct 

land disturbing 

activities of one acre 

or larger, or within 

200 feet of the bank 

of any state waters. 

For transmission line 

corridor.

SNC has de

Sedimentati

Control Plan

Notices of In

for coverage 

100001.

GDNR CWA, GA 

Water Quality 

Control Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12- 5-20), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-6

General Permit 

Registration for Storm 

Water Discharges 

Associated with 

Construction Activity for 

Common Development 

Projects

GAR 

100003

Discharge storm 

water from site during 

construction.

SNC curren

expect to ha

coverage un

100003. No 

Sedimentati

Control plan

developed f

GAR 10000
March 2011

H-23 NUREG-1947

Table H-5. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/ 

Permit No.

Expiration 

Date Activity Covered S

Georgia 

Department of 

Transportation 

(GDOT)

23 CFR 1.23 Permit Utility right-of-way 

easement.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

Burke County 

Building Office

Burke County 

Code of 

Ordinances, 

Article VII, 

Sec. 26-331

Land Disturbing Activity 

Permit

All land disturbing 

activities within the 

boundaries of Burke 

County.

As a utility r

GA PSC, SN

from having 

Disturbing A

a Local Issu

(Burke Coun

Land Distur

request is s

to the GA E

100001 and 

Various county 

offices 

responsible for 

land disturbing 

activities

Jefferson, 

Warren, and 

McDuffie 

County 

Ordinances

Land Disturbing Activity 

Permit

Land disturbing 

activities within 

county boundaries for 

transmission line 

corridor.

As a utility r

GA PSC, SN

from having 

Disturbing A

a Local Issu

(Jefferson, W

McDuffie Co

a Land Distu

request is s

to the GA E

100001 and 

(a) Assumes that SNC obtained the authorizations that Table 1.5-2 identifies.
NUREG-1947

H-24 March 2011

Table H-6. Authorizations Required for Operation

(a)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/ 

Permit No.

Expiration 

Date Activity Covered S

GDNR CWA, GA 

Water Quality 

Control Act

Revision of existing 

National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination 

System Permit

Regulates limits of 

pollutants in liquid 

discharge to surface 

water.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

GDNR Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA), 

GA Air Quality 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

Section 12-9-1 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-1

Revision of existing Title 

V Operating Permit

Operation of air 

emission sources.

SNC submit

modification 

along with th

permit appli

on May 26, 

GDNR GA 

Groundwater 

Use Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

12-5-90 et 

seq.), GA Rules 

and 

Regulations 

391-3-2- .03

Revision of existing 

Permit to Use 

Groundwater

017-0003 08/06/2010 Consumptive use of 

100,000 gallons per 

day or more of 

groundwater.

Received.

GDNR GA Water 

Quality Control 

Act (O.C.G.A. 

12-5-31 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391-3-6

Revision of existing 

Surface Water 

Withdrawal Permit to 

Withdraw, Divert or 

Impound Surface Water

Withdraw water from 

the Savannah River 

for cooling makeup 

and in-plant use.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th
March 2011

H-25 NUREG-1947

Table H-6. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement

License/ 

Permit No.

Expiration 

Date Activity Covered S

State of 

Tennessee 

Department of 

Environment 

and 

Conservation 

Division of 

Radiological 

Health

Tennessee 

Department of 

Environment 

and 

Conservation 

Rule 

1200-2-10.32

Revision of existing 

Tennessee Radioactive 

Waste License-forDelivery

Transportation of 

radioactive waste into 

the State of 

Tennessee.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

State of Utah 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality Division 

of Radiation 

Control

R313-26 of the 

Utah Radiation 

Control Rules

Revision of existing 

General Site Access 

Permit

Transportation of 

radioactive materials 

into the State of Utah.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

GPSC GA Radiation 

Control Act 

(O.C.G.A. 

31-13- 1 

et seq.), GA 

Rules and 

Regulations 

391- 3-17-.06

Revision of existing 

General Permit –

Transportation of 

Radioactive Materials

Transportation of 

radioactive materials 

in the State of 

Georgia.

SNC has ini

discussions 

agency rega

and complia

relative to th

(a) Assumes that SNC obtained the authorizations that Tables 1.5-2 and 1.5-4 identify.
Appendix H 

NUREG-1947 H-26 March 2011

H.1 References 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application: Part 3. Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 

2009. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2010a. Response to Request for 

Additional Information Letter on Environmental Issues, January 8, 2010. Southern Company, 

Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML100120479. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010b. Environmental Report in Support 

Revision 1 to Part 6 , Limited Work Authorization Request, of the Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application. Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 

Accession No. ML100470600. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2010c. Comments on Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement, November 23,1010. Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. Accession No. ML103300035.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Letter from Carol Bernstein (USACE Chief, 

Coastal Branch) to Thomas Moorer (Southern), “Subject:: Signed Department of the Army 

Permit for the expansion of the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.” SAS-2007-01837.
Appendix I

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Characteristics, 

AP1000 Design Parameters and Site Interface Values 

March 2011 I-1 NUREG-1947

Appendix I

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Characteristics, 

AP1000 Design Parameters and Site Interface Values

Appendix I of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) early site permit (ESP) environmental 

impact statement (EIS) provides the site characteristics, AP1000 design parameters, and site 

interface values (NRC 2008). Table 3.0-1 of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.’s 

Environmental Report (ER), Revision 1, dated September 23, 2009 (Southern 2009), 

reproduced on the following pages as Table I-1, shows that most of the site characteristics, 

design parameters, and site interface values considered in this combined license (COL) 

application fall within those described in the ESP. These characteristics and parameters were 

used by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in its independent evaluation of the new 

and significant information related to the environmental impacts of the proposed new units. 
NUREG-1947 I-2

March 2011

Table I-1. VEGP Site Characteristics, AP1000 Design Parameters, and Site Interface Value

Part I Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Airborne Effluent Release Point

Minimum Distance to 

Exclusion Area 

Boundary (EAB)

1⁄2 mi (~800 m) The lateral distance 

from the release point 

(power block area) to 

the modeled EAB for 

dose analysis.

1⁄2 mi (~800 m) Un

ES

Atmospheric 

Dispersion (χ/Q) 

(Accident)

The atmospheric dispersion coefficients used to 

estimate dose consequences of accident airborne 

releases.

EAB (χ/Q)

Low Population Zone

(LPZ) (χ/Q)

Time (hour) Site (χ/Q) Atmospheric 

dispersion 

coefficients used to 

estimate dose 

consequences of 

accident airborne 

releases.

(From Table 5-13 of 

the ESP EIS)

Time (hour) Site (χ/Q) Un

ES

0 - 2 EAB

0 - 8 LPZ

8 - 24 LPZ

24 - 96 LPZ

96 - 720 LPZ 

7.38E-5 sec/m3 

1.40E-5 sec/m3 

1.22E-5 sec/m3 

9.15E-6 sec/m3 

6.04E-6 sec/m3

0 - 2 EAB

0 - 8 LPZ

8 - 24 LPZ

24 - 96 LPZ

96 - 720 LPZ

7.38E-5 sec/m3 

1.40E-5 sec/m3 

1.22E-5 sec/m3 

9.15E-6 sec/m3 

6.04E-6 sec/m3

Gaseous Effluents Dispersion, Deposition (Annual Average)

Atmospheric Dispersion

(χ/Q)

See Table 3.0-2 The atmospheric 

dispersion 

coefficients used to 

estimate dose 

consequences of 

normal airborne 

releases.

χ/Q values as described in ESP Un

ES

Population Density

Population density over

the lifetime of the new

units until 2090

Population density meets the

guidance of RS-002, 

Attachment 3

Population density meets the

guidance of RS-002, 

Attachment 3

Un

ES
March 2011 I-3 NUREG-1947

Table I-1. (contd)

Part I Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Population density over 

the lifetime of the new 

units until 2090 

Population density meets the

guidance of RS-002, 

Attachment 3 

Population density 

meets the guidance 

of RS-002, 

Attachment 3 

Unchanged from ESP.

EAB Refer to Figure 2-1 in the EIS The exclusion area 

boundary generally 

follows the plant 

property line. 

Refer to Figure 3.2-1 in the ER Un

ES

LPZ A 2-mile-radius from the 

midpoint between the 

containment buildings of Units 1 

and 2 

The LPZ is a circle 

with a radius of 2 

miles, centered on 

the midpoint between 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 

containment buildings 

A 2-mile-radius from the 

midpoint between the 

containment buildings of Units 1 

and 2 

Un

ES

Height 234 ft 0 in The height from 

finished grade to the 

top of the tallest 

power block 

structure, excluding 

cooling towers 

229 ft 0 in (D

Ta

(W

20

Th

ae

an

bir

Be

is 

an

ES

th

bo

im
NUREG-1947 I-4

March 2011

Table I-1. (contd)

Part II Site 

Characteristic

Item

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Facility Characteristics

Foundation Embedment 39 ft 6 in to bottom of basemat 

from plant grade 

The depth from 

finished grade to the 

bottom of the 

basemat for the most 

deeply embedded 

power block 

structure. 

39 ft 6 in to bottom of basemat 

from plant grade 

Un

ES

Max Inlet Temp 

Condenser / Heat 

Exchanger 

91°F The maximum 

acceptable design 

circulating water 

temperature at the 

inlet to the condenser 

or cooling water 

system heat 

exchangers. 

91°F Un

ES

Condenser / Heat 

Exchanger Duty 

7.55E9 BTU/hr 

[1.51E10 BTU/hr] 

Design value for the 

waste heat rejected 

to the circulating 

water system across 

the condensers. 

Selected value 

includes part of the 

service water system 

heat duty (from 

turbine equipment 

heat exchanger). 

7.63E9 BTU/hr 

[1.53E10 BTU/hr] 

Th

pr

So

an

co

ES
March 2011 I-5 NUREG-1947

Table I-1. (contd)

Part II Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Cooling Tower 

Temperature Range 

25.2°F The temperature 

difference between 

the hot water entering 

the tower and the 

cold water leaving the 

tower. 

25.2°F Un

ES

Cooling Tower Cooling 

Water Flow Rate 

600,000 gpm 

[1,200,000 gpm] 

The total nominal 

cooling water flow 

rate through the 

condenser/ heat 

exchangers. 

631,000 gpm 

[1,262,000 gpm] 

Th

pr

So

an

co

ES

Auxiliary Heat Sink

Component Cooling 

Water (CCW) Heat 

Exchanger Duty 

8.3E7 BTU/hr normal 

2.96E8 BTU/hr shutdown 

[1.66E8 BTU/hr normal 

5.92E8 BTU/hr shutdown] 

The heat transferred 

from the CCW heat 

exchangers to the 

service water system 

for rejection to the 

environment. 

8.3E7 BTU/hr normal 

2.96E8 BTU/hr shutdown 

[1.66E8 BTU/hr normal 

5.92E8 BTU/hr shutdown] 

Un

ES

Service Water System 

(SWS) Cooling Tower 

Cooling Water Flow 

Rate 

9,000 gpm normal 

18,000 gpm shutdown 

[18,000 gpm normal 

36,000 gpm shutdown] 

The total nominal 

cooling water flow 

rate through the 

SWS. 

9,000 gpm normal 

18,000 gpm shutdown 

[18,000 gpm normal 

36,000 gpm shutdown] 

Un

ES

Plant Characteristics

Rated Thermal Power 

(RTP) 

3,400 MWt The thermal power 

generated by the 

core. 

3,400 MWt Un

ES
NUREG-1947 I-6

March 2011

Table I-1. (contd)

Part II Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Rated Nuclear Steam 

Supply System (NSSS) 

Thermal Output 

3,415 MWt [6,830 MWt] The thermal power 

generated by the 

core plus heat from 

the reactor coolant 

pumps. 

3,415 MWt [6,830 MWt] Un

ES

Average Fuel 

Enrichment 

2.35 wt % 

to 4.45 wt % 

4.51 wt % 

Concentration of 

U-235 in fuel - initial 

load. 

Average 

concentration, in 

weight percent, of 

U-235 in reloads 

2.35 wt % to 

4.45 wt % 

4.51 wt % 

Un

ES

Fuel Burn-up 60,000 MWd/MTU

(design max)

48,700 MWd/MTU

(expected)

Value derived by 

multiplying the 

reactor thermal 

power by time of 

irradiation divided by 

fuel mass (expressed 

in megawatt - days 

per metric ton of 

uranium fuel).

60,000 MWd/MTU

(design max)

48,700 MWd/MTU

(expected)

Un

ES

Normal Releases

Liquid Source Term See Table G-1 of the EIS 

0.26 curies total nuclides except 

tritium 

[0.52 curies] 

The annual activity, 

by isotope, contained 

in routine liquid 

effluent streams. 

0.26 curies total nuclides except 

tritium 

[0.52 curies] 

Un

ES
March 2011 I-7 NUREG-1947

Table I-1. (contd)

Part II Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Tritium (liquid) 1010 curies 

[2020 curies 

The annual activity of 

tritium contained in 

routine liquid effluent 

streams 

1010 curies 

[2020 curies] 

Un

ES

Gaseous Source Term See Table G-4 of the EIS 

11,000 curies total nuclides 

except tritium [22,000 total 

curies] 

The annual activity, 

by isotope, contained 

in routine plant 

airborne effluent 

streams. 

11,000 curies total nuclides 

except tritium 

[22,000 total curies] 

Un

ES

Tritium (gaseous) 350 curies 

[700 curies] 

The annual activity of 

tritium contained in 

routine plant airborne 

effluent streams. 

350 curies 

[700 curies] 

Un

ES

Solid Waste Activity 1764 curies

[3528 curies]

The annual activity 

contained in solid 

radioactive wastes 

generated during 

routine plant 

operations.

1764 curies

[3528 curies]

Un

ES

Dry Active (“Solid”) 

Waste Volume

4994 ft3 

[9988 ft3] 

The expected volume 

of solid radioactive 

wastes generated 

during routine plant 

operations.

4994 ft3 

[9988 ft3] 

Un

ES
NUREG-1947 I-8

March 2011

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Accident Releases

Elevation (Post 

Accident)

Groundlevel at edge of

power block circle

The elevation above 

finished grade of the 

release point for 

accident sequence 

release analyses

Groundlevel at edge of

power block circle

Unch

Gaseous Source Term 

(Post-Accident)

See ESP Application

ER Table 7.1-11

The activity, by 

isotope, contained in 

post-accident 

airborne effluents.

See DCD, Rev 17,

Table 15A-5 (Westinghouse 

2008).

Dose

desi

accid

pres

discu

Tabl

SEIS 

Normal Plant Heat Sink (condenser and turbine auxiliary cooling)

Cooling water system 

(CWS) Cooling Tower

Acreage 

38 acres

[69.3 acres]

The land required for 

CWS natural draft 

cooling towers, 

including support 

facilities such as 

equipment sheds, 

basins, or canals,

38 acres

[69.3 acres]

Unch

CWS Cooling Tower

Approach Temperature

11°F The difference 

between the cold 

water temperature 

leaving the tower and 

the ambient wet bulb 

temperature.

11°F Unch
March 2011 I-9 NUREG-1947

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

CWS Cooling Tower

Blowdown Temperature

91°F The design maximum 

expected blowdown 

temperature at the 

point of discharge to 

the receiving water 

body.

91°F Unch

CWS Cooling Tower

Evaporation Rate

13,950 gpm (14,440 gpm)

[27,900 gpm (28,880gpm)]

The expected (and 

maximum) rate at 

which water is lost by 

evaporation from the 

cooling water 

systems.

14,550 gpm (15,280 gpm)

[29,100 gpm (30,560 gpm)]

The 

prov

(200

cons

ESP 

CWS Cooling Tower 

Drift Rate

12 gpm

[24 gpm]

The maximum rate at 

which water is lost by 

drift from the cooling 

water systems.

12.5 gpm

[25 gpm]

The 

prov

(200

cons

ESP 

CWS Cooling Tower 

Height

600 ft The vertical height 

above finished

grade of the natural 

draft cooling

tower.

600 ft Unch

ESP
NUREG-1947 I-10

March 2011

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

CWS Cooling Tower 

Make-up Flow Rate 

18,612 gpm (28,892 gpm) 

[37,224 gpm (57,784 gpm)] 

The expected (and 

maximum) design 

rate of removal of 

water from the 

Savannah River to 

replace water losses 

from circulating water 

systems. The 

make-up flow rate is 

a calculated value 

based on the sum of 

the evaporation rate 

plus the blowdown 

flow rate plus drift. 

19,412 gpm (30, 572 gpm) 

[38,825 gpm (61,145)] 

The 

prov

(200

cons

ESP 

CWS Cooling Tower 

Offsite Noise Levels 

<30 to <40 dBa The maximum 

expected sound level 

at the site boundary. 

<30 to <40 dBa Unch

ESP

CWS Cooling Tower 

Heat Rejection Rate 

(Blowdown) 

4650 gpm (expected), 14,440 

gpm (max) @91°F 

[9300 gpm (expected), 28,880 

gpm (max] @91°F 

The expected heat

rejection rate to a 

receiving water body, 

expressed as flow 

rate in gallons per 

minute at a 

temperature in 

degrees Fahrenheit. 

4850 gpm (expected) 15,280 

gpm (max) @91°F 

[9700 gpm (expected) 30,560 

gpm (max)] @ 91°F 

The 

anal

revis

rates 

Sect

SEIS
March 2011 I-11 NUREG-1947

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

CWS Cooling Tower 

Maximum Consumption 

of Raw Water 

14,452 gpm [28,904 gpm] The expected 

maximum short-term 

consumptive use of 

water by the 

circulating water 

systems (evaporation 

and drift losses). 

15,292 gpm [30,585 gpm] The 

prov

(200

cons

ESP 

CWS Cooling Tower 

Expected Consumption 

of Raw Water 

13,692 gpm 

[27,924 gpm] 

The expected normal 

operating 

consumptive use of 

water by the 

circulating water 

systems (evaporation 

and drift losses). 

14,562 gpm 

[29,125 gpm] 

The 

prov

(200

cons

ESP 

SWS Cooling Tower 

Makeup Rate 

269 gpm (1177 gpm) 

[537 gpm (2353 gpm)] 

The expected 

(maximum) rate of 

removal of water from 

wells to replace water 

losses from auxiliary 

heat sink. 

269 gpm (800 gpm) 

[537 gpm (1600 gpm)] 

The 

prov

(200

cons

ESP 
NUREG-1947 I-12

March 2011

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Airborne Effluent 

Release Point 

Normal Dose 

Consequences to the 

Maximally Exposed 

Individual 

Total body: 1.12 mrem 

[2.24 mrem] 

The estimated annual 

design radiological 

dose consequences 

due to gaseous 

releases from normal 

operation of the plant 

(Table 3.0-1 of ESP 

Application ER 

Rev 4) is not correct. 

See Section 5.4.2.2. 

Total body: 1.12 mrem 

[2.24 mrem] 

Unch

ESP

Post-Accident Dose 

Consequences 

See Tables 5-14 in the ESP EIS. The estimated design 

radiological dose 

consequences due to 

gaseous releases 

from postulated 

accidents. 

See ER Table 5.10-1, SEIS 

Table 5-1.

Desi

accid

reca

upda

from 

(We

All d

cons

rema

decr

thos

cool

whic

2.86 

rema

regu

25 re
March 2011 I-13 NUREG-1947

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Normal Dose 

Consequences

10 CFR 50, App I, 10

CFR 20

40 CFR 190

The estimated design 

radiological dose 

consequences due to 

liquid effluent 

releases from normal

operation of the plant.

10 CFR 50, App I, 10

CFR 20

40 CFR 190

Unch

ESP

Plant Characteristics

Total Acreage 310 acres for 2 units The land area 

required to provide 

space for all plant 

facilities, including 

power block, 

switchyard, spent fuel 

storage, and 

administrative 

facilities. 

376 acres for 2 units Acr

by 6

Acr

of t

fac

dec

acr

and 

acr

inc

trai

the 

bui

not 

pre

and 

acc

add

The 

eva

cha

in S

SE
NUREG-1947 I-14

March 2011

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Groundwater 

Consumptive Use

376 gpm (1570 gpm)

[752 gpm (3140 gpm)]

The expected 

(maximum) rate of 

withdrawal of 

groundwater to serve 

the new units. 

(Table 3.0-1 in the 

ESP Application 

listed the expected 

gpm for 2 units as 

762, which was a 

typographical error.)

376 gpm (1398.5 gpm)

[752 gpm ( 2797 gpm)

The 

pro

(20

con

ES

Operation 345

[600]

The number of 

people required to 

operate and maintain 

the plant

400

[800]

The 

pro

(20

con

ES

Refueling / Major 

Maintenance 

1000 The additional 

number of temporary 

staff required to 

conduct refueling and 

major maintenance 

activities 

1000 Unc

ES
March 2011 I-15 NUREG-1947

Table I-1. (contd)

Part III Site 

Characteristic

Item 

ESP COL

Single Unit [Two Unit] Value

Description and

Reference Single Unit [Two Unit] Value 

Construction 1576 people monthly average 

[3152 people monthly average] 

The monthly average 

estimated 

construction 

workforce staffing for 

two AP1000 units 

being constructed 

simultaneously. This 

assumes a site 

preparation schedule 

of 18 months, 

48 months from first 

concrete to fuel load, 

with 6 months from 

fuel load to 

commercial operation 

and 12 months 

between commercial 

operation of each 

unit. This assumes 

20.5 job hours per 

net kilowatt installed, 

giving credit for 

offsite modular 

construction. The 

peak number of 

construction 

workforce personnel 

could reach the 

4400 range. 

[3500], excluding SNC and 

NRC employees 

The 

pro

(20

con

ES
Appendix I

NUREG-1947 I-16 March 2011

I.1 References 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2007. Southern Nuclear Operating 

Company, Vogtle Early Site Permit Application, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. Letter from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Birmingham, Alabama) to the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Washington, DC), December 26, 2007. Southern 

Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML073620401.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern). 2009. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application, Part 3 Environmental Report. Revision 1, September 23, 2009, 

Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama. Accession No. ML092740400.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, 

Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

Document. AP1000 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Westinghouse Electric 

Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. ML083230167.
Appendix J 

Statements Made in the Environmental Report 

Considered in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Staff’s Environmental Review

March 2011 J-1 NUREG-1947

Appendix J 

Statements Made in the Environmental Report 

Considered in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission Staff’s Environmental Review

Appendix J of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant early site permit (ESP) environmental impact 

statement (EIS) (NRC 2008) outlined representations and assumptions in Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company, Inc.’s ESP environmental report that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) staff relied upon to reach its conclusions in the ESP EIS. Appendix J of the 

ESP EIS was created primarily as a tool to help reviewers of a future construction permit or 

combined license (COL). The NRC staff relied on these representations and assumptions in 

assessing the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the 

proposed Units 3 and 4.

Southern submitted a COL application referencing an ESP in March 2008 (Southern 2008). The 

staff of the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. and the NRC considered Appendix J of 

the ESP EIS (NRC 2008) in their review of new and significant information. New and significant 

information considered in the staff’s review of the COL application is addressed in the 

appropriate section of this supplemental EIS.

J.1 Reference 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern). 2008. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

Units 3 and 4, COL Application. Revision 0, March 28, 2008, Southern Company, Birmingham, 

Alabama. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. Appendixes. 

NUREG-1872, Vol. 2, Washington, D.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(12-2010)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1947

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

March

YEAR

2011

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Vogtle

Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix a of Report

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Office of New Reactors, Division of Site and Environemental Reviews

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) documents the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

staff's analysis and conclusion regarding the environmental impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear units (Units 3

and 4) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) site near Waynesboro, Georgia, and the mitigation measures available for

reducing and avoiding adverse environmental impacts.

The NRC staff recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the proposed action is that the

combined licenses (COLs) and limited work authorization (LWA) should be issued. This recommendation is based on (1) the

applicant's environmental report (ER) and responses to staff requests for additional information; (2) the staff's review conducted

for the referenced early site permit (ESP) application and the assessment documented in the ESP EIS; (3) consultation with

Federal, State, and Tribal agencies,;(4) the staff''s own independent review of potential new and significant information available

since preparation and publication of the ESP EIS; and (5) the assessments summarized in the SEIS, including the potential

mitigation measures identified and consideration of public comments received on the draft SEIS. Finally, the staff concludes that

the requested LWA construction activities defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a) described in the site redress plan would not result in any

significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be redressed. 

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Vogtle Electric Generating Plants Unit 3 and 4

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Final SEIS

Early Site Permit

ESP

COL 

Combined License

New Reactors

Limited Work Authorization

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (12-2010)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

same as above


UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
 

 

NUREG-1947

Final

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4

March 2011