UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

In the Matter of ) ) SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. ) Docket No. 52-011-ESP ) (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site) )

NRC STAFF INITIAL STATEMENT OF POSITION

ON JOINT INTERVENORS’ CONTENTIONS EC 1.2, EC 1.3, and EC 6

Patrick A. Moulding Jody C. Martin Sarah. W. Price Counsel for NRC Staff

January 9, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................1 I. Environmental Contention 1.2...........................................................................................3 II. Environmental Contention 1.3...........................................................................................4 III. Environmental Contention 6.0...........................................................................................5

DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................5

I. Legal and Regulatory Requirements.................................................................................5 II. Witnesses..........................................................................................................................7

A. Staff Witnesses .............................................................................................................7 B. USACE Witnesses ......................................................................................................12

III. The Inadequacies Asserted by the Joint Intervenors’ Contentions Lack Merit. ..............14

A. Contention 1.2.............................................................................................................14

1. Available Information Was Appropriate to Enable Staff’s NEPA Analysis...............15 2. Staff Appropriately Assessed Impacts of Impingement and Entrainment. ..............16 3. Staff’s Analysis Accounts for a Reasonable Range of River Flows. .......................18 4. Staff Appropriately Evaluated Cumulative Impingement and Entrainment

Impacts from the Existing and Proposed Vogtle Units. ...........................................20 5. Staff Adequately Evaluated Thermal Impacts from the Existing and Proposed

Vogtle Units. ............................................................................................................22 6. Conclusion Regarding EC 1.2 .................................................................................26

B. Contention 1.3.............................................................................................................26

1. The Staff’s Analysis of the Dry-Cooling Alternative was Adequate. ........................27 2. The Proposed Design Will Have Only a Small Effect on Extremely Sensitive

Biological Resources...............................................................................................28 3. Conclusion Regarding EC 1.3 .................................................................................29

C. Contention 6................................................................................................................29

1. Potential Dredging of the Federal Navigation Channel is Not Necessary for the

NRC’s Federal Action and is Not a “Connected Action.”.........................................31

- - ii

2. The Staff’s Analysis Was Appropriate Given the Lack of a Formal Dredging

Proposal and the Absence of Project Details. .........................................................34 3. Staff Did Not Consider Upstream Releases For Navigation To Be Necessary or

Reasonably Foreseeable. .......................................................................................37 4. The Staff’s Analysis and Conclusion That Cumulative Impacts Could Be

MODERATE Is Reasonable. ...................................................................................38 5. Conclusion Regarding EC 6 ....................................................................................40

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................41

January 9, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

In the Matter of ) ) SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. ) Docket No. 52-011-ESP ) (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site) )

NRC STAFF INITIAL STATEMENT OF POSITION ON JOINT INTERVENORS’ CONTENTIONS EC 1.2, EC 1.3, and EC 6

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.337(g)(2) and 2.1207(a)(1), and the Licensing Board’s

Memorandum and Order (Revised General Schedule) (November 13, 2008), the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) staff (“Staff”) submits its initial written statement of position

with written testimony and supporting affidavits on the Joint Intervenors’ admitted contentions.1

For the reasons discussed below and in the testimony filed herewith, the Staff submits that the

contentions are without merit and that the Staff’s environmental review, as documented in

NUREG-1872, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site,” August 2008 (“FEIS”), complies with the requirements of

the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).

BACKGROUND

This proceeding concerns the application submitted to the NRC by Southern Nuclear

Operating Company (“Southern” or “Applicant”) for an early site permit (“ESP”). On August 14,

2006, the Applicant submitted an application pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 52, Subpart A, in which

1 Joint Intervenors include the Center for a Sustainable Coast, Savannah Riverkeeper, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Atlanta Women’s Action for New Directions, and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.

- - 2

it requested an ESP for a site within the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (“VEGP”) site

near Waynesboro, Georgia (“Application”). On December 11, 2006, the Joint Intervenors filed a

joint petition for leave to intervene, which contained several contentions challenging the

Environmental Report (“ER”) filed as part of the Application.

On March 12, 2007, the Board ruled on the admissibility of the Joint Intervenors’

proffered contentions. See Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP

Site), LBP-07-3, 65 NRC 237 (2006). The Board admitted two contentions, EC 1.2 and EC 1.3.

EC 1.2, as admitted, was restated by the Board as follows:

The ER fails to identify and consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impingement/entrainment and chemical and thermal effluent discharge impacts of the proposed cooling system intake and discharge structures on aquatic resources.

Vogtle ESP, LBP-07-3, 65 NRC at 280. EC 1.3, as admitted, was restated by the Board as

follows:

The ER fails to satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(b)(3) because its analysis of the dry cooling alternative is inadequate to address the appropriateness of a dry cooling system given the presence of extremely sensitive biological resources.

Vogtle ESP, LBP-07-3, 65 NRC at 280.

On August 15, 2007, the Applicant revised its Application to include a request for a

limited work authorization.2 In September 2007, the NRC Staff published NUREG-1872, the

“Draft Environment Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant Site” (“DEIS”).3 On October 17, 2007, the Applicant filed two motions, seeking

summary disposition of Joint Intervenors’ Contention EC 1.2 and EC 1.3, respectively. On

2 Letter from J.A. “Buzz” Miller to U.S. NRC Document Control Desk, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Early Site Permit Application Supplement to Include Limited Work Authorization 2 Activities” August 15, 2007 (ML072330245).

3 The DEIS was made available to the Board and the parties to this proceeding on September 10, 2007. See Letter from J.M.Rund, NRC Staff Counsel, to Administrative Judges (September 10, 2007).

- - 3

January 15, 2008, the Licensing Board ruled on both motions, finding that summary disposition

was not warranted for either contention. See Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit

for Vogtle ESP Site), LBP-08-2, 67 NRC 54 (2008); Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site

Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), LBP-08-3, 67 NRC 85 (2008). In August 2008, the Staff published

its FEIS.4 On September 12, 2008, the Staff notified the Board and Parties of the availability of

Errata to the FEIS. See Letter from Patrick Moulding, Counsel for NRC Staff, to the

Administrative Judges (September 12, 2008).

On September 22, 2008, the Joint Intervenors filed a Motion to Admit a New Contention.

The Staff and Applicant each filed an answer on October 6, 2008. On October 24, 2008, the

Board admitted the new contention as environmental contention 6 (“EC 6.0” or “EC 6”). EC 6.0,

as admitted, was restated by the Board as follows:

Because Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) dredging of the Savannah River Federal navigation channel has potentially significant impacts on the environment, the NRC staff’s conclusion, as set forth in the “Cumulative Impacts” chapter of the FEIS, that such impacts would be moderate is inadequately supported. Additionally, the FEIS fails to address adequately the impacts of the Corps’ upstream reservoir operations as they support navigation, an important aspect of the problem.

See Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), Memorandum and

Order (Ruling on Motion to Admit New Contention), slip op. at Appendix A (Oct. 24, 2008) (“New

Contention Ruling”).

I. Environmental Contention 1.2

In admitting Contention 1.2 (“EC 1.2”), the Board noted that litigation of the merits of this

contention “may involve the question of the adequacy of the baseline information provided by

SNC relative to the portion of the Savannah River that encompasses the project area

4 The FEIS was made available to the parties and Board on August 14, 2008. See Letter from Patrick Moulding, Counsel for NRC Staff, to the Administrative Judges (August 14, 2008).

- - 4

associated with the intake/discharge structures for both the existing and proposed Vogtle

facilities.” LBP-07-3, 65 NRC at 259.

In ruling on the Applicant’s summary disposition motion, the Board held that with the

exception of the portion relating to chemical discharges, this contention is a contention of

inadequacy – not a contention of omission. LBP-08-2, 67 NRC at 65. The Board went on to

hold that there remained genuine material factual disputes regarding the adequacy of the

baseline aquatic information, the assessment of aquatic organism impingement and entrainment

including in regard to “worst case scenarios” regarding drought conditions, and potential thermal

impacts. Id. at 65-82. However, with regard to chemical discharges, the Board found that EC

1.2 was a contention of omission and that this portion of the contention was now moot. Id. at

82. Consequently, the Board revised Contention 1.2 to read as follows:

The ER fails to identify and adequately consider direct, indirect and cumulative impingement/entrainment and thermal effluent discharge impacts of the proposed cooling system intake and discharge structures on aquatic resources.

Id. at 83-84.

II. Environmental Contention 1.3

Joint Petitioners proffered two bases in support of Contention 1.3 (“EC 1.3”): that the

ER’s discussion of the no-action alternative does not provide an adequate discussion of

economic and environmental benefits, and that the ER discussion of the dry-cooling alternative

and aquatic impacts is insufficient because extremely sensitive biological resources are present.

The Board ruled that only the second basis was admissible. LBP-08-3, 67 NRC at 259-261. In

regard to the second basis, the Board held that the meaning of the term “extremely sensitive

biological resources” and “whether such resources are present are material factual and legal

disputes best resolved in merits litigation regarding this contention.” Id. at 261.

In ruling on the Applicant’s motion for summary disposition, the Board found that

Contention 1.3 was a contention of inadequacy, not a contention of omission. LBP-08-3,

- - 5

67 NRC 96. The Board found that there were still several issues of material fact outstanding;

however, the Board also held that the Joint Intervenors’ argument concerning hybrid cooling

technologies was outside the scope of this contention. Id. at 102-103. Thus, the “Joint

Intervenors will be free to present arguments and evidence regarding the merits of dry cooling

and the impact of a wet cooling system upon ‘extremely sensitive biological resources.’” Id. at

102.

III. Environmental Contention 6.0

In its ruling on the admissibility of Contention 6.0 (“EC 6.0”), the Board specifically

admitted it pursuant to three bases proffered by the Joint Intervenors: bases four, five and

seven. These bases challenge the Staff’s cumulative impacts analysis of dredging the Federal

navigation channel, and the relationship between United States Army Corps of Engineers

(“USACE” or “Corps”) flow regulation and the need for such dredging. New Contention Ruling

at 16-17. The Board found that it was not necessary to address several of the Joint Intervenors’

other proposed bases for EC 6.0 in its admissibility ruling, because the hearing process itself

would provide any requested remedy. Id. at 17. Consequently, the Board revised Contention 6

to read as follows:

Because Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) dredging of the Savannah River Federal navigation channel has potentially significant impacts on the environment, the NRC staff’s conclusion, as set forth in the “Cumulative Impacts” chapter of the FEIS, that such impacts would be moderate is inadequately supported. Additionally, the FEIS fails to address adequately the impacts of the Corps’ upstream reservoir operations as they support navigation, an important aspect of the problem.

Id. at 20.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal and Regulatory Requirements

The contentions at issue in this case all arise under the National Environmental Policy

Act (“NEPA”), and the NRC’s regulations that implement that statute. 42 USC §§ 4321 et seq;

- - 6

10 C.F.R. Part 51. NEPA requires that an agency prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) before approving any major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the

human environment. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C).

Under NEPA, the NRC is required to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of a

proposed action, as well as reasonable alternatives to that action. See Louisiana Energy

Servs., L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 77, 87-88 (1998). This “hard

look” is tempered by a “rule of reason” that requires agencies to address only impacts that are

reasonably foreseeable – not remote and speculative. See, e.g., Long Island Lighting Co.

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 836 (1973). “NEPA does

not call for certainty or precision, but an estimate of anticipated (not unduly speculative)

impacts.” Louisiana Energy Servs. (National Enrichment Facility), CLI-05-20, 62 NRC 523, 536

(2005) (emphasis in original). Further, “NEPA gives agencies broad discretion to keep their

inquiries within appropriate and manageable boundaries.” Louisiana Energy Servs., L.P.,

CLI-98-3, 47 NRC at 103.

Generally, an Applicant has the burden of proof in a licensing proceeding. 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.325. In cases involving NEPA contentions, however, the burden shifts to the NRC, because

the NRC, not the Applicant, has the burden of complying with NEPA. See, e.g., Duke Power

Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041, 1049 (1983). However,

because “the Staff, as a practical matter, relies heavily upon the Applicant's ER in preparing the

EIS, should the Applicant become a proponent of a particular challenged position set forth in the

EIS, the Applicant, as such a proponent, also has the burden on that matter.” Louisiana Energy

Servs., L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), LBP-96-25, 44 NRC 331, 338-39 (1996), rev’d on

other grounds by Louisiana Energy Servs., L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center) CLI-97-15,

46 NRC 294 (1997), citing Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-471, 7 NRC 477, 489 n.8 (1978).

- - 7

However, in challenging the EIS, intervenors must identify, with some specificity, the

alleged deficiencies in the NRC’s NEPA analysis. See Hydro Res., Inc. (2929 Coors Road,

Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 13 (1999). While there may be

mistakes in the EIS, “in an NRC adjudication it is the Intervenors’ burden to show their

significance and materiality.” Exelon Generation Co. (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site),

CLI-05-29, 62 NRC 801, 811 (2005). In order to advance a claim under NEPA, the intervenor

must allege with adequate support that the NRC Staff “has failed to take a ‘hard look’ at

significant environmental questions” – in other words, that the Staff has “unduly ignored or

minimized pertinent environmental effects of the proposed action.” Duke Energy Corp.

(McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-03-17,

58 NRC 419, 431 (2003). As the Commission has stated, “[o]ur Boards do not sit to ‘flyspeck’

environmental documents or to add details or nuances. If the ER (or EIS) on its face ‘comes to

grips with all important considerations’ nothing more need be done.” Clinton ESP, CLI-05-29,

62 NRC at 811, quoting Systems Energy Resources, Inc. (Early Site Permit for Grand Gulf Site),

CLI-05-4, 61 NRC 10, 13 (2005).

II. Witnesses5

A. Staff Witnesses

The attached testimony presents the opinions of a panel of witnesses for each of the

three contentions. For Contention 1.2, the panel of witnesses is as follows: Jill S. Caverly,

Rebekah Harty Krieg, Anne “Nancy” Kuntzleman, Dr. Michael T. Masnik, Mark D. Notich, and

5 In its Order dated December 15, 2008, the Licensing Board instructed each party to identify whether there are any limitations on the availability of any of its witnesses during the March 16-19 hearing. The Staff has identified no limitations on the availability of any Staff witness during that time. With respect to witnesses from the USACE, the Staff has conferred with the Office of Counsel, Savannah District. The Office of Counsel has informed Staff counsel that there is no anticipated limitation on the availability of any of the USACE witnesses during that time.

- - 8

Lance W. Vail.6 For Contention 1.3, the panel of witnesses is as follows: Jill S. Caverly,

Rebekah Harty Krieg, Dr. Michael T. Masnik, Mark D. Notich, and Lance W. Vail.7

For Contention 6, the Staff has attached testimony presenting the opinions of two panels

of witnesses, one comprising witnesses from the Staff8 and one comprising witnesses from the

USACE.9 The Staff witnesses are Jill S. Caverly, Rebekah Harty Krieg, Anne “Nancy”

Kuntzleman, Mark D. Notich, and Lance W. Vail. The USACE witnesses are William G. Bailey,

Carol L. Bernstein, Lyle J. Maciejewski, and Stanley L. Simpson.

Also attached to this pleading as Attachment 1 is the testimony of Mark D. Notich that,

pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.337, sponsors the introduction of the Staff’s Final Environmental Impact

Statement into the record in this proceeding.10

Jill S. Caverly is a senior hydrologist in the hydrologic engineering branch, division of site

and environmental reviews in the NRC’s Office of New Reactors (“NRO”). See Statement of

Professional Qualifications for Jill S. Caverly (in Attachment 2). Ms. Caverly has worked at the

NRC since 1999, first as an engineer in the NRC’s office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards (“NMSS”) then as a senior project manager in the division of license renewal in the

6 See Attachment 2, “NRC Staff Testimony of Dr. Michael T. Masnik, Anne R. Kuntzleman, Rebekah H. Krieg, Jill S. Caverly, and Lance W. Vail Concerning Environmental Contention EC 1.2” (hereinafter “Staff EC 1.2”).

7 See Attachment 3, “NRC Staff Testimony of Dr. Michael T. Masnik, Rebekah H. Krieg, Jill S. Caverly, and Lance W. Vail Concerning Environmental Contention EC 1.3” (hereinafter “Staff EC 1.3”).

8 See Attachment 4, “NRC Staff Testimony of Mark D. Notich, Anne R. Kuntzleman, Rebekah H. Krieg, Jill S. Caverly, and Lance W. Vail Concerning Environmental Contention EC 6.0” (hereinafter “Staff EC 6”).

9 See Attachment 5, “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Testimony of William G. Bailey, Carol L. Bernstein, Lyle J. Maciejewski, and Stanley L. Simpson Concerning Environmental Contention EC 6.0” (hereinafter “USACE EC 6 Testimony”).

10 See Attachment 1, “Prefiled Direct Testimony of Mark D. Notich Sponsoring NUREG-1872 Into Hearing Record.”

- - 9

office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (“NRR”). Id. Prior to joining the NRC, Ms. Caverly worked

as a civil/hydraulic engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, where she was responsible

for developing methodology for the evaluation and selection of environmental restoration

projects. Id. Ms. Caverly was assigned in June 2008 to oversee the work of Mr. Lance W. Vail

regarding the Vogtle ESP application.

Rebekah H. Krieg is employed as a senior research scientist in the Ecology Group,

Environmental Sustainability Division, Energy and Environment directorate of the U.S.

Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). See Statement of

Professional Qualifications for Rebekah Harty Krieg (in Attachment 2). Ms. Krieg has worked at

PNNL from 1979-2002, and from 2005 until the present. Id. During this time she has been a

project manager of interdisciplinary teams that assisted the NRC Staff on the cleanup of Three

Mile Island, Unit 2, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for decommissioning of

commercial nuclear power reactors, and the development of the Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement for the restart of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Id. In addition, she acted as a

technical leader that provided support to the NRC on the review of several applications for

license renewal. Id. With regard to applications for new reactors, Ms. Krieg was the

pre-application team lead for four COL applications, and is the aquatic ecology reviewer for

another pre-application review. Id. Ms. Krieg is also the lead technical reviewer for the aquatic

ecology section of one COL application, in addition to being the lead aquatic ecology reviewer

for the Vogtle ESP application. Id.

Anne “Nancy” Kuntzleman is currently an aquatic biologist in the NRC’s NRO. See

Statement of Professional Qualifications for Anne “Nancy” Kuntzleman (in Attachment 2). Prior

to joining the NRC, Ms. Kuntzleman spent 11 years working for two environmental consulting

firms that provided numerous studies on terrestrial and aquatic biology for the Philadelphia

Electric Company, including performing fish estimates in the vicinity of the Limerick Generating

Station. Id. Later, Ms. Kuntzleman worked for 19 years as a senior biologist with the

- - 10

Department of the Navy, Engineering Field Activity Northeast (“EFANE”), where she served for

almost 18 years as the sole professional/technical authority for EFANE in the preparation and

coordination of all Department of the Army permit applications, Coast Guard permits, state

wetland permits, and water quality certificates for activities in waters of the United States (U.S.)

and navigable waters of the U.S. within the regulatory authority of Sections 401 and 404 of the

Clean Water Act (CWA), Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and Section

103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Id. Since joining the

NRC in 2006, Ms. Kuntzleman has provided aquatic and terrestrial ecology reviews on several

COL applications and helped perform several pre-application reviews. Id. Ms. Kuntzleman has

provided technical oversight for the aquatic and terrestrial sections of the Vogtle ESP draft and

final EISs.

Dr. Michael T. Masnik is currently employed as a Senior Aquatic Ecologist in NRC’s

NRO. See Statement of Professional Qualifications for Michael T. Masnik (in Attachment 2).

Dr. Masnik joined the Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor to the NRC, in 1974 as a

Fisheries Biologist performing and overseeing NEPA reviews for nuclear power reactor license

applications. Id. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Mr. Masnik participated in the initial

licensing reviews for more than 10 sites, participated in three alternative site reviews, and

investigated numerous environmental events involving aquatic resources occurring at operating

nuclear power stations. Id. In 1982, Dr. Masnik became a Technical Assistant to the Director of

the Three Mile Island cleanup effort, and for 13 years provided technical oversight of this

cleanup effort. Id. From 1997-2001, Dr. Masnik worked first as Acting, then Section Chief of

the Decommissioning section of NRC’s NRR. In this position, Dr. Masnik was responsible for

the project management of 19 permanently shut down reactors, and the development of the

Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors.

Id. From 2001-2007, Dr. Masnik worked as a project manager and aquatic and terrestrial

ecologist on numerous license renewals. Id. Starting in 2007, Dr. Masnik transferred to his

- - 11

current position in NRO, and he has provided oversight to several other ESP and combined

license applications. Id. In addition to his experience at the NRC, Dr. Masnik has authored or

co-authored 16 publications on such topics as thermal studies on fishes, recovery of damaged

aquatic ecosystems, and development of sampling methodology for fish and

macroinvertebrates, and he is a member of the American Fisheries Society. Id. As part of his

official duties, Dr. Masnik assisted in the development of the Biological Assessment for the

Vogtle ESP application, and acted as the lead technical reviewer for the NRC on aquatic

resources issues associated with the Application.

Mark D. Notich is a Senior Environmental Project Manager in the NRC’s NRO, and is the

project manager in charge of preparing the EIS for the Vogtle ESP application. See Statement

of Professional Qualifications for Mark D. Notich (in Attachment 1). Mr. Notich has thirty years

of experience providing environmental reviews and as a project manager for various projects.

Id. Since joining the NRC in 2005, Mr. Notich has provided support for the Clinton ESP and

Grand Gulf ESP, the Vermont Yankee license renewal, and pre-application reviews for the

North Anna Plant and the V.C. Summer Nuclear Power Station. Id.

Lance W. Vail is a Senior Research Engineer II, at PNNL. See Statement of

Professional Qualifications for Lance W. Vail (in Attachment 2). Since 1981, Mr. Vail has

gained extensive experience in projects covering a diverse set of water related issues. Id. In

addition, Mr. Vail has published numerous peer reviewed publications and is a member of the

American Geophysical Union, the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Water

Resources Association. Id. With regard to work for the NRC, Mr. Vail has assessed the water

use, water quality, and hydrologic impacts of ten license renewal applications. Id. Mr. Vail has

also provided both safety and environmental reviews for three ESP applications. Id. Mr. Vail is

the lead hydrological technical reviewer for the Vogtle ESP and is responsible for the analysis

related to surface water and plant water systems.

- - 12

B. USACE Witnesses

William G. Bailey is employed as a Physical Scientist and serves as Chief of the

Savannah Planning Unit, Savannah-Mobile Regional Planning Center (Environmental

Resources, Plan Formulation, and Economics) with the USACE. See USACE EC 6 Testimony

at A1; Statement of Professional Qualifications for William G. Bailey (in Attachment 5). Mr.

Bailey holds degrees in Biology, Forestry and Civil Engineering. Id. Within the USACE, Mr.

Bailey has served as a civil engineer, a supervisor and team leader for the Impact Analysis

Team, the temporary Chief of the Environmental Resources Branch of Planning Division, team

leader within the Environmental Resources Branch of Planning Division, and supervisor within

the Impact Analysis Section of Planning Division's Environmental Resources Branch. Id. Since

2001, Mr. Bailey has served as the Savannah District Planning Unit’s technical expert on NEPA

and other environmental issues. Id. Mr. Bailey is responsible for the comprehensive water

resources development and management program of the Savannah District. In that capacity he

evaluates the environmental impacts of complex civil works and regulatory projects, providing

direction to and reviewing the work of environmental Staff, preparing environmental compliance

documents, including Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements,

coordinating projects and environmental documentation with Federal and state resource

agencies, and negotiating environmental compliance issues with Federal and state natural

resource agencies. Id. Mr. Bailey also manages the Savannah District Unit’s floodplain

management services and flood insurance studies. USACE EC 6 Testimony at A2(a).

Carol L. Bernstein is employed as a Supervisory Biologist and serves as Chief of the

Coastal Branch, Regulatory Division with the USACE, Savannah District. See Statement of

Professional Qualifications for Carol L. Bernstein (in Attachment 5). Ms. Bernstein holds

degrees in Renewable Natural Resources - Wildlife Ecology and Interdisciplinary Environmental

Sciences Studies. Id. Within the Army Corps of Engineers, Ms. Bernstein has served as Chief

of the Hazardous, Toxic, & Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Section and the Planning and

- - 13

Environmental Services Branch for the Baltimore District. Id. Ms. Bernstein has also served as

temporary Chief of the Planning Division in the Savannah District and as temporary Chief of the

Regulatory Division in the Mobile District. Id. Since 2001, Ms. Bernstein has served as Chief of

the Coastal Branch, Regulatory Division as a Supervisory Biologist. Id. Ms. Bernstein is

responsible for planning, programming, administering and enforcing the Regulatory Program,

including permit evaluation, enforcement, noncompliance, and mitigation under the Rivers and

Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act. USACE EC 6 Testimony at A2(b). Ms. Bernstein is also

responsible for developing policy and ensuring compliance with a variety of statutes, executive

orders, and environmental laws including the NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the

National Historic Preservation Act. Id. at A5(b).

Lyle J. Maciejewski holds degrees in civil engineering and has worked as an engineer

within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since 1980. See Statement of Professional

Qualifications for Lyle Maciejewski (“Maciejewski SPQ”); USACE EC 6 Testimony at A2(c) and

A5(c) (in Attachment 5). Mr. Maciejewski has significant experience related to dredging

activities performed by the Corps. See Maciejewski SPQ. He has also led the hydrographic

survey operations for dredging work in the Mississippi River and adjacent ports, served as

project engineer coordinating administrative duties in the Hydropower Branch of the District and

as Contracting Officers Representative for District maintenance and construction dredging

contracts. Id. Since 1996, Mr. Maciejewski has served as the Operations and Maintenance

Project Manager for the Savannah Harbor and the Savannah River Below Augusta Project. Id.;

USACE EC 6 Testimony at A5(c). In that capacity he is responsible for scheduling and

developing harbor dredging contracts involving maintenance dredging of the harbor and river

basin and was detailed as head of the hydrographic survey section responsible for planning

conducting and producing the District hydrographic surveys including dredging payment

surveys. Id.

- - 14

Stanley L. Simpson holds a degree in civil engineering and has worked as an engineer

within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since 1983. See Statement of Professional

Qualifications for Stanley L. Simpson (in Attachment 5). Mr. Simpson began his employment

with the Corps as a hydraulic engineer and, since 1988, has served as the Savannah District

Water Control Manager, Engineering Division. Id. In his capacity as the Water Control

Manager, Mr. Simpson provides technical support to Engineering, Planning and Operations

Divisions and serves as the Systems Administrator for the CWMS and Water Control Data

System. USACE EC 6 Testimony at A2(d). As the South Atlantic Division technical expert on

water management and data dissemination, Mr. Simpson also provides project information, pool

projections, weather forecasts and river forecasts to private and municipal entities. Id. at A2(d),

A5(d).

III. The Inadequacies Asserted by the Joint Intervenors’ Contentions Lack Merit.

The Staff’s testimony presents its position that the inadequacies in the Staff’s FEIS

alleged by the Joint Intervenors lack merit. As explained in the Staff testimony and supported

by the Staff exhibits, the Staff has conducted its environmental review appropriately, in

compliance with the NRC’s regulations that implement NEPA and in accordance with applicable

Staff review guidance.

In reviewing the application, conducting its independent environmental analysis, and

reaching conclusions as to the associated impacts, the Staff has adequately considered and

evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action to aquatic resources in

the Savannah River. In doing so, the Staff has adequately evaluated the “dry cooling system”

alternative as well as the possible cumulative impacts associated with potential future dredging

of the Savannah River Federal navigation channel.

A. Contention 1.2

Contention 1.2 challenges the adequacy of the Staff’s analysis of the direct, indirect and

cumulative impacts of the proposed cooling system intake and discharge structures on aquatic

- - 15

resources. Specifically, it alleges that the Staff inadequately analyzes those impacts associated

with impingement and entrainment as well as with thermal effluent discharge.

However, the attached Staff testimony and exhibits demonstrate that the Staff’s analysis

in the FEIS with respect to each of these impact categories is both adequate and consistent

with applicable Staff review guidance. In doing so, the Staff also refutes the Joint Intervenors’

underlying assertion that inadequate “baseline information” concerning aquatic species has

been provided to appropriately evaluate important environmental impacts with respect to the

intake and discharge structures of both the proposed Units 3 and 4 and the existing Vogtle Units

1 and 2.

1. Available Information Was Appropriate to Enable Staff’s NEPA Analysis.

The data and level of detail presented in the FEIS concerning the presence and life

history of aquatic species comports with Staff guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 4.2,

Revision 2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations (NRC 1976); in

Regulatory Guide 4.7, and in applicable sections of NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard

Review Plan (NRC 2000 & 2007) (“ESRP”). See “NRC Staff Testimony of Dr. Michael T.

Masnik, Anne R. Kuntzleman, Rebekah H. Krieg, Jill S. Caverly, and Lance W. Vail Concerning

Environmental Contention EC 1.2” (hereinafter “Staff EC 1.2”) at A6-A7. The key sources of

information relied on by the Staff to characterize the Savannah River in the vicinity of the site

were both adequate and appropriately comprehensive to enable the Staff’s evaluation of

environmental impacts. Staff EC 1.2 at A5, A8-A9, A15.

Furthermore, the Staff’s focus on “important species” for the purpose of characterizing

the aquatic environment is consistent with the definitions and guidance in the ESRP and in

Regulatory Guide 4.2. Staff EC 1.2 at A10-A13. The Staff’s analysis also appropriately

recognizes the relationship between flows in the Savannah River and the availability of aquatic

habitat, noting the changes in river stage that occur at different flow levels but also the more

frequent (even daily) fluctuations that naturally occur and to which aquatic species are pre-

- - 16

adapted, even before the river flows were regulated by the use of impoundments. Staff EC 1.2

at A14.

2. Staff Appropriately Assessed Impacts of Impingement and Entrainment.

The Staff evaluated both impingement and entrainment impacts for the ESP with

particular consideration of the significant reductions in cooling water withdrawals and thermal

discharges associated with a closed-cycle cooling system compared to a once-through cooling

system. Staff EC 1.2 at A17. In accordance with guidance in the ESRP, the Staff evaluated

impacts from impingement and concluded that the impacts would be SMALL. Staff EC 1.2 at

A19-A21. This conclusion was based on a number of factors. These factors included the

applicant’s use of closed-cycle cooling, which reduced river water withdrawal substantially

compared to once-through cooling systems; the planned low through-screen intake velocity of

less than 0.5 feet per second at the minimum river water level of 78 feet; a calculated intake

canal flow velocity towards the intake screens of about 0.1 feet per second; and the Staff’s

evaluation of aquatic species inhabiting the middle Savannah River. Staff EC 1.2 at A19, A22.

The Staff also considered the past absence of significant impingement episodes at the existing

intake of Units 1 and 2 along with the preliminary results of the recent VEGP Units 1 and 2

impingement sampling program, as well as the results of a past impingement study at the

Savannah River Site. Staff EC 1.2 at A19. The Staff’s determinations regarding impingement

applied relevant ESRP guidance. Staff EC 1.2 at A20-A21.

Regarding impingement impacts, the Staff found that there would be daily and seasonal

variation in impingement and that the different life stages of organisms would experience

varying susceptibility to impingement. Staff EC 1.2 at A23. However, large numbers of

impinged fish are unusual at riverine intakes like that for the Vogtle site, and adult fish of any of

the “important species” that the Staff identified in the FEIS have a burst swim speed that would

enable them to avoid impingement. Staff EC 1.2 at A23-A24. Also, historic studies at the

Savannah River Site (“SRS”) indicated low impingement rates even at much higher withdrawal

- - 17

rates than those proposed for Units 3 and 4. Staff EC 1.2 at A23-A25. Therefore, the Staff

concluded that the losses due to impingement, including to any of the “important species”

identified, would not result in detectable changes to the Savannah River fishery. Staff EC 1.2 at

A23-25. Furthermore, preliminary sampling data obtained by Southern since the issuance of

the FEIS regarding both impingement and entrainment at the Units 1 and 2 intake structure

support this conclusion, as primarily young of the year and juveniles were impinged. Staff EC

1.2 at A23.

The Staff likewise followed ESRP guidance to evaluate impacts from entrainment. Staff

EC 1.2 at A27-A28. Based on several factors, the Staff concluded that impacts would be

SMALL. Because the amount of water withdrawn from the source waterbody greatly influences

the degree to which entrainment affects aquatic biota, key factors in the Staff conclusion

included the applicant’s use of a closed-cycle cooling system and the design and location of the

cooling intake canal and structure, including use of a weir wall and skimmer wall at the mouth of

the intake. Staff EC 1.2 at A26, A28-A30. The Staff also considered previous sampling data,

the high fecundity of most species inhabiting rivers, and the high natural mortality rates of eggs

and larvae. Staff EC 1.2 at A26. Furthermore, the Staff considered previous sampling related

to SRS operations, which indicates that historic operations of the SRS intake did not have a

discernable impact on fish species in the Savannah despite withdrawals much greater than

those anticipated for Units 3 and 4. Staff EC 1.2 at A28-A29.

In evaluating entrainment impacts, the Staff assumed both that entrainment is generally

proportional to withdrawals and also that eggs and larvae are uniformly distributed throughout

the water column. Staff EC 1.2 at A28, A30-A31. While the assumption of uniform distribution

is not necessarily realistic for some species that are demersal spawners (with eggs that sink

quickly and adhere), it is conservative for estimating entrainment at Vogtle even for those

species because the intake system design would result in water from the middle of the water

column preferentially entering the canal. Staff EC 1.2 at A30, A33. Uniform distribution is also

- - 18

consistent with the assumption previously used in the Final Environmental Statement for Units 1

and 2, and with the assumptions made by the Environmental Protection Agency in its Phase I

final regulations. Staff EC 1.2 at A30, A31. This assumption is also conservative because

times of year with higher ichthyoplankton densities correspond with periods of higher river flow,

resulting in a lower percentage being entrained. Staff EC 1.2 at A32-A33. Accordingly, the

uniform distribution assumption, in combination with the aforementioned intake design

considerations and sampling data, support the Staff’s conclusions in the FEIS. Furthermore,

additional information available since the FEIS was issued also confirms the Staff analysis,

including National Marine Fisheries Service concurrence with the Staff conclusions regarding

impacts to the shortnose sturgeon, as well as sampling data confirming that eggs and larvae are

several times more numerous in samples from the Savannah River than in samples from the

Units 1 and 2 intake canal. Staff EC 1.2 at A34.

3. Staff’s Analysis Accounts for a Reasonable Range of River Flows.

In evaluating impacts to aquatic resources, the Staff considered a range of flows,

including normal flows as well as low-flow conditions. In the FEIS, the Staff determined it was

conservative to base its low-flow analysis on “Drought Level 3” flows (3800 cfs) in the USACE’s

current Draft Drought Contingency Plan. Staff EC 1.2 at A35. However, in part because of

ongoing drought conditions as well as reservoir-release changes contemplated by the USACE,

the Staff also evaluated very-low flows of 3000 and 2000 cfs. Staff EC 1.2 at A35. These

values continue to bound recent seasonal release restrictions proposed by the USACE. Staff

EC 1.2 at A35. The Staff believes the FEIS analysis of these three low and very-low flow levels

remains appropriate; nevertheless, the Staff does not believe that current drought conditions

represent a new baseline condition for the Savannah River Basin or suggest the need to

reconsider long-term normal flows, particularly for a NEPA review of an ESP assuming the siting

of a plant with a 40-plus year operating life. Staff EC 1.2 at A36, A40.

- - 19

With respect to flow measurements, the Staff determined that it was appropriate to use

estimated releases from the Thurmond Dam as the basis of the Staff’s analysis of impacts at the

site. This is because primary discharges of groundwater and surface water to the Savannah

River between the Thurmond Dam and the site are likely to be approximately equivalent to

consumptive loss from other upstream users, even under lower-flow conditions. Staff EC 1.2 at

A37. Moreover, groundwater discharges would likely increase at extremely low stream flows,

while withdrawals would not. Staff EC 1.2 at A37. For these reasons, and given the reliability of

flow estimates at the Thurmond Dam, the Staff considered its use of the Thurmond Dam values

to be reasonable. Furthermore, since issuance of the FEIS, the Staff has considered additional

recent flow data from the USGS gauge at Waynesboro, Georgia, which supports the Staff’s view

that use of the Thurmond Dam releases represents a reasonable bounding assumption for

evaluating flows at the ESP site. Staff EC 1.2 at A37.

The Staff used these flow values to evaluate impacts to aquatic resources. Its analysis

of operational impacts in FEIS Chapter 5 is based on maximum withdrawal rates for Units 3 and

4, which the Staff considers to be an additional conservatism because withdrawals at this rate

would occur infrequently and only for short periods of time. Staff EC 1.2 at A38. Moreover, the

natural variation in flows at the VEGP site, even on a daily basis, is often greater than the

normal and maximum withdrawal rates for the proposed new Units, and variation in river flow

rates is considered normal and beneficial to riverine systems. Staff EC 1.2 at A38. Also, the

Staff relied on average-daily discharge flow and Drought Level 3 flows, even though flows are

generally higher in spring and early summer, when most fish spawning occurs. Staff EC 1.2 at

A38.

Using these flow values, the Staff determined the percentage of river flow that would be

withdrawn and consumptively used by the proposed new units. The Staff identified these

percentages not only for normal withdrawals and average river flows, but also for maximum

withdrawals and for river flows of 3800, 3000 and 2000 cfs. Staff EC 1.2 at A41-A42. While

- - 20

these percentages are relevant to the Staff’s conclusions regarding impacts from impingement

and entrainment, the Staff considered several other factors, as discussed earlier. These factors

(e.g., the type of cooling system and the intake structure design) have greater potential for

affecting impingement rates than do the kinds of flow variation expected in the Savannah River.

Staff EC 1.2 at A43. Likewise, with respect to entrainment impacts, the Staff’s evaluation

considered the percentage of water withdrawn from the Savannah River as one of several

factors; Units 3 and 4 withdrawals would meet the EPA regulations for withdrawals being no

greater than five percent of the source water body annual mean flow under normal surface

water consumption and normal annual mean flows. Staff EC 1.2 at A43. Thus the Staff

considered these percentages, as well as other factors and data, in determining that impacts

from impingement and entrainment on aquatic resources would be SMALL. Staff EC 1.2 at

A44. Although the Staff determined that entrainment impacts (and possibly impingement

impacts) could increase under very-low-flow conditions, the Staff determined that such losses

were unlikely to have any persistent long-term impacts on populations of aquatic organisms in

the River. Staff EC 1.2 at A45.

4. Staff Appropriately Evaluated Cumulative Impingement and Entrainment Impacts from the Existing and Proposed Vogtle Units.

The Staff also evaluated the cumulative impacts to aquatic resources from impingement

and entrainment associated with operation of all four Vogtle units. Staff EC 1.2 at A47. In that

evaluation, the Staff considered the percentage of water withdrawn and consumptively used

under normal withdrawal rates. Staff EC 1.2 at A46. Because maximum withdrawals are rare

and because closed-cycle wet cooling towers are able to operate at very stable flow rates, the

use of normal withdrawal rates for the four units is the approach most appropriate for the

evaluation of cumulative impacts. Staff EC 1.2 at A51. In its cumulative impacts analysis, the

Staff considered average river flows as well as low-flow and very-low-flow conditions. Staff EC

1.2 at A46.

- - 21

Although the Staff considered the percentages of the river flow withdrawn and

consumptively used by all four units, these percentages were not the only factor on which the

Staff’s conclusions regarding cumulative impacts from impingement and entrainment were

based. Staff EC 1.2 at A48-A50. With respect to cumulative impingement impacts for flows

down to Drought Level 3, the Staff considered the location, design, and planned operation of the

intake and cooling system, the life history characteristics of “important species,” EPA standards

for intake design, and the characteristics of the watercourse near the Vogtle site. Staff EC 1.2

at A48. The Staff found no indication that the additional small and undetectable impact from

Unit 3 and 4 impingement losses at these flows would destabilize the Savannah River fishery.

Staff EC 1.2 at A48.

The Staff’s analysis of cumulative entrainment losses at flows down to Drought Level 3

relied more heavily on consideration of percentage withdrawal values under combined

withdrawals by Units 1 through 4. Staff EC 1.2 at A48. However, entrainment impacts would be

minor even from these cumulative withdrawals. Staff EC 1.2 at A48. The Staff considered

several factors, including the use of closed-cycle cooling; the design, location, and planned

operation of the proposed intake; the characteristics of the watercourse in the vicinity of the

intake; the distribution, abundance and life history data of aquatic species near VEGP; and

previous impingement and entrainment studies at SRS. Staff EC 1.2 at A48. The Staff’s

conclusion is further supported by preliminary data from the sampling program at Units 1 and 2.

Staff EC 1.2 at A48.

Finally, the Staff evaluated cumulative impacts from impingement and entrainment from

all four Vogtle units under very-low-flow conditions. Staff EC 1.2 at A50. Water withdrawal

percentages would increase, but the Staff again relied on a range of factors in its analysis. Staff

EC 1.2 at A50. A small increase in impingement mortality might occur as a result of very-low-

flow conditions, and there would also be a proportional increase in entrainment rates. Staff EC

1.2 at A50. However, such very-low-flow conditions would be temporary, and State resource

- - 22

agencies could also require mitigating actions to reduce withdrawals under such conditions.

Staff EC 1.2 at A50. Many factors controlling impingement losses, such as fish behavior, would

be relatively unaffected by very-low-flow conditions. Staff EC 1.2 at A50. Moreover, historic

withdrawals from SRS were at percentages higher than those estimated for all 4 Vogtle units but

those entrainment losses did not result in observable adverse impacts to aquatic biota. Staff

EC 1.2 at A50.

5. Staff Adequately Evaluated Thermal Impacts from the Existing and Proposed Vogtle Units.

The Staff also evaluated the cumulative impact to aquatic resources from discharge of

heated cooling water associated with operation of Vogtle Units 3 and 4 following ESRP

guidance. Staff EC 1.2 at A52, A54. Pursuant to that guidance, the Staff’s review should

include “the analysis of alterations to the receiving water body resulting from plant

thermal…discharges in sufficient detail to predict and determine the nature and extent of

potential impacts on aquatic ecosystems.” ESRP at 5.3.2.2-1; Staff EC 1.2 at A54. The ESRP

also states that “the Staff’s analysis may be provided by referencing the aquatic biota

descriptions of ESRP 2.4.2 and describing in brief detail the effects on biota that are important

and susceptible to thermal … impact.” ESRP at 5.3.2.2-10; Staff EC 1.2 at A54. In the FEIS,

the Staff analyzed the interaction between the plume and the habitat and life history of important

species, the potential impacts from cold shock and heat shock, and the potential for an increase

in invasive or nuisance organisms due to increased ambient water temperatures. Staff EC 1.2

at A53, A54. In addition, a Biological Assessment describing the Staff’s findings was prepared

and sent to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for its review under Section 7

of the Endangered Species Act. Staff EC 1.2 at A54.

The Staff’s evaluation of thermal impacts to aquatic biota was predicated on use of the

CORMIX thermal plume code to estimate the size and shape of the thermal plume. Staff EC 1.2

at A53-A55, A57. The CORMIX code is supported by the U.S. EPA for use in environmental

- - 23

impact assessments of regulatory mixing zones resulting from continuous point source

discharges and is considered to be an industry standard for such assessments. Staff EC 1.2 at

A57. The CORMIX assessment as presented in Section 5.3.3.1 of the FEIS describes the areal

extent of the plume. Staff EC 1.2 at A56. In the FEIS, the Staff used the CORMIX assessment

to consider discharges to the Savannah River under a variety of flow conditions, river

temperatures, and discharge water temperatures and considering the design and location of the

discharge and the width of the river at the VEGP site. Staff EC 1.2 at A54, A55.

As a conservative measure, the Staff’s assessment considered the combined impact of

discharges of heated water from all four units. Staff EC 1.2 at A57. As further conservative

measures, the analyses assigned the total effluent discharge for all four units to a single outfall

pipe at maximum plant flows, maximum discharge temperatures and minimum ambient river

temperatures which the Staff considered would produce the maximum single thermal plume.

A57, A61. Further, in addition to the Drought Level 3 flows (3800 cfs), the Staff considered

thermal impacts under very-low-flows of 2,000 cfs and 3,000 cfs. Staff EC 1.2 at A57-A60.

These flow conditions resulted in the greatest plume size and the greatest impact and, although

the Staff expects that the occurrence of such low flows would be extremely rare and of

temporary duration, analysis of these flows was the Staff’s attempt to provide additional

conservative context for the analysis. Staff EC 1.2 at A58.

Utilizing the most conservative flow and discharge information, the maximum thermal

plume size was found to be approximately 15 feet wide by 97 feet long. Staff EC 1.2 at A54,

A59. As the Savannah River is 312 feet wide at the location of the Vogtle ESP site, the Staff

determined that the 5 degree Fahrenheit isotherm would occupy about 5% of the river cross

section. Staff EC 1.2 at A59.

In assessing the impact of the thermal plume on aquatic biota, the Staff in the FEIS

described the aquatic environment and biota, including the types, life stages, and relative

abundance of important biota in the vicinity of the VEGP. Staff EC 1.2 at A54. Because the

- - 24

thermal plume is expected to be small in comparison to the width of the river, the Staff

concluded that it would not impede up- or downstream migration of the important fish species of

concern known to occur in the vicinity of the Vogtle ESP site, including the robust redhorse and

the shortnose sturgeon, and that fish and other organisms would be able to avoid the elevated

temperatures associated with the plume. Staff EC 1.2 at A54. Because the Atlantic sturgeon

has the same spawning characteristics as the shortnose sturgeon (Staff EC 1.2 at A7), the Staff

concluded that the thermal plume would also create no barrier to its up- or downstream

migration (Staff EC 1.2 at A54). The Staff also concluded that impacts to the South Carolina

mussel species known to occur in the vicinity of the Vogtle ESP site would be minor. Staff EC

1.2 at A54.

Neither cold shock nor heat shock was found to be of concern at the Vogtle site. Staff

EC 1.2 at A53-A54. Cold shock occurs when organisms that have been acclimated to warm

water are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease. Staff EC 1.2 at A53. The potential for

cold shock is greater when heated water is discharged into a confined body of water, or when

all reactors are suddenly shut down, leading to a cessation of all thermal discharge to the

waterbody. At the Vogtle site, thermal discharges would be to a river where the volume of

discharge is small in comparison to the total river volume. Staff EC 1.2 at A53. Because fish

have to actively swim to maintain position in a plume the Staff believes it is unlikely that a fish

would become acclimated to the higher station discharge temperatures, thereby avoiding the

possibility of cold shock. Staff EC 1.2 at A59.

The Staff concluded that cold shock was less likely to occur at the Vogtle site due to the

presence of multiple reactor units which would be unlikely to shut down simultaneously leading

to a dramatic drop in the temperature of the receiving water in the river. Staff EC 1.2 at 54. As

all four units would be discharging to the river, the effect of the sudden cessation of discharge

related to shutdown of one unit is unlikely to have enough effect on the thermal plume to result

in cold shock. Staff EC 1.2 at A54.

- - 25

Heat shock occurs when organisms are confined to an area in which water temperatures

suddenly increase. Staff EC 1.2 at A53. The potential for heat shock is greater when heated

water is discharged into a confined body of water or when the thermal plume is sufficiently large

as to prevent organisms from avoiding its effects. Staff EC 1.2 at A53. Heat shock was

considered to be unlikely to occur at the site due to the small size of the thermal plume relative

to the river and the ability of aquatic biota to avoid the plume. EC 1.2 at A54.

The Staff also analyzed the potential impacts from the thermal plume with respect to

invasive or nuisance organisms which have been observed to increase in numbers in the vicinity

of thermal plumes. Staff EC 1.2 at A53. Based on the absence of an increase in invasive

nuisance organisms in the vicinity of the thermal plume for VEGP Units 1 and 2, no increase in

invasive or nuisance organisms is anticipated to occur due to the additional thermal impact for

the proposed units. Staff EC 1.2 at A53.

Based on its analysis of the interaction between the plume and the habitat and life

history of important species, the potential impacts from cold shock and heat shock, and the

potential increase in invasive or nuisance organisms due to increased ambient water

temperatures, the Staff concluded that impacts to aquatic organisms from thermal discharges

from the proposed VEGP units 3 and 4 would be minor. Staff EC 1.2 at A53.

Finally, the Staff’s analysis also reflects that, following publication of the DEIS, Southern

advised the Staff that flows related to cooling system operation would differ based on changes

between Revision 15 and Revision 16 of the AP1000 Design Control Document. Staff EC 1.2 at

A62. In order to determine how the impacts evaluated for Revision 15 would be affected, the

Staff identified the increase in fractional withdrawal of the Savannah River associated with the

change between Revision 15 and Revision 16 at the four flow rates considered – normal flows

of 8830 cfs, Drought Level 3 flows of 3800 cfs, and also the very-low flows of 3000 cfs and 2000

cfs. Id. The Staff determined the relevant percentages for normal and maximum withdrawals

and consumptive use by the proposed Units 3 and 4 as well as by all four Vogtle units. Id. As

- - 26

stated earlier, the range in flows at the VEGP site, even on a daily basis, is often greater than

the normal and maximum withdrawal rates for the proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. Id. at A38,

A62. Accordingly, relative to the natural variability of the Savannah River, all of the percentage

increases in water use associated with the change between Revision 15 and Revision 16 are

exceedingly small. Id. at A62. There was no change in the blowdown flow rate associated with

the change between Revision 15 and Revision 16; therefore, there would be no change in the

thermal plume analysis or its impact under all flow conditions considered. The effects on

aquatic biota of the slight increase in normal and maximum withdrawal rates associated with

Revision 16 would be undetectable and not result in a change in the impact level associated

with impingement or entrainment. Id. The Staff believes that would be the case under average-

daily, Drought Level 3, or very-low flows when assessing both normal and cumulative impacts of

operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4. Id.

6. Conclusion Regarding EC 1.2

For the reasons stated above, the FEIS both identifies and adequately considers the

impacts of the proposed cooling system intake and discharge structures on aquatic resources

with respect to impingement, entrainment, and thermal effluent discharge. Furthermore, in

these respects the FEIS adequately considers the cumulative impacts of operations of all four

Vogtle units.

B. Contention 1.3

Contention 1.3 challenges the adequacy of the Staff’s analysis of the dry-cooling

alternative in the FEIS. Specifically, Joint Intervenors argue that “extremely sensitive biological

resources” are present – in particular, the robust redhorse and shortnose sturgeon – at the

Vogtle site and, thus, that the NRC is required to do a more in-depth review of the dry-cooling

alternative. The attached Staff testimony and exhibits demonstrate that the Staff’s analysis in

the FEIS with respect to dry-cooling technology is adequate and complies with applicable Staff

guidance.

- - 27

The Staff is required to analyze alternatives to the proposed action pursuant to section

51.45(b)(3). With regard to analyzing heat dissipation alternatives, the Staff follows the

guidance in section 9.4.1 of the ESRP. While the NRC must consider alternatives, “NEPA does

not guarantee that federally-approved projects will have no adverse impacts at all. Nor does it

require an agency to select the most environmentally benign alternative.” Hydro Resources Inc.

(P.O. Box 777, Crownpoint, NM 87313), CLI-06-29, 64 NRC 417, 429 (2006).

1. The Staff’s Analysis of the Dry-Cooling Alternative was Adequate.

The Staff is required by section 51.45(b)(3) to analyze alternatives to the proposed

action. When reviewing alternatives to heat dissipation systems, the Staff follows the guidance

in section 9.4.1 of the ESRP. See “NRC Staff Testimony of Dr. Michael T. Masnik, Rebekah H.

Krieg, Jill S. Caverly, and Lance W. Vail Concerning Environmental Contention EC 1.3”

(hereinafter “Staff EC 1.3”) at A6. In this case, the proposed heat dissipation system is a

closed-cycle wet cooling system. Staff EC 1.3 at A5. As part of the Staff’s alternatives analysis,

it considered open-cycle once-through, and closed-cycle dry or wet/dry hybrid cooling system

design alternatives. Staff EC 1.3 at A7.

In analyzing the dry-cooling alternative, the Staff recognized that a dry-cooling system

would largely eliminate impacts on aquatic biota. Staff EC 1.3 at A10. However, the Staff also

found that a dry-cooling system would have some disadvantages with respect to land use, fuel

use, spent fuel transport, and spent fuel storage. Staff EC 1.3 at A11. Despite these

disadvantages, the Staff still might have considered dry-cooling the preferable alternative if the

proposed system would have had significant environmental impacts. Staff EC 1.3 at A12. But

the Staff concluded that proposed cooling system only produced small environmental impacts.

Staff EC 1.3 at A13.

Ultimately, the Staff’s review of heat dissipation alternatives was governed by section

9.4.1 of the ESRP. Staff EC 1.3 at A15. Consistent with that section, the depth of the Staff’s

analysis was governed by the nature and magnitude of the impacts of the proposed design.

- - 28

A16. Because the Staff found the impacts from the proposed wet cooling system design to be

small, it did not analyze other alternatives in greater depth. Staff EC 1.3 at A16. Further,

because of this small impact associated with the proposed design and the fact that several

disadvantages of the dry-cooling alternative were identified, the Staff concluded that the

dry-cooling alternative would not be environmentally preferable to the proposed design. Staff

EC 1.3 at A16. Pursuant to the ESRP, once a reviewer rejects an alternative, “that alternative

needs no further consideration other than the preparation of the reasons and justification for the

rejection.” Exhibit NRC-10 at 9.4.1-6.

2. The Proposed Design Will Have Only a Small Effect on Extremely Sensitive Biological Resources.

Contention 1.3 specifically challenges the analysis of dry cooling, given the presence of

“extremely sensitive biological resources” (ESBR) in the vicinity of the Vogtle site. Specifically,

Joint Intervenors pointed to the robust redhorse and shortnose sturgeon as examples of

ESBRs. The term ESBR comes from a 2001 rulemaking by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Staff EC 1.3 at A17; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; Regulations

Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities, 66 Fed. Reg. 65,256, 65,282

(December 18, 2001). In pertinent part, this rulemaking states:

Although EPA has rejected dry cooling technology as a national minimum requirement, EPA does not intend to restrict the use of dry cooling or to dispute that dry cooling may be the appropriate cooling technology for some facilities. This could be the case in areas with limited water available for cooling or waterbodies with extremely sensitive biological resources (e.g., endangered species, specially protected areas).

Id. While the Staff did not use the term ESBR in the FEIS, it believes that the concept

“important species” used by the Staff would encompass all species that would be defined as

ESBRs. Staff EC 1.3 at A18-19. The Staff considered both the robust redhorse and the

shortnose sturgeon to be “important species” and it analyzed impacts to them both in the FEIS.

Staff EC 1.3 at A19.

- - 29

As discussed more fully in the Staff’s response to Contention 1.2, the Staff analyzed the

impacts from operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 to important species, including the robust

redhorse and shortnose sturgeon. The Staff found that the impacts to important species from

the operation of the proposed wet cooling system design would be small. Staff EC 1.3 at A21-

A22. Consequently, the Staff found that the proposed cooling system design would not have a

significant adverse impact on any important species. Staff EC 1.3 at A23. Because the Staff

believes its consideration of “important species” encompasses any species that would be

defined as ESBRs, it is the Staff’s view that the proposed cooling system design would not have

a significant adverse impact on any ESBR. Staff EC 1.3 at A23.

3. Conclusion Regarding EC 1.3

The Staff found that impacts to all aquatic resources, which would include resources

likely to be considered ESBRs, from the operation of the proposed cooling system would be

small. Staff EC 1.3 at A25. Because the impacts from the proposed system are so minor, any

further reduction in mortality and morbidity due to the installation of a dry-cooling heat

dissipation system would be undetectable at the population level. Staff EC 1.3 at A25. Given

this small impact and the fact that there are several disadvantages to the dry-cooling alternative,

the Staff correctly determined that the dry-cooling alternative was not environmentally

preferable. Staff EC 1.3 at A26. Thus, consistent with section 9.4.1 of the ESRP, the Staff was

not required to analyze the dry-cooling alternative in greater depth, and its analysis in the FEIS

complied with NEPA requirements.

C. Contention 6

Contention 6 challenges the adequacy of the Staff’s analysis of the cumulative impacts

of dredging the Savannah River Federal navigation channel and possible water flow releases

from upstream reservoirs. New Contention Ruling at 18. Specifically, Joint Intervenors argue

that the Staff’s finding that impacts related to dredging of the Savannah River Federal

navigation channel could be MODERATE is inadequately supported and that the FEIS

- - 30

discussion of potential impacts associated with dredging “fails to address impacts of navigation

on the Corps’ upstream reservoir operations.” Joint Intervenors’ Motion to Admit New

Contention (September 23, 2008), at 2.

In its environmental analysis of the ESP application, which evaluates the impacts of the

construction and operation of two additional reactor units at the Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant, the Staff is required by NEPA to analyze cumulative impacts associated with that action

and other “connected” Federal actions. Based on the receipt of public comments on the DEIS

regarding the potential need for dredging of the Federal navigation channel to facilitate the

transport of components to the Vogtle site by barge, the Staff considered the potential impacts

of such dredging in its discussion of cumulative impacts and concluded that the cumulative

impacts could be MODERATE. “NRC Staff Testimony of Mark D. Notich, Anne R. Kuntzleman,

Rebekah H. Krieg, Jill S. Caverly, and Lance W. Vail Concerning Environmental Contention EC

6.0” (hereinafter “Staff EC 6”) at A29, A30. However, the Staff did not consider such a dredging

action to be necessary for the NRC’s action in granting an ESP, nor did the Staff assume that

such dredging was certain to occur. Moreover, at the time a formal plan is developed or an

application submitted for approval of such a project, that action would be reviewed by the Corps

pursuant to that agency’s regulatory guidelines. Accordingly, the Staff’s view is that the

potential dredging of the Savannah River Federal navigation channel is not a “connected action”

pursuant to NEPA and that analysis of the environmental impacts of a potential future dredging

action as a connected action in the ESP FEIS was not necessary.

Furthermore, the Staff denies the Joint Intervenors’ assertion that the Staff is responsible

for conducting a more detailed NEPA analysis in the FEIS regarding the potential dredging of

the Savannah River Federal navigation channel. The attached Staff testimony and exhibits

demonstrate that the Staff’s analysis in the FEIS with respect to potential dredging of the

Savannah River Federal navigation channel is both adequately supported and consistent with

NEPA requirements. The testimony also demonstrates why the Staff does not expect that

- - 31

environmental impacts on upstream reservoir operations would occur in connection with barge

transportation to the VEGP site.

1. Potential Dredging of the Federal Navigation Channel is Not Necessary for the NRC’s Federal Action and is Not a “Connected Action.”

NEPA requires that an agency include in an EIS the effects of other “connected actions”

to be performed. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25. “Actions are connected if they: (i) [a]utomatically

trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements; (ii) [c]annot or will not

proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously; or (iii) [a]re interdependent

parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.” Id. However, in

this proceeding, because the potential dredging of the Federal navigation channel is not

necessary for NRC approval of the ESP application and is not even certain to occur, it cannot

be said to be part of the NRC’s action in approving the ESP application. Moreover, that

dredging action, if it were to occur, would be subject to another Federal agency’s independent

decision-making authority. Therefore, potential dredging of the Savannah River Federal

navigation channel is not a part of the NRC action nor is it a “connected” action under NEPA.

In performing its FEIS analysis, the Staff assumed that heavy components would be

delivered to the Vogtle site by use of barges on the Savannah River. Staff EC 6 at A6. This

assumption was based, in part, on Southern’s plan to refurbish and dredge the barge slip. Staff

EC 6 at A6. NEPA may require actions to be treated as “connected” if it would be “irrational, or

at least unwise” to undertake one without the other. Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d

714, 720 (9th Cir. 1988). However, because rail and highway transportation are available

options, the Staff did not assume that barging was the only possible option for bringing

components to the Vogtle site. Staff EC 6 at A10. Thus there is no reason to conclude that

issuance of the ESP would be “irrational, or at least unwise” were dredging of the Federal

navigation channel not to occur. The Staff evaluated the impacts of barging because this was

the transportation option being contemplated by Southern in the ER. Staff EC 6 at A10.

- - 32

Furthermore, even if barging were the only means of transporting components to the

site, the Staff did not assume that dredging of the Federal navigation channel would be

necessary for barge transportation to the Vogtle site. Staff EC 6 at A10, A12. The Staff

assumed that large components could be barged during periods of naturally occurring high flow.

Staff EC 6 at A12 - A14. This assumption is consistent with the testimony of Corps witness

Stanley L. Simpson that “transportation of large industrial components upstream is not currently

possible due to the shallow river depths” but that “transportation of large components upstream

by barge has occurred several times in the last 10 years” and that “from previous experience

with nuclear waste shipments, it has required about 10,000 cfs discharge for more than one

week to get a barge to Jackson, SC and back from Savannah Harbor.” See “U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers Testimony of William G. Bailey, Carol L. Bernstein, Lyle J. Maciejewski, and

Stanley L. Simpson Concerning Environmental Contention EC 6.0” (hereinafter “USACE EC 6

Testimony”) at A7, A15.

For these reasons, the Staff did not consider issuance of the ESP to depend on the

potential dredging of the Federal navigation channel. Actions may need to be analyzed as

“connected” under NEPA if they are “inextricably intertwined.” Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d

754, 759 (9th Cir 1985) (requiring analysis of both road and timber sales). However, as issuing

the ESP is not practically dependent on either the availability of barge transportation or on the

dredging of the Federal navigation channel, issuance of the ESP and dredging of the Savannah

River Federal navigation channel should not be considered “inextricably intertwined.”

In sum, while the Staff chose to analyze the impacts of potential dredging by the Corps

in its discussion of cumulative impacts, the Staff’s decision to do so does not mean that the

present (ESP) and potential (Corps) Federal actions are dependent on one another, nor does

NEPA require them to be evaluated as a single overarching action in the FEIS.

Furthermore, potential dredging of the Federal navigation channel is not part of the

NRC’s Federal action in issuing an ESP because the dredging action is outside the jurisdiction

- - 33

of the NRC and would be subject to an independent review by the Corps. NEPA does not

require the NRC to analyze as a “connected” action an undertaking (or potential undertaking)

that is under the jurisdiction of another Federal agency, where the other agency’s decision on

the action under its own jurisdiction would not determine, or be determined by, the NRC’s

Federal action. See Cal. Trout v. Schaefer, 58 F.3d 469, 473-474 (9th Cir. 1995); North

Carolina v. City of Virginia Beach, 951 F.2d 596 (4th Cir. 1991); cf. Wetlands Action Network v.

U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1117-19 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied 534 U.S. 815

(2001) (upholding Corps decision to limit its NEPA review to portion of project under its control

and jurisdiction, where non-federal portion could proceed independently and each portion had

“independent utility”). As stated in the FEIS, maintenance of the Federal navigation channel is

the responsibility of the Corps, pursuant to its statutory mandate. See FEIS at 7-20; see also

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C.A. 403 (2008). The Corps, not the NRC, has the

authority to determine whether the Federal navigation channel will be dredged and the scope of

the dredging project.

Were the Corps to undertake dredging, it would prepare an environmental assessment

of the proposed action, and the Corps’ review process “would conclude with either an

Environmental Assessment (with a Finding of No Significant Impact) or an Environmental

Impact Statement (with a Record of Decision).” USACE EC 6 Testimony at A9. The Corps’

environmental review document would be coordinated with the public and natural resources

agencies, through which the Corps “would hope to obtain clearances under NEPA, the National

Historic Preservation Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the

Clean Air Act.” Id. at A9. If instead Southern opted to perform the dredging work independent

of the USACE, Southern would be required to apply for a Corps permit. Id. at A10. That

application would be reviewed by the USACE’s Regulatory Division, which, pursuant to its

- - 34

review process would prepare an Environmental Assessment/Case document and render a

permit decision. Id. at A10.

In short, regardless of whether the Corps undertakes such a dredging project or

Southern applies for a Corps permit to do so itself, the Corps would conduct an environmental

review of that activity under NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and other relevant environmental

statutes. Id. at A10. The NRC does not control the USACE review process or the USACE’s

ultimate decision on whether to conduct or permit such dredging. Accordingly, NEPA does not

require that impacts associated with the potential Corps channel-dredging action be analyzed

as direct impacts of the NRC’s proposed licensing action. See, e.g., City of Shoreacres v.

Waterworth, 420 F.3d 440, 449-50, 451-54 (5th Cir. 2005) (discussing why Corps approval of

dredge-and-fill permit for port construction likely would not require including NEPA consideration

of potential future deepening of ship navigation channel; such activity would be the result of

action by another Federal entity over which the Corps had no control).

2. The Staff’s Analysis Was Appropriate Given the Lack of a Formal Dredging Proposal and the Absence of Project Details.

Both the Staff’s decision to discuss the potential dredging impacts and the level of detail

in the Staff’s analysis comply with NEPA. First, the Staff has neither reviewed nor become

aware of any formal proposal to dredge the Federal navigation channel. Staff EC 6 at A13, A16,

A18, A22, A27, A31. Likewise, the USACE has not developed a plan or received a formal

request or authorization for dredging of the Savannah River Federal navigation channel in the

near future to facilitate barge traffic as far north as the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. USACE

EC 6 Testimony at A8. Accordingly, a plan for future potential dredging of the Federal

navigation channel is neither pending at this time nor is such dredging certain to occur. It thus

is not required to be analyzed as a direct impact of the proposed action in the ESP FEIS.

Nevertheless, the Staff discussed the potential impacts of dredging in Chapter 7 of the FEIS, in

- - 35

response to public comments and in the interest of disclosing potential cumulative impacts from

other activities, even if those activities are not certain to occur.

NEPA does not require an agency to consider the environmental effects that speculative

or hypothetical projects might have on a proposed project. See Northcoast Envtl. Ctr. v.

Glickman, 136 F.3d 660, 668 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976);

see also Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767-68 (1st Cir. 1992). In interpreting Kleppe, the

Commission has determined that for a NEPA analysis to be necessary, a future action “must at

least constitute a ‘proposal’ pending before the agency” and “must be in some way interrelated

with the action that the agency is actively considering[.]” See Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-02-14,

55 NRC 278, 295 (2002).

The DEIS did not include an analysis of the impacts of dredging the Federal navigation

channel because, based on the Staff’s informal discussions with members of the Corps, it was

not expected to occur. Staff EC 6 at A9. Based on these informal discussions, it was the Staff’s

understanding that Southern had submitted no formal request for dredging to be performed

either by the Corps or by Southern (see Staff EC 6 at A13, A16, A18, A22, A27, A31) and that

the Corps had developed no plan and received no authorization for dredging of the Savannah

River Federal navigation channel. Staff EC 6 at A16, A18, A31.

Therefore, at the time the FEIS was issued, the Staff considered it unlikely that dredging

of the Federal navigation channel would occur, particularly within any short-term time frame.

Staff EC 6 at A13. The Staff had neither reviewed nor become aware of any formal Corps plan

for dredging of the Federal navigation channel. Staff EC 6 at A13, A16, A18, A22, A27, A31.

Likewise, while it is possible that dredging of the Federal navigation channel could be

conducted by Southern pursuant to a permit issued by the Corps, the Staff had not (and still has

not) reviewed or become aware of any such permit application pending before the Corps. Staff

EC 6 at A16, A18, A22, A27. This view is consistent with testimony from Corps witnesses,

- - 36

confirming that Southern has not indicated that channel dredging would be included in any

permit application to the Corps. USACE EC 6 Testimony at A8, A10. Accordingly, the Staff’s

decision that it was appropriate to consider the impacts of dredging the navigation channel as a

potential future Federal action was the result of public comments received on the DEIS, not

because the Staff believed such an action was certain to occur.

In the absence of a formal plan or request for permit to conduct dredging, the Staff at the

time of the FEIS (and now) had no specific information regarding the scope of any potential

dredging project, the amount of dredge material to be removed, the locations which will be

utilized for disposal of dredge materials, and the mitigative measures which may be required by

the Corps should dredging occur. Staff EC 6 at A28. As such, the Staff had (and still has) no

formal request or permit application upon which to base a quantitative NEPA review of the

environmental impacts that could result from a future dredging action. Staff EC 6 at A27, A28.

To require the Staff to have quantitatively analyzed the environmental impacts of potential

dredging in the FEIS would require them to “do the impractical.” Wetlands Action Network,

222 F.3d at 1119 (the Corps was not required to complete NEPA analysis of all phases of a

construction project within a single EA or EIS when details and planning decisions of all phases

had not been completed).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered a similar situation in which the

merger of rail and barge companies was expected to result in development of capital

improvements projects, the construction of which was proposed to begin following approval of

the merger. See Crounse Corp. v. I.C.C., 781 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1986). In determining

whether the NEPA analysis surrounding the merger was sufficient in light of the anticipated

future construction of three transfer structures, the Sixth Circuit found: “[w]e do not believe that,

in assessing the environmental impact of the merger, the [I.C.C.] was obligated to assess the

impact of contemplated projects which the Commission has no power to approve, which are not

an inherent component of the proposed merger, and which will be subject to environmental

- - 37

review should they ever reach the actual proposal stage.” Id. at 1194-1195. Likewise, the NRC

has no power to approve a future action to dredge the Savannah River Federal navigation

channel, the action is not necessary to the NRC’s licensing action, and it will be subject to

environmental review by the USACE if a detailed plan or permit application is submitted. Thus,

the Staff’s qualitative analysis of potential dredging of the Savannah River Federal navigation

channel pursuant to public comments was reasonable in light of the limited information available

for review.

3. Staff Did Not Consider Upstream Releases For Navigation To Be Necessary or Reasonably Foreseeable.

The Joint Intervenors have also suggested that the Staff’s analysis should have included

consideration of the environmental impact of releases of water from upstream reservoirs. In the

FEIS analysis, however, the Staff considered that any releases of water from upstream

reservoirs would occur only in response to the need for flood control as determined by the

Corps pursuant to the flood control rule curve, and would not alter the conservation pools. Staff

EC 6 at A7, A14. The Staff assumed that these reservoir operations would not be altered

solely for the purpose of navigation. Id. at A7. Based on informal discussions with members of

the Corps, the Staff assumed that navigation of the Savannah River would be feasible during

periods of naturally high flows without dredging of the Federal navigation channel, id. at A7, and

without the need for additional releases of water from upstream reservoirs. Id. at A14.

Moreover, at the time of preparation of the FEIS, the Staff was not aware of and had not

reviewed any formal Corps plan for the intentional release of water from upstream dams in order

to support barging to the Vogtle site. Staff EC 6 at A14, A17, A18. Again, the Staff assumed

that any releases from these upstream reservoirs would be pursuant to Corps implementation of

the flood control rule curve and not specifically to allow navigation. Id. at A7. The Staff

assumed that upstream releases for navigation would not occur under drought conditions, id. at

A8, and would not alter the conservation pools as alleged by the Joint Intervenors. Id. at A7.

- - 38

Consequently, the Staff did not consider it reasonably foreseeable that there would be impacts

to the upstream reservoirs associated with releases for navigation. Id. at A7, A14, A17. The

Staff believes these views are confirmed by the testimony provided by Stanley L. Simpson of

the Corps, which states that “[t]he USACE has made no study of minimum river flow needed to

eliminate the need for dredging of the Savannah River Federal navigation channel or whether

releases from upstream reservoirs could enable barge traffic to reach as far upstream as the

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. The region is presently experiencing a drought and excess

water is not available in the lakes for such purposes.” USACE EC 6 Testimony at A15. Thus,

water releases from upstream reservoirs for navigation and associated impacts are not

“reasonably foreseeable” for purposes of NEPA.

4. The Staff’s Analysis and Conclusion That Cumulative Impacts Could Be MODERATE Is Reasonable.

Although the Staff did not consider that dredging of the Savannah River Federal

navigation channel was in fact likely to occur, the Staff included the potential impacts of such

dredging in its discussion of cumulative impacts. Staff EC 6 at A19-A22. The Staff added its

analysis of the potential impacts of such dredging in Chapter 7 (Cumulative Impacts) of the

FEIS. Staff EC 6 at A6, A9, A19, A22. Because no specific plan for dredging of the Federal

navigation channel was submitted to the NRC or to the Corps and no such plan has been

prepared by the Corps (see USACE EC 6 Testimony at A8), the Staff was able to perform only a

qualitative analysis of the expected impacts. Staff EC 6 at A27, A28. The Staff’s analysis was

appropriate because the dredging project is incompletely defined, the amount of material that

would be removed is unknown, and the locations of the dredged material disposal areas have

not been identified. Staff EC 6 at A28; see also USACE EC 6 Testimony at A17. In spite of

these limitations, the Staff in the FEIS identified the general types of impacts to aquatic biota

that might result from any such dredging. Staff EC 6 at A24. The Staff concluded that dredging

of the Federal navigation channel downstream of the VEGP site would likely have an effect on

- - 39

aquatic organisms, impacts which could include temporary loss of benthic habitat, disruption of

spawning migrations, and resuspension of sediments that might be contaminated. Staff EC 6 at

A24. The Staff also noted that dredging would require the disposal of dredged materials. Staff

EC 6 at A24. As a result of the analysis, the Staff determined that the cumulative impacts to

aquatic organisms from construction and dredging of the Federal navigation channel could be

MODERATE, depending on the type of mitigation. Staff EC 6 at A29.

The Staff’s conclusion is based in part on its understanding that the Corps would

conduct its own NEPA review of any dredging action which might be undertaken in order to

maintain the Savannah Federal navigation channel. Staff EC 6 at A30. The Staff’s conclusion

was informed by the Staff reviewer’s past professional experience with preparation and

coordination of Department of the Army permit applications, state wetland permit applications,

and water quality certificate applications. Staff EC 6 at A25. In the FEIS, the Staff emphasized

that any dredging of the Savannah River Federal navigation channel would require a separate

NEPA process with a separate environmental review performed by the Corps, the agency with

the appropriate authority or jurisdiction. Staff EC 6 at A28. The Staff anticipated that this review

would be conducted at the time an actual dredging project is formally requested or a permit

application is submitted. Staff EC 6 at A28.

Such a review would be conducted in accordance with applicable statutes and regulatory

guidelines, including Corps guidance, and would reflect any additional permitting requirements

resulting from coordination with other state and Federal agencies. USACE EC 6 Testimony at

A9-A12. The Staff anticipated that the Corps and other Federal and state regulatory and

resource agencies responsible for reviewing the dredging project would require project-specific

mitigation measures to ensure that the cumulative impacts to aquatic organisms in the region

would not be LARGE, defined as clearly noticeable environmental effects that would be

sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource. Staff EC 6 at A30, A33.

- - 40

5. Conclusion Regarding EC 6

In summary, the potential dredging of the Savannah River Federal navigation channel

does not constitute a connected action under NEPA; therefore, the Staff was justified in

evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with such a future action as

cumulative impacts rather than as impacts of the NRC’s action. The Staff considered that

releases of water from upstream reservoirs would occur only in response to the Corps’

implementation of the flood control rule curve, and would not occur during drought conditions

simply to enable navigation. Accordingly, the Staff does not consider impacts to upstream

reservoirs to be reasonably foreseeable.

However, in response to public comments, the Staff did include a qualitative discussion

of environmental impacts expected to be associated with dredging of the Federal navigation

channel in the FEIS. The Staff found that cumulative impacts to aquatic resources from the

construction of the proposed reactor units and dredging of the Federal navigation channel could

be MODERATE. This analysis and determination were based on the professional experience

and judgment of the Staff, and it appropriately reflected the limited information available given

the absence of a formal dredging plan or proposal and uncertainty as to the scope of the

dredging if it were eventually to be undertaken. Furthermore, any dredging of the Federal

navigation channel would be an action independent of the proposed ESP, it would need to be

authorized under the jurisdiction of the Corps, and the Corps would be required to perform an

independent NEPA review of the environmental impacts of that project. Thus, the Staff’s

analysis discloses impacts of such a project to the extent reasonably possible at this time. For

these reasons, the Staff’s analysis was consistent with the requirements of NEPA and with the

NRC’s regulations.

- - 41

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Staff submits that the Joint Intervenors’

contentions are without merit and that the Staff’s environmental review, as documented in the

FEIS, complies with the requirements of NEPA. Accordingly, Joint Intervenors’ Contentions EC

1.2, EC 1.3, and EC 6 should be resolved in favor of the Staff.

Respectfully submitted,

/signed (electronically) by/ Patrick A. Moulding Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-2549 Patrick.Moulding@nrc.gov

Executed in Accord with 10 CFR § 2.304(d) Jody C. Martin Counsel for the NRC Staff

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-1569 Jody.Martin@nrc.gov

Executed in Accord with 10 CFR § 2.304(d) Sarah W. Price

Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-2047 Sarah.Price@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland This 9th day of January, 2009

S

ubm

itted

: Jan

uary

9, 2

009

So

uthe

rn N

ucle

ar O

pera

ting

Co.

, Doc

ket N

o. 5

2-01

1-ES

P

Mar

ch 2

009

Man

dato

ry H

earin

g on

Unc

onte

sted

Issu

es

H

earin

g Ex

hibi

ts

Part

y

Exh.

#

Witn

ess/

Pa

nel

D

escr

iptio

n

NR

C

0000

01

All

NU

REG

-187

2, F

inal

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Sta

tem

ent f

or a

n ea

rly S

ite P

erm

it (E

SP) a

t the

Vog

tle

Elec

tric

Gen

erat

ing

Plan

t Site

, Vol

umes

1 &

2 (A

ugus

t, 20

08) c

ombi

ned

with

cor

rect

ed A

ppen

dix

F an

d th

e Se

ptem

ber 3

, 200

8 Er

rata

. Vol

ume

1 (M

L082

2401

45);

Vol

ume

2 (M

L082

2401

65);

App

endi

x F

(ML0

8226

0203

); Er

rata

(ML0

8255

0040

)

NR

C

0000

02

E.C

. 1.2

A

cade

my

of N

atur

al S

cien

ces o

f Phi

lade

lphi

a (A

NSP

). 20

01. 2

000

Sava

nnah

Riv

er B

iolo

gica

l Su

rvey

s for

Wes

tingh

ouse

Sav

anna

h R

iver

Com

pany

. Rep

ort N

o. 0

1-16

F. P

atric

k C

ente

r for

En

viro

nmen

tal R

esea

rch,

Phi

lade

lphi

a, P

enns

ylva

nia.

(ML0

7131

0366

).

NR

C

0000

03

E.C

. 1.2

A

cade

my

of N

atur

al S

cien

ces o

f Phi

lade

lphi

a (A

NSP

). 20

03. 2

001

Sava

nnah

Riv

er B

iolo

gica

l Su

rvey

s for

Wes

tingh

ouse

Sav

anna

h R

iver

Com

pany

. Rep

ort N

o. 0

3-08

F, P

atric

k C

ente

r for

En

viro

nmen

tal R

esea

rch,

Phi

lade

lphi

a, P

enns

ylva

nia.

(ML0

7131

0328

).

NR

C

0000

04

E.C

. 1.2

A

cade

my

of N

atur

al S

cien

ces o

f Phi

lade

lphi

a (A

NSP

). 20

05. 2

003

Sava

nnah

Riv

er B

iolo

gica

l Su

rvey

s for

Wes

tingh

ouse

Sav

anna

h R

iver

Com

pany

. Rep

ort N

o. F

04-0

6, P

atric

k C

ente

r for

En

viro

nmen

tal R

esea

rch,

Phi

lade

lphi

a, P

enns

ylva

nia.

(ML0

7131

0324

).

NR

C

0000

05

E.C

. 1.2

Th

e C

aten

a G

roup

. 200

7. F

resh

wat

er M

usse

l Sur

veys

, The

Sav

anna

h R

iver

from

Aug

usta

to

Sava

nnah

: Sou

th C

arol

ina

& G

eorg

ia. T

he C

aten

a G

roup

, Hill

sbor

ough

, Nor

th C

arol

ina.

(M

L081

4300

80).

Part

y

Exh.

#

Witn

ess/

Pa

nel

D

escr

iptio

n

NR

C

0000

06

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: M

arcy

Jr. B

.C.,

D.E

. Fle

tche

r, F.

D. M

artin

, M. P

alle

r, an

d M

.J.M

. Rei

cher

t. 20

05.

Fish

es o

f the

Mid

dle

Sava

nnah

Riv

er B

asin

. The

Uni

vers

ity o

f Geo

rgia

Pre

ss, A

then

s, G

eorg

ia. (

no

ML

#).

NR

C

0000

07

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: R

egul

ator

y G

uide

4.2

Rev

. 2, P

repa

ratio

n of

Env

ironm

enta

l Rep

orts

for N

ucle

ar

Pow

er S

tatio

ns (1

976)

. Ent

ire d

ocum

ent a

t: (M

L003

7395

19).

NR

C

0000

08

E.C

. 1.2

R

egul

ator

y G

uide

4.7

, Rev

. 2, G

ener

al S

ite S

uita

bilit

y C

riter

ia fo

r Nuc

lear

Pow

er S

tatio

ns (1

998)

. (M

L003

7398

94).

NR

C

0000

09

E.C

. 1.2

& 1

.3

NU

REG

-155

5 St

anda

rd R

evie

w P

lans

for E

nviro

nmen

tal R

evie

ws f

or N

ucle

ar P

ower

Pla

nts

(“ES

RP”

) (20

00) S

ectio

ns: 2

.4.1

; 2.4

.2; 5

.3.1

.2; 5

.3.2

.2; 9

.4.1

.

NR

C

0000

10

E.C

. 1.2

& 1

.3

NU

REG

-155

5 St

anda

rd R

evie

w P

lans

for E

nviro

nmen

tal R

evie

ws f

or N

ucle

ar P

ower

Pla

nts

(“ES

RP”

) Dra

ft R

ev. 1

(200

7) S

ectio

ns: 4

.7; 5

.3.1

.2; 9

.4.1

.

NR

C

0000

11

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: S

pech

t 198

7, C

ompr

ehen

sive

Coo

ling

Wat

er S

tudy

, Fin

al R

epor

t, V

olum

e V

, A

quat

ic E

colo

gy, S

avan

nah

Riv

er P

lant

, DP-

1739

-5. E

ntire

doc

umen

t at:

(ML0

7079

0356

).

NR

C

0000

12

E.C

. 1.2

Pa

ller M

.H.,

B.M

. Sau

l, an

d D

.V. O

stee

n. 1

986.

Dis

tribu

tion

and

Abu

ndan

ce o

f lch

thyo

plan

kton

in

the

Mid

-Rea

ches

of t

he S

avan

nah

Riv

er a

nd S

elec

ted

Trib

utar

ies.

Prim

ary

Rep

ort N

o. D

PST-

86-

798,

Env

ironm

enta

l and

Che

mic

al S

cien

ces,

Inc.

, Aik

en, S

outh

Car

olin

a. (M

L071

7100

43).

NR

C

0000

13

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: B

enne

tt D

.H. a

nd R

.W. M

cFar

lane

. 198

3. T

he F

ishe

s of t

he S

avan

nah

Riv

er P

lant

: N

atio

nal E

nviro

nmen

tal R

esea

rch

Park

. SR

O-N

ERP-

12. S

avan

nah

Riv

er E

colo

gy L

abor

ator

y, U

.S.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Ene

rgy,

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

. Ent

ire d

ocum

ent a

t: (M

L071

3103

21).

NR

C

0000

14

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: N

UR

EG -1

087

Fina

l Env

ironm

enta

l Sta

tem

ent R

elat

ed to

the

Ope

ratio

n of

Vog

tle

Elec

tric

Gen

erat

ing

Plan

t, U

nits

I an

d 2.

Doc

ket N

os. 5

0-42

4 an

d 50

-425

(198

5). E

ntire

Doc

umen

t at

: (M

L062

2105

06).

Part

y

Exh.

#

Witn

ess/

Pa

nel

D

escr

iptio

n

NR

C

0000

15

E.C

. 1.2

H

endr

icks

A.S

. 200

2. T

he C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Res

tora

tion

of th

e R

obus

t Red

hors

e, M

oxos

tom

a ro

bust

um. V

ol. 3

. Geo

rgia

Pow

er C

ompa

ny E

nviro

nmen

tal L

abor

ator

y, S

myr

na, G

eorg

ia.

(ML0

9007

0613

)

NR

C

0000

16

E.C

. 1.2

N

icho

ls M

. 200

3. C

onse

rvat

ion

Stra

tegy

for R

obus

t Red

hors

e (M

oxos

tom

a ro

bust

um)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Lab

orat

ory

Geo

rgia

Pow

er C

ompa

ny fo

r Rob

ust R

edho

rse

Con

serv

atio

n C

omm

ittee

, A

tlant

a, G

eorg

ia. (

ML0

9006

0104

).

NR

C

0000

17

E.C

. 1.2

& 1

.3

Exce

rpts

from

: Gra

bow

ski T

.B. a

nd J.

J. Is

ely.

200

6. "

Seas

onal

and

Die

l Mov

emen

ts a

nd H

abita

t U

se o

f Rob

ust R

edho

rses

in th

e Lo

wer

Sav

anna

h R

iver

, Geo

rgia

, and

Sou

th C

arol

ina.

" Tr

ansa

ctio

ns

of th

e A

mer

ican

Fis

herie

s Soc

iety

135

(5):1

145-

1155

. (N

o M

L#).

NR

C

0000

18

E.C

. 1.2

Le

tter f

rom

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Nat

iona

l Oce

anic

and

Atm

osph

eric

A

dmin

istra

tion,

Nat

iona

l Mar

ine

Fish

erie

s Ser

vice

from

Wal

t Wils

on, F

ishe

ries B

iolo

gist

, Pro

tect

ed

Res

ourc

es D

ivis

ion

to N

RC

Sta

ff, O

ctob

er 2

4, 2

006,

“En

dang

ered

and

Thr

eate

ned

Spec

ies a

nd

Crit

ical

Hab

itats

und

er th

e Ju

risdi

ctio

n of

the

NO

AA

Fis

herie

s Ser

vice

.” (M

L063

2001

27).

NR

C

0000

19

E.C

. 1.2

G

eorg

ia D

epar

tmen

t of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

(GD

NR

). 20

08. L

ocat

ions

of S

peci

al C

once

rn A

nim

als,

Plan

ts a

nd N

atur

al C

omm

uniti

es in

Bur

ke C

ount

y, G

eorg

ia. (

ML0

9006

0090

).

NR

C

0000

20

E.C

. 1.2

E-

Mai

l fro

m Je

nnife

r Pric

e, S

outh

Car

olin

a D

epar

tmen

t of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

, to

Reb

ekah

Krie

g,

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t Nat

iona

l Lab

orat

orie

s, Ju

ly 2

6, 2

007,

“Fe

dera

l Thr

eate

ned

and

Enda

nger

ed

Spec

ies i

n th

e V

icin

ity o

f Vog

tle E

lect

ric G

ener

atin

g Pl

ant.”

(ML0

7214

0872

).

NR

C

0000

21

E.C

. 1.2

So

uth

Car

olin

a, R

are,

Thr

eate

ned

,and

End

ange

red

Spec

ies I

nven

tory

; Spe

cies

Fou

nd in

Bar

nwel

l C

ount

y. (M

L090

0601

26).

NR

C

0000

22

E.C

. 1.2

& 1

.3

Exce

rpts

from

: Col

lins M

.R. a

nd T

.I.J.

Smith

. 199

7. "

Dis

tribu

tions

of S

hortn

ose

and

Atla

ntic

St

urge

on in

Sou

th C

arol

ina.

" Nor

th A

mer

ican

Jour

nal o

f Fis

herie

s Man

agem

ent,

17:9

95-1

000.

(No

ML#

).

Part

y

Exh.

#

Witn

ess/

Pa

nel

D

escr

iptio

n

NR

C

0000

23

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: H

alve

rson

et a

l. 19

97, S

avan

nah

Riv

er S

ite E

colo

gy E

nviro

nmen

tal I

nfor

mat

ion

Doc

umen

t. W

SRC

-TR

-97-

0223

, Wes

tingh

ouse

Sav

anna

h R

iver

Com

pany

, Was

hing

ton,

D.C

. (N

o M

L#).

NR

C

0000

24

E.C

. 1.2

C

ollin

s M.R

. and

T.I.

J. Sm

ith. 1

993.

"C

hara

cter

istic

s of t

he A

dult

Segm

ent o

f the

Sav

anna

h R

iver

Po

pula

tion

of S

hortn

ose

Stur

geon

." P

roce

edin

gs o

f the

Ann

ual C

onfe

renc

e of

Sou

thea

ster

n A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Fis

h an

d W

ildlif

e A

genc

ies 4

7:48

5-49

1. (M

L073

2407

26).

NR

C

0000

25

E.C

. 1.2

& 1

.3

Stat

us R

evie

w o

f Atla

ntic

Stu

rgeo

n (A

cipe

nser

oxy

rinch

us):

Prep

ared

by

the

Atla

ntic

Stu

rgeo

n St

atus

Rev

iew

Tea

m fo

r the

Nat

iona

l Mar

ine

Fish

erie

s Ser

vice

Nat

iona

l Oce

anic

and

Atm

osph

eric

A

dmin

istra

tion

Febr

uary

23,

200

7. U

pdat

ed w

ith c

orre

ctio

ns o

n Ju

ly 2

7, 2

007.

(ML0

8296

0581

).

NR

C

0000

26

E.C

. 1.2

G

raph

Sho

win

g W

ayne

sbor

o-Th

urm

ond

Dis

char

ge, D

ate

(1.2

2.05

- 10

.27.

08).

(ML0

8323

0089

) (B

lack

and

Whi

te C

opy.

No

ML#

for c

olor

cop

y).

NR

C

0000

27

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: F

reem

an, F

.C. a

nd P

. Mar

cine

k, 2

006.

"Fi

sh A

ssem

blag

e R

espo

nses

to W

ater

W

ithdr

awls

and

Wat

er S

uppl

y R

eser

voirs

in P

iedm

ont S

tream

s" E

nvi.

Man

agem

ent v

ol. 3

8, n

o. 3

pp

. 435

-450

. Ent

ire d

ocum

ent a

t: (M

L083

3803

92).

NR

C

0000

28

E.C

. 1.2

H

isto

ric S

avan

nah

Stre

amflo

w G

raph

from

USG

S ga

ge #

021

9700

0 at

Aug

usta

, GA

(~19

04-2

007)

. (M

L082

9706

93).

NR

C

0000

29

E.C

. 1.2

& 1

.3

Lette

r fro

m U

nite

d St

ates

Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, N

atio

nal O

cean

ic a

nd A

tmos

pher

ic

Adm

inis

tratio

n, N

atio

nal M

arin

e Fi

sher

ies S

ervi

ce fr

om R

oy E

. Cra

btre

e, P

h.D

., R

egio

nal

Adm

inis

trato

r to

Will

iam

Bur

ton,

dat

ed A

ugus

t 11,

200

8, “

A B

iolo

gica

l Ass

essm

ent f

or th

e Sh

ortn

ose

Stur

geon

for t

he V

ogtle

Ele

ctric

Gen

erat

ing

Plan

t Ear

ly S

ite P

erm

it A

pplic

atio

n.”

(M

L082

4804

50).

NR

C

0000

30

E.C

. 1.2

& 1

.3

Sout

hern

Nuc

lear

Ope

ratin

g C

ompa

ny, D

raft

Inte

rim R

epor

t of F

ish

Impi

ngem

ent a

nd E

ntra

inm

ent

Ass

essm

ent a

t the

Pla

nt V

ogtle

Ele

ctric

Gen

erat

ing

Plan

t, Se

ptem

ber 2

008.

(ML0

8283

0945

).

Part

y

Exh.

#

Witn

ess/

Pa

nel

D

escr

iptio

n

NR

C

0000

31

E.C

. 1.2

Le

tter f

rom

J. A

. "B

uzz"

Mill

er, S

enio

r Vic

e Pr

esid

ent,

Nuc

lear

Dev

elop

men

t, So

uthe

rn N

ucle

ar

Ope

ratin

g C

ompa

ny, I

nc. t

o N

RC

Sta

ff d

ated

May

27,

200

8 w

ith a

ttach

ed Im

ping

emen

t and

En

train

men

t Mon

itorin

g U

pdat

e at

Pla

nt V

ogtle

. (M

L081

5100

22).

NR

C

0000

32

E.C

. 1.2

N

ote-

to-F

ile: T

rip re

port

of M

arch

7-9

, 200

7, to

ur o

f VEG

P U

nits

1 a

nd 2

. (M

L070

7400

99).

NR

C

0000

33

E.C

. 1.2

N

ote-

to-f

ile:

Trip

repo

rt of

Oct

ober

14,

200

8. (M

L082

6201

84).

NR

C

0000

34

E.C

. 1.2

Pa

ller M

.H. 1

992.

The

Influ

ence

of S

avan

nah

Riv

er D

isch

arge

and

Cha

ngin

g Sa

vann

ah R

iver

Site

(S

RS)

Coo

ling

Wat

er R

equi

rem

ents

on

the

Pote

ntia

l Ent

rain

men

t of I

chth

yopl

ankt

on a

t the

SR

S Sa

vann

ah R

iver

Inta

kes.

WSR

C-R

P-92

-100

1, W

estin

ghou

se S

avan

nah

Riv

er C

o., A

iken

, Sou

th

Car

olin

a. (M

L071

2001

82).

NR

C

0000

35

E.C

. 1.2

& 1

.3

Exce

rpts

from

: U.S

. Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

"Nat

iona

l Pol

luta

nt D

isch

arge

Elim

inat

ion

Syst

em: R

egul

atio

ns A

ddre

ssin

g C

oolin

g W

ater

Inta

ke S

truct

ures

for N

ew F

acili

ties,"

66

Fed.

Reg

. 65

,256

. (D

ecem

ber 1

8, 2

001)

. (no

ML

#).

NR

C

0000

36

E.C

. 1.2

M

cFar

lane

R.W

., R

.F. F

riets

che

and

R.D

. Mira

cle.

197

8. Im

ping

emen

t and

Ent

rain

men

t of F

ishe

s at

the

Sava

nnah

Riv

er P

lant

. An

NPD

ES 3

16b

Dem

onst

ratio

n. D

P-14

94, E

.I. D

u Po

nt D

E N

emou

rs

and

Com

pany

, Sav

anna

h R

iver

Lab

orat

ory,

Aik

en, S

outh

Car

olin

a. (

ML0

7079

0211

).

NR

C

0000

37

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: N

UR

EG-1

437

Vol

. 1 &

2 G

ener

ic E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct S

tate

men

t for

Lic

ense

R

enew

al o

f Nuc

lear

Pla

nts,

Mai

n R

epor

t, Fi

nal R

epor

t. (1

996)

. Ent

ire D

ocum

ent:

(Vol

. 1

ML0

4069

0705

; Vol

. 2 M

L040

6907

38).

NR

C

0000

38

E.C

. 1.2

U

.S. A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs (U

SAC

E). 2

006.

Dro

ught

Con

tinge

ncy

Plan

Upd

ate:

Sav

anna

h R

iver

Bas

in. D

raft

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent a

nd F

indi

ng o

f No

Sign

ifica

nt Im

pact

. M

obile

/Sav

anna

h Pl

anni

ng C

ente

r, Sa

vann

ah D

istri

ct, U

.S. A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs.

(ML0

8323

0104

).

Part

y

Exh.

#

Witn

ess/

Pa

nel

D

escr

iptio

n

NR

C

0000

39

E.C

. 1.2

U

S A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs, S

avan

nah

Dis

trict

, Dra

ft En

viro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t and

Fin

ding

of

No

Sign

ifica

nt Im

pact

, Tem

pora

ry D

evia

tion

Dro

ught

Con

tinge

ncy

Plan

, Sav

anna

h R

iver

Bas

in,

Oct

ober

200

8. (M

L082

9605

88).

NR

C

0000

40

E.C

. 1.2

A

ucot

t, W

.R.,

S.R

.S. M

eado

ws,

and

G.G

. Pat

ters

on. 1

987.

Reg

iona

l Gro

und-

Wat

er D

isch

arge

to

Larg

e St

ream

s in

the

Upp

er C

oast

al P

lain

of S

outh

Car

olin

a an

d Pa

rts o

f Nor

th C

arol

ina

and

Geo

rgia

. Wat

er-R

esou

rces

Inve

stig

atio

ns R

epor

t 86-

4332

, U.S

. Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y, C

olum

bia,

So

uth

Car

olin

a. (M

L090

0607

59).

NR

C

0000

41

E.C

. 1.2

Fl

ow D

ata

from

Thu

rmon

d D

am D

isch

arge

and

USG

S G

auge

#02

1973

269

Nea

r Way

nesb

oro,

GA

. (M

L083

2403

62).

NR

C

0000

42

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

t fro

m: C

lark

e, J.

S. a

nd C

.T. W

est,

USG

S, G

roun

d-W

ater

Lev

els,

Pred

evel

opm

ent G

roun

d-W

ater

Flo

w, A

nd S

tream

-Aqu

ifer R

elat

ions

In T

he V

icin

ity O

f The

Sav

anna

h R

iver

Site

, Geo

rgia

A

nd S

outh

Car

olin

a. 1

997.

Ent

ire d

ocum

ent a

t: (M

L073

3309

61).

NR

C

0000

43

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

t fro

m: U

S G

loba

l Cha

nge

Res

earc

h Pr

ogra

m: T

he P

oten

tial C

onse

quen

ces o

f Clim

ate

Var

iabi

lity

and

Cha

nge

(200

0). (

ML0

9006

0226

).

NR

C

0000

44

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

t fro

m: I

nter

gove

rnm

enta

l Pan

el o

n C

limat

e C

hang

e: C

limat

e C

hang

e 20

07, S

ynth

esis

R

epor

t. (M

L090

0602

19).

NR

C

0000

45

E.C

. 1.2

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: N

UR

EG 1

437,

Sup

plem

ent 3

4-G

ener

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct S

tate

men

t for

Li

cens

es R

enew

al o

f Nuc

lear

Pla

nts,

Supp

lem

ent 3

4, R

egar

ding

Vog

tle E

lect

ric G

ener

atin

g Pl

ant,

Uni

ts I

and

2. D

raft

Rep

ort f

or C

omm

ent.

Entir

e do

cum

ent a

t: (M

L083

3803

25).

NR

C

0000

46

E.C

. 1.3

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: R

ichm

ond,

A.M

. and

B. K

ynar

d. 1

995.

"O

ntog

enet

ic B

ehav

ior o

f Sho

rtnos

e St

urge

on, A

cipe

nser

bre

viro

stru

m."

Cop

eia

1995

(1 ):

72-1

82. (

No

ML#

).

NR

C

0000

47

E.C

. 1.3

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: H

all J

.W.,

T.I.J

. Sm

ith, a

nd S

.D. L

ampr

echt

. 199

1. "

Mov

emen

ts a

nd H

abita

ts o

f Sh

ortn

ose

Stur

geon

, Aci

pens

er b

revi

rost

rum

, in

the

Sava

nnah

Riv

er."

Cop

eia

1991

(3):6

95-7

0. (

No

ML#

).

Part

y

Exh.

#

Witn

ess/

Pa

nel

D

escr

iptio

n

NR

C

0000

48

E.C

. 6.0

Ex

cerp

ts fr

om: U

S A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs, E

R-1

105-

2-10

0, P

lann

ing

Gui

danc

e N

oteb

ook

(200

0). E

ntire

doc

umen

t at:

(ML0

8352

0607

).

NR

C

0000

49

E.C

. 6.0

U

S A

rmy

Cor

ps o

f Eng

inee

rs, E

R-2

00-2

-2, P

roce

dure

s For

Impl

emen

ting

NEP

A (1

988)

. (M

L083

5108

21).

NR

C

0000

50

E.C

. 1.2

A

P100

0 D

CD

Rev

isio

ns 1

5 an

d 16

Val

ues:

Sum

mar

y of

Coo

ling

Syst

em F

low

Rat

e C

hang

es.

(ML0

9006

0290

).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

In the Matter of ) ) SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. ) Docket No. 52-011-ESP ) (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of “NRC Staff Initial Statement Of Position On Joint Intervenors’ Contentions EC 1.2, EC 1.3, and EC 6” together with Exhibit List, Attachments, and Exhibits NRC000001 through NRC000050 have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange this 9th day of January, 2009: Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: gpb@nrc.gov)

Administrative Judge Nicholas G. Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: ngt@nrc.gov)

Administrative Judge James Jackson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: jackson538@comcast.net)

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov)

Emily Krause Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: emily.krause@nrc.gov)

Office of the Secretary ATTN: Docketing and Service Mail Stop 0-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov)

- - - 2 -

Diane Curran, Esq. Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com)

Lawrence D. Sanders, Esq. Turner Environmental Law Clinic Emory University School of Law 1301 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30322 (E-mail: lsanders@law.emory.edu)

M. Stanford Blanton, Esq. Peter D. LeJeune, Esq. C. Grady Moore, III, Esq. Kenneth C. Hairston, Esq. Balch & Bingham LLP 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2014 (E-mail: sblanton@balch.com; plejeune@balch.com; kchairston@balch.com; gmoore@balch.com)

Moanica Caston, Esq. Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc. 40 Inverness Center Parkway P.O. Box 1295, Bin B-022 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295 (E-mail: mcaston@southernco.com) Copy provided by e-mail only

Steven P. Frantz, Esq. Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq. Mary Freeze Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (E-mail: sfrantz@morganlewis.com; ksutton@morganlewis.com; pbessette@morganlewis.com; mfreeze@morganlewis.com)

Jeffrey Stair, Esq. Georgia Public Service Commission 244 Washington Street Atlanta, GA 30334 (E-mail: jeffreys@psc.state.ga.us) Copy provided by e-mail only

/signed (electronically) by/ Patrick A. Moulding Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-2549 Patrick.Moulding@nrc.gov