ML032790470

North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Revision 0, Environmental Report, Table of Contents Through Section 2.8

ML032790470
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna, 05200008, PROJ0719
Issue date:	09/30/2003
From:	Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
To:	Office of New Reactors
References
+reviewedDominionESP, +reviewedmls
Download: ML032790470 (263)

Text

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report PART 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Contents Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-1 1.1 The Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-1 1.1.1 The Applicant and Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-2 1.1.2 Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-2 1.1.3 Reactor Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-2 1.1.4 Cooling System Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-3 1.1.5 Transmission System Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-3 1.1.6 Pre-Application Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-3 1.1.7 Construction Start Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-4 1.2 Status of Reviews, Approvals, and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1-6 Chapter 2 Environmental Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-1 2.1 Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-1 2.2 Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-6 2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-6 2.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-9 2.2.3 The Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-10 2.3 Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-20 2.3.1 Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-20 2.3.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-27 2.3.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-33 2.4 Ecology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-65 2.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-65 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-68 2.5 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-90 2.5.1 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-90 2.5.2 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-98 2.5.3 Historic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-105 2.5.4 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-108 2.6 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-147 2.6.1 Geological Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-147 2.6.2 Seismological Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-149 2.6.3 Geotechnical Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-151 2.6.4 Environmental Impact Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-152 3-i September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Contents 2.7 Meteorology and Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-170 2.7.1 General Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-170 2.7.2 Regional Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-172 2.7.3 Severe Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-173 2.7.4 Local Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-176 2.7.5 Short-Term Diffusion Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-180 2.7.6 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-181 2.8 Related Federal Project Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2-246 Chapter 3 Plant Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-1 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-2 3.1.1 Existing Site Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-2 3.1.2 Power Plant Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-2 3.1.3 Plant Parameters Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-4 3.1.4 Plant Appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-4 3.1.5 Site Development and Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-5 3.2 Reactor Power Conversion System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-37 3.2.1 Reactor Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-37 3.2.2 Engineered Safety Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-37 3.2.3 Power Conversion Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-38 3.3 Plant Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-39 3.3.1 Water Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-39 3.3.2 Water Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-40 3.4 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-47 3.4.1 Description and Operational Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-47 3.4.2 Component Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-51 3.5 Radioactive Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-65 3.5.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-65 3.5.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-66 3.5.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-66 3.6 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-68 3.6.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-68 3.6.2 Sanitary System Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-68 3.6.3 Other Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-69 3-ii September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Contents 3.7 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-70 3.7.1 Switchyard Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-70 3.7.2 Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-70 3.8 Transportation of Radioactive Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-72 3.8.1 Light-Water-Cooled Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-72 3.8.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-75 3.8.3 Methodology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3-82 Chapter 4 Environmental Impacts of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-1 4.1 Land-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-1 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-1 4.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-5 4.1.3 Historic Properties and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-6 4.2 Water-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-9 4.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-9 4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-11 4.3 Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-14 4.3.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-14 4.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-16 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-21 4.4.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-21 4.4.2 Social and Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-27 4.4.3 Environmental Justice Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-34 4.5 Radiation Exposure to Construction Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-36 4.5.1 Site Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-36 4.5.2 Radiation Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-36 4.5.3 Measured and Calculated Dose Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-36 4.5.4 Construction Worker Doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4-37 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction . . . . . . 3-4-42 Chapter 5 Environmental Impacts of Station Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-1 3-iii September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Contents 5.1 Land-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-2 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-2 5.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-3 5.1.3 Historic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-3 5.2 Water-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-4 5.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations and Plant Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-4 5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-8 5.3 Cooling System Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-19 5.3.1 Intake System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-19 5.3.2 Discharge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-39 5.3.3 Heat-Discharge System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-60 5.3.4 Impacts to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-65 5.4 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-98 5.4.1 Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-98 5.4.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-99 5.4.3 Impacts to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-100 5.4.4 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-100 5.5 Environmental Impact of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-114 5.5.1 Nonradioactive-Waste-System Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-114 5.5.2 Mixed Waste Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-116 5.5.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-119 5.6 Transmission System Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-121 5.6.1 Terrestial Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-121 5.6.2 Aquatic Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-123 5.6.3 Impacts to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-124 5.7 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-128 5.7.1 Light-Water-Cooled Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-128 5.7.2 Gas-cooled Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-129 5.7.3 Methodology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-136 5.8 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-146 5.8.1 Physical Impacts of Station Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-146 5.8.2 Social and Economic Impacts of Station Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-149 5.8.3 Environmental Justice Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-155 3-iv September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Contents 5.9 Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5-159 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation. . . . . . . . . 3-5-161 Chapter 6 Environmental Measurements and Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . 3-6-1 6.1 Thermal Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-1 6.1.1 Existing Thermal Monitoring Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-1 6.1.2 Pre-Application, Pre-Operational, and Operational Thermal Monitoring . . . 3-6-2 6.2 Radiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-6 6.2.1 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-6 6.2.2 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-6 6.2.3 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-7 6.2.4 Quality Assurance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-7 6.3 Hydrological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-10 6.3.1 Existing Hydrological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-10 6.3.2 Construction and Pre-Operational Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-10 6.3.3 Operational Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-11 6.4 Meteorological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-13 6.4.1 General Description - Onsite Meteorological Monitoring Program . . . . . . . 3-6-13 6.4.2 Instrument Calibration and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-16 6.4.3 Data Recording Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-16 6.4.4 Meteorological Data Analysis Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-17 6.4.5 Preoperational and Operational Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-17 6.5 Ecological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-21 6.5.1 Terrestial Ecology and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-21 6.5.2 Aquatic Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-23 6.6 Chemical Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-28 6.6.1 Pre-Application Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-28 6.6.2 Construction and Pre-Operational Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-29 6.6.3 Operational Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-30 6.7 Summary of Monitoring Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-38 6.7.1 Pre-Application Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-38 6.7.2 Construction and Pre-Operational Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-38 6.7.3 Operational Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6-38 3-v September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Contents Chapter 7 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-1 7.1 Design Basis Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-1 7.1.1 Selection of Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-1 7.1.2 Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-2 7.1.3 Source Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-3 7.1.4 Radiological Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-3 7.2 Severe Accidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-30 7.2.1 Applicability of Existing Generic Severe Accident Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-30 7.2.2 Evaluation of Potential Severe Accident Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-32 7.2.3 Evaluation of Economic Impacts of Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-36 7.2.4 Consideration of Commission Severe Accident Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-37 7.2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-38 7.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-40 7.4 Transportation Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7-41 Chapter 8 Need for Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8-1 Chapter 9 Alternatives to the Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-1 9.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-1 9.2 Energy Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-1 9.3 Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-1 9.3.1 Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-1 9.3.2 Region Of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-1 9.3.3 Identification of Candidate Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-2 9.3.4 Alternative Sites Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-6 9.4 Alternative Plant and Transmission Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-12 9.4.1 Heat Dissipation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-12 9.4.2 Circulating Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-20 9.4.3 Transmission Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9-23 Chapter 10 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-1 3-vi September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Contents 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-1 10.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts During Construction . . . . . . 3-10-1 10.1.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts During Operation . . . . . . . . . 3-10-2 10.1.3 Summary of Adverse Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-2 10.1.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-3 10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-18 10.2.1 Irreversible Environmental Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-18 10.2.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-20 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Human Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-22 10.3.1 Construction of New Units at ESP Site and Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . 3-10-22 10.3.2 Operation of the New Units and Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-23 10.3.3 Summary of Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-24 10.4 Benefit - Cost Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-26 3-vii September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Chapter 1 Introduction This Environmental Report (ER) is submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2) and 10 CFR Part 51 to support the application of Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC (Dominion) for an early site permit (ESP). The report provides information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sufficient to facilitate the preparation of an environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In preparing this ER, Dominion has relied on the NRCs guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, and reference material contained in NUREG-1437 and NUREG-1437, Supplement 7.

1.1 The Proposed Action This section provides a description of the proposed action, the applicant, site location, the plant facilities assumed for environmental analysis, and the applicants pre-application public involvement.

The proposed action is the issuance of an ESP approving a site (the ESP site) within the existing North Anna Power Station (NAPS) site as suitable for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of new nuclear power generation facilities (new units). The proposed action does not include any decision or approval to build the new units, which are matters that would be considered only upon the filing of an application for a combined license (COL).

The purpose and need for the proposed action is to allow the applicant, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion), to determine whether the ESP site is suitable for new units before incurring the substantial additional time and expense of designing and seeking approval to construct such facilities at the ESP site. This process allows early resolution of those safety and environmental issues relating to the ESP site, and facilitates subsequent utility decision making and NRC licensing.

While the actual construction and operation of new units is not currently proposed, this environmental report does analyze the environmental impacts that would result from the construction, operation, and decommissioning of new units at the ESP site. These impacts are analyzed in order to determine whether the ESP site is suitable for new units, and to resolve as many of those issues as is practicable.

Dominion has included a site redress plan as part of its application for an ESP. If an ESP application contains a site redress plan, the permit holder may perform certain activities described in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) without further authorization, provided that the environmental impact statement prepared by the NRC for the permit has concluded that the activities would not result in any significant environmental impact which cannot be redressed. The impacts of the activities described in 10 CFR 50.10(e) are addressed in this environmental report.

3-1-1 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 1.1.1 The Applicant and Owner Dominion is the applicant for the ESP addressed in this environmental report. Dominion is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc. (DRI).

The NAPS site, which encompasses the ESP site for which an ESP is sought, is owned by Virginia Electric & Power Company (Virginia Power) and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) as tenants in common. These companies also own all land outside the NAPS site boundary that forms Lake Anna, up to the expected high-water marks. Virginia Power is the licensed operator of the existing units, with control of the existing facilities and the authority to act as ODECs agent. Virginia Power is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of DRI, and supports this application.

If Dominion decides to proceed with the development of new units at the ESP site, it would first enter into and obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals of an agreement to purchase or lease the ESP site.

1.1.2 Site Location The ESP site is wholly within the confines of the NAPS site, which is located on a peninsula on the southern shore of Lake Anna, approximately 5 miles upstream of the North Anna Dam. Lake Anna, developed to supply cooling water for the power station, is approximately 17 miles long, with 272 miles of shoreline. The ESP site is located in Louisa County, Virginia, near the town of Mineral.

The NAPS site was originally intended for the construction of four nuclear units. The original Units 3 and 4 were abandoned after initial construction activities were terminated. These units were to be constructed adjacent to and west of the existing Units 1 and 2. The ESP site is in the same general location as the abandoned Units 3 and 4. The NAPS site is zoned as industrial.

Geographically, the ESP site is approximately 40 miles north-northwest of Richmond, Virginia; 36 miles east of Charlottesville, Virginia; and 22 miles southwest of Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Interstates 95 and 64 pass 16 miles to the east and 18 miles to the southwest of the ESP site, respectively. The portion of the NAPS site for which an ESP is sought is shown on Figure 1.1-1.

1.1.3 Reactor Information This ESP application is intended to demonstrate the suitability of the ESP site for construction and operation of up to two new units.

No specific plant design has been chosen for the ESP site. Instead, a set of bounding plant parameters has been developed to envelop future site development. This plant parameters envelope (PPE) is based on the addition of power generation from two distinct units, to be designated as North Anna Units 3 and 4. Each unit represents a portion of the total generation capacity to be added and would consist of one or more reactors or reactor modules. These multiple reactors or modules (the number of which may vary depending on the reactor type selected) would be grouped into distinct operating units. The total nuclear generating capacity to be added would 3-1-2 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report not exceed 4300 MWt per unit. Additional information regarding reactors addressed in the PPE is provided in Chapter 3.

1.1.4 Cooling System Information For normal plant cooling, a once-through system with cooling water supply from Lake Anna would be used for the new Unit 3, whereas closed-cycle cooling, potentially using cooling towers, would be used for Unit 4. The source of cooling tower makeup water for Unit 4 would be determined at a later time within Dominions future planning work and after a decision has been made to proceed with the new capacity.

Lake Anna is divided into two parts separated by earthen dikes. The North Anna Reservoir is the source of water for the existing units. The Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF) receives cooling water discharges from the existing units.

In the new once-through system, cooling water would be withdrawn from the North Anna Reservoir through a new intake structure located on a cove on the south shore of the lake, which was originally planned for the intake of the abandoned Units 3 and 4. This new structure would be adjacent to the existing units intake structure. All cooling system discharges for both the existing and new units including tower blowdown would be sent to the WHTF via a new outfall located at the head of the existing discharge canal.

Additional information on the cooling system is provided in Section 3.4.

1.1.5 Transmission System Information The NAPS site is interconnected with the regional power grid system via three 500 kV transmission lines and one 230 kV transmission line from the stations switchyard. Any two 500 kV transmission lines, together with the 230 kV transmission line, are expected to have sufficient capacity to carry the total output of the existing units and the new units. If Dominion decides to proceed with development of new units at the ESP site, a system study (load flow) modeling these lines with the new units power contribution would be performed at that time to confirm this conclusion. Additional information regarding the existing transmission system for the NAPS site is provided in Section 3.7.

1.1.6 Pre-Application Public Involvement Dominion has established and maintains a positive relationship with the local population, civic leaders, and state and local governmental authorities in the area surrounding the ESP site. In a public opinion survey conducted in 2000, 86 percent of the population living in Louisa County believed that the existing units were a positive feature for the county.

In addition, Dominion has conducted an outreach program to pro-actively inform the local population of its interest in the NAPS site for purposes of early site permitting. Communications and meetings with various groups have been an ongoing practice since March 2002, when Dominion representatives first met with the Louisa County Board of Supervisors and advised them of 3-1-3 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Dominions interest in early site permitting. Since that time, Dominion representatives have met with a variety of state and local authorities and other members of the public. Examples of interactions with stakeholders initiated by Dominion are listed below:

• July 2002 meeting with the Lake Anna Civic Association

• February 2003 meeting with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)

• February 2003 meeting with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management

• February 2003 meeting with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF)

• March 2003 meeting with the Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources

• March 2003 meeting with emergency preparedness coordinators representing counties surrounding the North Anna site

• March 2003 meeting with Louisa County Board of Supervisors

• April 2003 meeting with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR)

• May 2003 meeting with VDEQ, VDGIF, VDCR, Department of Historic Resources, Department of Health, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, and Department of Transportation

• Teleconferences with non-government environmental organizations, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation On April 1, 2003, the NRC held public meetings in the vicinity of the ESP site. The purpose of those meetings was to: 1) inform the public regarding elements of NRCs Part 52 regulations involving ESPs, and 2) advise the public of its opportunities to become involved in the licensing process.

Notices of those public meetings were provided in the Federal Register and in local newspapers.

1.1.7 Construction Start Date Because the ESP does not constitute a decision or approval to build new units, there is no date established for commencement of construction. Site preparation (pre-construction) activities authorized by 10 CFR 52.25 could be initiated after receipt of the ESP at any time during the 20-year permit term. It is estimated that such site preparation activities (pre-construction) would take between 12 to 18 months to complete. If a decision were made to build new units, construction of new units is estimated to occur over a 5 to 7-year period, presuming that the start of a second unit would lag that of the first by at least 12 months, commencing after NRC issuance of a COL.

Section 1.1 References None 3-1-4 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Lake Anna Unit 1 Containment Site Boundary5,000 Ft X

Unit 2 Containment Figure 1.1-1 ESP Site 3-1-5 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 1.2 Status of Reviews, Approvals, and Consultations No other approvals are required in connection with the ESP. Appropriate regulatory approvals of an agreement between Dominion and the current site owners would be necessary before Dominion conducts any site preparation activities. Consultations with other federal and state agencies in connection with the preparation of the environmental impact statement for this ESP application, including consultations under the Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act, will be necessary.

Numerous reviews, approvals and consultations would be required for the construction of the new units. Table 1.2-1 provides a list of the environmental-related authorizations, permits, and certifications potentially required by federal, state, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies for activities related to the construction and operation of any new units at the ESP site (Reference 1) (Reference 2) (Reference 3) (Reference 4).

The structure of the summary table is based primarily on NUREG-1555 guidance. Because the purpose of this application is limited to establishing the acceptability of the proposed site for future development, none of the applicable permits described are needed to support the application for or issuance of an ESP. Thus, the license and permit numbers and expiration dates do not yet exist.

3-1-6 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Section 1.2 References

1. NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan, Section 2 Status of Reviews, Approvals, and Consultations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1999.

2. NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 7, Section 1.5, Compliance and Consultations, and Appendix E, Virginia Electric and Power Companys Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence, USNRC, November 2002.

3. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), www.deq.state.va.us, February 12, 2003.

4. Lake Anna Special Area Plan, Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee, March 2000.

3-1-7 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 1.2-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations License/ Expira-Permit tion Agency Authority Requirement No. (a) Date (a) Activity Covered FAA 49 USC 1501 Construction Notice of erection of structures Notice (>200 feet) potentially impacting air navigation.

Lake Anna Conditional Land N/A N/A Local land use approval - Lake Special Area Use Approval Overlay District.

Plan Committee NRC Atomic Energy EIS N/A N/A Environmental effects of Act (AEA), construction and operation of a 10 CFR 51, reactor 10 CFR 52.17 NRC 10 CFR 52, Combined Combined construction permit Subpart C License and operating license for a nuclear power facility NRC 10 CFR 52, Early Site Permit Approval of the site for one or Subpart A more nuclear power facilities, and approval of limited construction as per 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)

NRC 10 CFR 30 By-product Approval to possess special License nuclear materials NRC 10 CFR 70 Special Nuclear Approval to possess fuel Materials License SCC Approval of the purchase or lease of the site SCC VA Code Approval for construction of 56-580D new generating facility USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 Disturbance or crossing wetland (CWA) Permit areas or navigable waters (individual, regional, general)

USACE Rivers and Section 10 Impacts to navigable waters of Harbors Act Permit the U.S.

USFWS Endangered Consultation N/A N/A Concurrence with no adverse Species Act regarding impact or consultation on potential to appropriate mitigation adversely impact measures protected species. Letter of Concurrence 3-1-8 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 1.2-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations License/ Expira-Permit tion Agency Authority Requirement No. (a) Date (a) Activity Covered USFWS Migratory Bird Federal or State Adverse impact on protected Treaty Act Permit species (e.g., eagles, ospreys) and/or their nests VDEQ 9 VAC 5-20-160 Registration. Annual re-certification of air emission sources.

VDEQ Federal Title V Operating Operation of air emission Clean Air Act Permit. sources.

Amendments (CAAA) Title V9 VAC 5-80-50 VDEQ 9 VAC 5-80-120 Minor Source - Construction and operation of General Permit. minor air emission sources.

VDEQ FWCA Virginia Pollutant Regulated limits of pollutants in 9 VAC 25-10 Discharge liquid discharge to surface Elimination water System Permit (VPDES).

VDEQ FWCA General Permit General permit to discharge 9 VAC 25-150 Registration storm water from site during Statement for operations storm water discharges from industrial activity (VAR5).

VDEQ FWCA General Permit Termination of coverage under 9 VAC 25-180 NOT for storm the general permit for storm water discharges water discharge associated with from industrial operational site activities activity (VAR5).

VDEQ Federal Clean General Permit Termination of coverage under Water Act Notice of the general permit for storm 9 VAC 25-180 Termination water discharge from (NOT) for storm construction site activities water discharges from construction activities (VAR4).

VDEQ 9 VAC 25-210 Virginia Water Permit to dredge, fill, discharge Protection pollutants into or adjacent to Permit surface water. Joint application (Individual or with USACE Section 404 General) permit.

3-1-9 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 1.2-1 Federal, State, and Local Authorizations License/ Expira-Permit tion Agency Authority Requirement No. (a) Date (a) Activity Covered VDEQ Federal Clean Section 401 Compliance with water quality Water Act Certification standards.

VDEQ Federal Clean Surface Water Permit to draw water from Lake Water Act Withdrawal Anna (unless otherwise (FWCA) Permit regulated by State Water 9 VAC 25-220 Control Board)

VDEQ Coastal Zone Consistency N/A N/A Compliance with Virginia Management determination. Coastal Program.

Act, Section 307.

VDEQ Virginia Coastal Consistency N/A N/A Compliance with Virginia Resources determination Coastal Program.

Management Program VDEQ Federal Clean General Permit General permit to discharge Water Act Registration storm water from site during 9 VAC 25-180 Statement for construction storm water discharges from construction activities (VAR10).

VDHR National Historic Cultural N/A N/A Confirm site does not contain Preservation Resources protected historic/cultural Act, 36 CFR 800 Survey/Review resources VMRC 9 VAC 25-210 VMRC Permit Permit to fill submerged land.

Joint application with USACE Section 404 permit.

N/A - Not applicable (A license or permit is not required at the ESP stage)

a. The information does not currently exist. Licenses and permits would be applied for and received at the appropriate time, which may not be until the COL phase.

3-1-10 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Chapter 2 Environmental Description Chapter 2 describes the existing environmental conditions for the ESP site (see Section 1.1). The environmental description provides sufficient detail to identify those environmental resources that have the potential to be impacted by the construction, operation, or decommissioning of the new units. The environmental description, where referenced, includes the following definitions:

• NAPS site - the property within the NAPS site boundary, or fence line, including the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB).

• ESP site - the property within the NAPS site intended for the construction and operation of new units

• Vicinity - the area within a 6-mile radius of the ESP site.

• Region - the area within a 50-mile radius of the ESP site.

The environmental description is segregated into the following discrete elements as outlined in NUREG-1555:

• Land

• Water

• Ecology

• Socioeconomics

• Geology

• Meteorology and air quality

• Related federal project activities 2.1 Site Location The ESP site is contained within the NAPS site. The location for the new units would be confined to the plant envelope area see Figure 2.1-1. The eastern boundary of the ESP site is approximately 570 feet west of the center of the existing Unit 1 containment building. Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for the ESP plant envelope are not provided.

The ESP site is located in rural Louisa County in the northeastern portion of Virginia, approximately 7 miles east of the town of Mineral, Virginia, which had a population of 424 according to the 2000 census survey. The site is at the end of State Route 700 on a peninsula of the southern shore of Lake Anna. The earth dam that creates Lake Anna is about 5 miles southeast of the site. The North Anna River flows southeasterly, joining the South Anna River to form the Pamunkey River about 27 miles southeast of the site. Figure 2.1-2 shows the general location of the ESP site and localities surrounding the site within 10 miles.

3-2-1 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Regionally, as shown in Figure 2.1-3, the site is about 40 miles north-northwest of Richmond, Virginia; 36 miles east of Charlottesville, Virginia; and 22 miles southwest of Fredericksburg, Virginia. Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1 (parallel to I-95), the two principal highways joining Richmond with the rest of the eastern corridor, pass within 15 and 16 miles, respectively, east of the site.

Section 2.1 References None 3-2-2 Revision 0 September 2003

Figure 2.1-1 North Anna ESP Site Boundaries North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-3 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

601 W E S

652 719 Pamunkey Creek Arm 208 5-Mi 601 l e 522 LAKE NORTH ANNA 719 ANNA STATE POWER STATION PARK 614 s

le R adiu 10-Mi 208 k

Cre e

ary 652 Con 623 tr 601 Site Boundary (Exclusion Area) La or N ke t h e ast C 522 700 208 An na k ree MINERAL 618 614 N orth n

652 An a 701 R i ver 618 601 522 618 701 LEGEND Lake Anna 0 1 2 Miles Waste Heat Treatment Facility Utility\Vir Power\Grfx\2-1 North Anna 10 MILE Vicinity.ai Figure 2.1-2 10 Mile North Anna Vicinity Map 3-2-4 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

T Manassas W EE Warrenton VIRGINIA S

(522 Morrisville 17 Culpeper NORTH ANNA POWER STATION 29 Fredericksburg us (522 Line 57 i l e Radi 3 510-M 208 South Anna NUG Mineral Line 575 95 Lin Louisa 95 e2 NoLadysmith 55 rth Charlottesville Sou 652 Ann 208 tSh a Au nt Line 576 o

Ri Ma 250 R ver ttapo hnaA nn 301 n

a r (15 Rr i ver iR i ve ive 33

/( 1 P am unke yR 360 r

64 4 ive 95 Richmond 60 Midlothian Midlothian 64 95 5

LEGEND 360 Transmission Lines 10 0 10 20 Kilomet ers Substations 10 0 10 20 Mil es Railroad Lines Utility\Vir Power\North Anna\Grfx\2-2 N Anna 50 Mile.ai Figure 2.1-3 North Anna Power Station 50 Mile View 3-2-5 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.2 Land This section describes the land characteristics of the areas within the ESP site (and where appropriate, the NAPS site) that are identified in this ESP application. This description was used as a baseline to assess the potential impacts on land uses that would result from the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the new units. This section is further segregated into three subsections: 1) site and vicinity, 2) transmission corridors and offsite areas, and 3) the region.

These subsections include spatial considerations (e.g., region, vicinity, and site) as well as the nature and extent of current land uses and planned future land uses, where applicable, as referenced.

2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity The ESP site is within the existing boundaries of the NAPS site, with the new units to be sited adjacent to the existing Units 1 and 2. The ESP site is situated on a peninsula of Lake Annas southern shore at the end of State Route 700 (see Figure 2.1-2). Geographically, the ESP site is located within the central Piedmont Plateau of Virginia. The topography of the NAPS site is characterized as a gently undulating surface that varies from 60 m (200 ft) to 150 m (500 ft) above mean sea level (msl). Forests primarily of pine and hardwoods cover the majority of the peninsula on which NAPS is sited.

Regionally, the ESP site is approximately 40 miles north-northwest of Richmond, Virginia; 36 miles east of Charlottesville, Virginia; 22 miles southwest of Fredericksburg, Virginia, and 70 miles southwest of Washington, D.C. Interstates 95 and 64 pass within 16 miles to the east and 18 miles to the south of the ESP site, respectively (see Figure 2.1-3).

2.2.1.1 Site Description The ESP site is located in Louisa County in northeastern Virginia. Virginia Power and ODEC own, and Virginia Power controls, all of the land within the NAPS site boundary, both above and beneath water surfaces, including those portions of the North Anna Reservoir and WHTF, that lie within the site boundary. Both companies also own all the land outside the NAPS site boundary that forms Lake Anna, up to their expected high-water marks (i.e., Elevation 255 feet above msl). Virginia Power purchased and owns a total of 18,643 acres of rural land (approximately 80 percent forested) for the original development of NAPS, including the land for Lake Anna; the earthen dams, dikes, railroad spur, roads and bridges; and miscellaneous other structures and facilities.

Virginia Power also owns and operates the North Anna Hydroelectric Project, an 855 kW-capacity hydroelectric power plant at the base of the North Anna Dam.

Lake Anna, a man-made reservoir, was created in 1971 by erecting a dam on the main stem of the North Anna River. The lake is approximately 27 km (17 miles) long with 435 km (272 miles) of irregular shoreline and approximately 3900 ha (9600 acres) of water surface. Lake Anna was created primarily as a source of cooling water for the power station, although it has become a 3-2-6 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report popular recreation area. The dam provides downstream flood control. Lake Anna is not used as a source of potable or industrial water.

Virginia Power has granted easements to landowners abutting Lake Anna (including the WHTF) who request permission to use Virginia Power property for the erection of docks, jetties, or other recreational structures for access to the lake waters. These structures require a re-approval by Virginia Power with each property ownership transaction, and all permissions are expressly revocable. Public boaters have access to the lake, and private boaters have access to the WHTF.

No public or commercial highways, railroads, transmission corridors (other than those owned and operated by Virginia Power), or major waterways traverse the ESP site. Ingress and egress from the ESP site is primarily through a Virginia Power-owned and maintained access road off State Route 700.

The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy maintains maps of Louisa County showing mines that are currently active or that are known to have commercial value. The maps indicate no mines with commercial value (i.e., either metallic or non-metallic) exist within or adjacent to the ESP site.

The primary land cover on the NAPS site is pine and pine-hardwood mixed forest (70 percent).

Portions of the NAPS site are used for facility activities (20 percent) and as cleared areas (10 percent). Facility uses include electricity generation, maintenance and distribution facilities, warehouses, training and administration buildings, lagoons and settling basin, parking lots, roads, a railroad line, information center, and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).

Cleared areas include the landscaped grounds, open areas, lay down areas, three historic cemeteries, security weapons range, and the John Goode Recreation Area, a recreation and picnic area for use by employees of DRI and its subsidiaries only (see Figure 2.2-1).

2.2.1.2 The Vicinity There are no communities in the vicinity of the ESP site. The nearest largest community is the town of Mineral, Virginia, (2000 Census population of 424) located in Louisa County, 7 miles west of the site. The town of Louisa (2000 population of 1401) is approximately 12 miles west of the ESP site.

Lake Anna State Park lies 5 miles northwest of the NAPS site and provides public facilities for picnicking, fishing, boat launching, swimming, and biking (see Figure 2.1-2 and Figure 2.1-3).

The Commonwealth of Virginia mandates that cities and counties have comprehensive land use plans, and all three counties surrounding the Lake (Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania) have such plans. Figure 2.2-2 and Figure 2.2-3 show land use classifications in Louisa and Spotsylvania counties for the NAPS site and vicinity. Table 2.2-2 shows a breakdown of land use, type, and area in those counties.

The predominant land use in Louisa County, and a major contributor to the Louisa economy, is forestry, which uses approximately 68 percent of the countys land area. Most of the forested land is 3-2-7 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report privately owned. Agricultural lands occupy 23.5 percent and water resources occupy about 3 percent of land. Developed land occupies 6 percent and residential development predominates with 5.5 percent.

Louisa county experienced a 25 percent population growth (i.e., approximately 5100 additional people) between 1990 and 2000. However, there has been little industrial growth. Residential land use increased from 1.8 percent in 1979 to 5.5 percent by 2000. The county has prepared over 50 industrial sites for development. Many have access to various combinations of rail, gas, water, and sewer. Louisa County has recently updated its Comprehensive Plan (Reference 1), which defines nine goals for future development in the county. These goals include preserving the rural character of Louisa County through designation of growth centers to accommodate future growth in a manner consistent with maintaining the rural heritage of the county and a healthy, diverse economy, as well as providing job opportunities for Louisa County citizens.

Spotsylvania County, which consists of forests and agriculture, is fast-growing because of its proximity to Washington, D.C. and northern Virginia. Spotsylvania County has also recently updated its Comprehensive Plan (Reference 2) to define several development goals that allow for the maintenance of the historic, agricultural, and forested character of the county, while recognizing the need to sustain residential and business growth and community services for the benefit of county residents.

In Orange County to the northwest, 95 percent of the land consists of forests and agriculture and is beginning to be impacted by development.

Recreational and retirement development has grown substantially in the immediate vicinity of Lake Anna. Land between the many embayments remains privately held. Lake Anna has influenced land use development in Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania counties. Residential development of mid-to-upscale homes characterizes development around the lake. Prior to 1998, the three counties did not coordinate land use planning activities in the Lake Anna watershed. In 1998, however, a committee was formed to examine the watershed and to develop a plan that enables the counties to coordinate their efforts to address growth and protect the Lake Anna region.

The final Lake Anna Special Area Plan was issued in March 2000 (Reference 3). Several major findings resulted from the Special Area Plan Committees examination. These include:

• Development patterns of sprawl threaten the rural character, the environment, and the existing quality of life in the Lake Anna watershed

• Responsibility for on-going review of environmental conditions in the watershed is unclear.

• The environmental database necessary for responsible and informed decision-making is not available.

3-2-8 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report The Committee developed priority recommendations to address the major findings. These included:

• Create a Lake Anna Watershed Overlay District in all three counties with a charter to maintain the rural character of the area by implementing a cooperative, coordinated, consistent watershed program for Lake Anna.

• Charge the Lake Anna Advisory Committee to track progress toward meeting plan goals and to prepare and submit annual reports on progress made.

• Develop monitoring programs for both tributaries and the lake that address levels of heavy metals, nutrients and other pollutants and help to identify reductions strategies for fecal contamination.

2.2.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas NAPS has three 500-kV transmission lines and one 230-kV transmission line leaving the site from the switchyard. Each transmission line occupies a separate right-of-way. The rights-of-way range in width from 37 to 84 meters (120 to 275 feet) and in length from 24 to 66 km (15 to 41 miles),

covering a total of approximately 1174 hectares (2900 acres) (Reference 4). The rights-of-way extend from NAPS to the north, south, east, and west, terminating in Morrisville, Midlothian, Ladysmith, and at the South Anna non-utility generator, respectively Figure 2.2-4.

The NAPS transmission corridors were constructed between 1973 and 1984. The corridors pass through land use categories typical of north-central Virginia, such as row crops, pastures, forests, and abandoned (old) fields. In addition, the transmission corridors pass through more natural habitat types, such as hardwood and pine-hardwood forests, bottomland hardwood forests, and shrub boggs. No areas designated by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or VDEQ as critical habitat for endangered species exist at the ESP site or along or adjacent to associated transmission line. In addition, the transmission corridors do not cross any state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, or wildlife management areas. Physical features (e.g., length, width, and route) of each of the transmission lines associated with NAPS are described in Table 2.2-1.

Corridors in timberlands and in the vicinity of road crossings are maintained by Virginia Power on a 3-year cycle by mowing or, if inaccessible to mowers, by use of nonrestricted-use herbicides. In other areas (e.g., wetlands, dense vegetation), hand-cutting treatments are used. (Reference 5)

Vegetation treatments have been developed in cooperation with the VDCR Natural Heritage Program. Areas of rare and sensitive plant species are identified and avoided, or modified treatment practices are used to avoid adverse impacts. In addition, wildlife food plots and Christmas tree plantations are located along the corridors and supported through cost sharing by Virginia Power. (Reference 4)

Virginia Power allows landowners, hunting clubs, and conservation organizations to establish wildlife food plots, Christmas tree plantations (not to exceed a height of 15 feet), gardens, athletic 3-2-9 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report and park facilities, and drain fields under transmission lines. Land uses not permitted under the transmission lines include permanent structures (i.e., houses and barns), trash and brush stockpiling, wells, septic systems, and ATV trails. (Reference 5)

Based on an initial evaluation, any two 500 kV transmission lines, together with the 230 kV transmission line to have sufficient capacity to carry the total output of the existing units and the new units. If Dominion decides to proceed with development of new units at the ESP site, a system study (load flow) modeling these lines with the new units power contribution would be performed, to confirm this conclusion. Additional information regarding the existing transmission system for NAPS is provided in Section 3.7.

2.2.3 The Region The region, defined as 50 miles beyond the ESP site boundary, includes all or portions of the following counties in Virginia: Amelia, Albemarle, Buckingham, Caroline, Chesterfield, Culpeper, Cumberland, Essex, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Hanover, Henrico, King and Queen, King George, King William, Louisa, Madison, New Kent, Orange, Page, Powhatan, Prince William, Rappahannock, Richmond, Rockingham, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Westmoreland. The region also includes a portion of Charles County in Maryland.

Major waterways, highways, roads, railroads, and other transportation routes in the region are shown in Figure 2.1-2 and Figure 2.1-3. There are two major airports within the region, Richmond International Airport and Charlottesville-Albemarle County Airport, approximately 45 miles southeast and 40 miles west of the ESP site, respectively. There are three smaller airports within 15 miles of the ESP site; Lake Anna Airport (Bumpass, VA), Louisa County Airport and Cub Field, 7 miles south-southwest, 11 miles west-southwest, and 10 miles southwest of the ESP site, respectively.

Fourteen counties in the eastern part of the region (i.e., Caroline, Chesterfield, Essex, Hanover, Henrico, King and Queen, King George, King William, New Kent, Prince William, Richmond, Stafford, Spotsylvania, Westmoreland) are within the VDEQ designated Chesapeake Bay Coastal Zone Management Area.

The following federally designated special land use classified areas exist within the region; George Washington Birthplace National Monument, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, Thomas Stone National Historic Site, Richmond National Battlefield, Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site, Shenandoah National Park, Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge, and Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge. There are no national forests, wilderness areas or wild and scenic rivers within the region. There are several Virginia state parks within the region. The closest, Lake Anna State Park, is approximately 5 miles northwest of the ESP site.

There are no Native American tribal land use plans for areas within the region. The closest reservations, the Mattaponi and Pamunkey, are outside of the ESP site region.

3-2-10 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Land use within the region varies with distance from major population centers and high use transportation corridors. The metropolitan areas of Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Charlottesville, and the transportation corridors associated with Interstates 95 and 64 contain the highest density of residential, commercial, and industrial land use. As detailed in Section 2.2.1, land use in the immediate vicinity of ESP site and the areas outside the noted metropolitan areas and transportation corridors remains primarily in forestry and agriculture. A survey of land use development plans (i.e., comprehensive county plans) for the counties immediately adjacent to the ESP site indicate a primary goal of striking a balance between maintaining the historic rural character of the area with the recognized need for limited residential growth and business development. (Reference 1) (Reference 2)

The primary land use classifications for the region are representative of those noted for the Commonwealth of Virginia as a whole. The region, comprising about 20 percent of the total area of Virginia, encompasses four main land use classes: to the north are mainly urban areas surrounding Washington D.C. and cropland; to the east is primarily cropland; to the south is a mixture of cropland and pasture; and to the west is a mixture of forests and pasture. (Reference 6)

(Reference 7)

Forests dominate Virginia, covering approximately 55.6 percent of the states total land area (Table 2.2-3). The second most prevalent land use in Virginia is agriculture, covering 25.9 percent of the total land area. Cropland accounts for 2903 square miles, about 7.1 percent of the total area; pasture and hay production account for 6845.3 square miles, or about 16.8 percent of the state's land. Urban areas comprise 6029 square miles of land area, approximately 14.8 percent; and inland waters account for the remaining 3.7 percent.

In 2000, the four principal crops in Virginia in terms of acreage harvested, were hay (1,320,000 acres), soybeans (490,000 acres), corn (330,000 acres), and winter wheat (205,000 acres). The four principal livestock and products in Virginia for 2000, in terms of cash receipts, were broiler chickens ($441,320,000), cattle and calves ($307,862,000), wholesale milk

($278,832,000), and turkeys ($237,941,000) (Reference 11). In 2001, the four principal crops in Charles County Maryland in terms of total production were corn for grain (909,00 bushels), tobacco (450,000 bushels), soybeans (446,000 bushels), and wheat (169,000 bushels) (Reference 9).

Section 2.2 References

1. Comprehensive Plan, Louisa County Department of Planning/Zoning, County of Louisa, Virginia, September 4, 2001.

2. 2002 Comprehensive Plan, Spotsylvania County Planning Department, Spotsylvania County, Virginia, February 12, 2002.

3. Lake Anna Special Area Plan, Special Area Plan Committee, March 2000.

3-2-11 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

4. Final Supplement 7 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) Regarding License Renewal for the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, November 2002.

5. Transmission Lines-Right-of-Way Encroachments, Informational Bulletin, Department of Forestry, Dominion Energy, 2003.

6. Virginia County Data, Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 Census Data, www.nass.usda.gov/va/page1.htm and www.nass.usda.gov/va/vpage2.htm (accessed July 10, 2003).

7. 1997 Census of Agriculture Volume 1: Part 46, Chapter 1, Virginia State-Level Data, Maps, United States Department of Agricultural, www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/va-46/va1maps.pdf (accessed July 10, 2003).

8. Land Use Classifications for Louisa County, Virginia (Site and Vicinity), Louisa County Department of Planning/Zoning, Louisa County (Virginia), 2002.

9. Charles County 2001 Agricultural Profile, Charles County Agricultural Statistics www.nass.usda.gov/md/charles.pdf (accessed July 10, 2003).

10. Land Use Classifications for Spotsylvania County, Virginia (Site and Vicinity), Spotsylvania County Planning Department, Spotsylvania County (Virginia), 2002.

11. Virginia Agriculture - Facts and Figures, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VCACS), 2000. www.vdacs.state.va.us/agfacts/index.html (accessed January 27, 2003).

12. Water Quality Assessment Report, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ),

2002, 2002 305(b), Table 2.1-2, Virginia Statewide Land Use Summary.

3-2-12 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.2-1 North Anna Transmission Rights-of-Waya Area Hectares Construction Length Width (acres) Date Substation kV km (mi.) Direction m (ft.) (acres) Date Morrisville 500 53 (33) N 72 (235) 366 (905) 1973 Midlothianb 500 66 (41) S 72 (235) 469 (1160) 1979 Ladysmith 500 24 (15) E 84 (275) 192 (475) 1976 South Anna 230 50 (31) W 30-37 (100-120) 146 (360) 1984 Total 193 (120) 1174 (2900)

a. Source: Reference 4, Table 2-1

b. The transmission line to Midlothian Substation runs an additional 26 km (16 mi.) in a shared right-of-way with a non-North Anna line.

3-2-13 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.2-2 Land Use in Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania Countiesa County and Percent Land Use Hectares Acres of Total Louisa County Residential 7,322 17,655 5.0 Agriculture 31,979 79,019 23.5 Forest 92,474 228,500 68.0 Water 3,994 9,868 3.0 Otherb 649 1,605 0.5 Total Louisa 136,418 336,646 100.0c Orange County Developed Landd 4,597 11,360 5.0 Agriculture 34,021 84,064 37.0 Forest 53,330 131,776 58.0 Water N/Ae N/A N/A Total Orange 91,948 227,200 100.0c Spotsylvania County Residential 22,793 56,320 22.0 Developed Landf 3,108 7,680 3.0 Agriculture 18,649 46,080 18.0 Forest 53,874 133,120 52.0 Other 5,180 12,800 5.0 Total Spotsylvania 103,604 256,000 100.0

a. Source: Reference 4, Table 2-9.

b. Includes commercial and industrial lands.

c. Numbers have been adjusted to achieve a total of 100 percent.

d. Developed land is defined to include residential, commercial, industrial, and public use.

e. N/A - Not available

f. Developed land is defined to include industrial and commercial.

3-2-14 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.2-3 Virginia Statewide Land Use Summarya Square Miles Percent Land Use (hectares) of Total Commercial Forest 20,059 49.2 (5,195,154)

National Forests 2,550 6.4 (660,447)

Total Forested Land 22,609 55.6 (5,855,601)

Cropland 2,903 7.1 (751,977)

Pasture/Hay 6,845 16.8 (1,772,925)

Other 828 2.0 (214,477)

Total Agricultural Land 10,577 25.9 (2,739,379)

Other (Including Urban) 6,029 14.8 (1,561,530)

Inland Waters 1,526 3.7 (395,336) 40, 741 100.0 Total Area (10,551,845)

a. Source: Reference 12, Table 2.1-2 3-2-15 Revision 0 September 2003

N Lake Anna W E X

X S X

X X X

X X

X Boat Buoys X

X X

X X Met Tower

1. 3 X X X X X X X X X d

Yar X X X

ldg X

itch X

bin eB Unit 1 Tur Sw X

X X

X X Discharge Discharge X

X Structure Structure Unit 2 X X Training X X Bldg X

X X X

X X X

1. 2 X

Service Water X X X

X Reservoir Microwave Disc X

Tower #6 Units 1 and 2 Service Water Reservoir harg

1. 4 e Ca nal e

eh ous War X X X X X North Anna Independent Nuclear Spent Fuel Information Storage Center Installation Floating Boom and LEGEND Boat Buoys ke Di Groundwater well locations Waste Heat #1 Treatment Facility Railroad (WHTF)

X X Fence Utility\Grfx\ 2-3 N Anna Site Plan.ai Figure 2.2-1 Existing NAPS Site Detail Map North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-16 September 2003

Figure 2.2-2 Land Use Classifications for Louisa County, Virginia (Site and Vicinity)

Source: Reference 8 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-17 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Figure 2.2-3 Land Use Classifications for Spotsylvania County, Virginia (Site and Vicinity)

Source: Reference 10 3-2-18 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

T Manassas W EE Warrenton VIRGINIA S

(522 Morrisville 17 Culpeper NORTH ANNA POWER STATION 29 Fredericksburg Fredericksburg uss (522 Line 57 iillee RRaaddiiu 3

M 51100--M 208 South Anna NUG Mineral Line 575 95 Lin Louisa 95 e2 NoLadysmith 55 rth Charlottesville Sou 652 Ann 208 tSh a Au nt Line 576 o

Ri Ma 250 R ver ttapo hnaA nn 301 n

a r (15 Rr i ver iR i ve ive 33

/( 1 P am unke yR 360 r

64 4 ive 95 Richmond Richmond 60 Midlothian Midlothian 64 95 5

LEGEND 360 Transmission Lines 10 0 10 20 Kilomet ers Substations 10 0 10 20 Mil es Railroad Lines Utility\Vir Power\North Anna\Grfx\2-2 N Anna 50 Mile.ai Figure 2.2-4 Existing Transmission Line Corridors 3-2-19 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.3 Water This section includes site-specific and regional descriptions of the hydrology, water use, and water quality conditions that could affect, or be affected by, the construction, operation, or decommissioning of new units at the ESP site. The site-specific and regional surface water and groundwater information establishes the baseline hydrologic conditions against which to assess potential construction or operational impacts and the adequacy of related monitoring programs. The potential construction and operational impacts to water resources are discussed in Chapter 4, and Chapter 5, respectively. Monitoring programs are presented in Chapter 6.

2.3.1 Hydrology This section describes surface water bodies and groundwater aquifers that could affect the plant water supply, or that could be affected by the construction or operation of new units at the ESP site.

The site-specific and regional data on the physical and hydrological characteristics of surface water and groundwater are summarized to provide the basic data for an evaluation of impacts on water bodies, aquifers, aquatic ecosystems, and social and economic structures of the area.

The following descriptions are based on a review of the NAPS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (Reference 1) and the Environmental Report Supplement (Reference 2), unless otherwise noted. The information has been verified and updated using current hydrologic databases.

2.3.1.1 Surface Water The ESP site is located on the southern shore of Lake Anna adjacent to the existing units and approximately 8 km (5 miles) upstream of the North Anna Dam. Lake Anna was created by constructing a dam across the North Anna River as part of the overall development of the NAPS site. The North Anna Reservoir currently serves as the water source for the existing units, which use a once-through cooling system to dissipate heat from the turbine condensers. New Unit 3 would use once-through cooling, wherein cooling water is withdrawn from the North Anna Reservoir, circulated through condensers, and returned to the North Anna Reservoir via the WHTF.

New Unit 4 would use a closed-cycle cooling water system and mechanical or natural draft cooling towers for heat dissipation. Cooling tower make-up water necessary to replace the water lost to evaporation would be obtained from the North Anna Reservoir and supplemented, as necessary, from an outside source to maintain acceptable lake levels. Cooling tower blowdown would be discharged to the WHTF. Therefore, Lake Anna is the primary surface water body that could affect plant water supply, or be affected by the construction and operation of new units at the ESP site.

The North Anna River rises in the eastern slopes of the Southwestern Mountains in the Appalachian Range near Gordonsville, Virginia, and flows along a southeasterly course to its confluence with the South Anna River 5 miles northeast of Ashland, Virginia, where the Pamunkey River is formed. The Pamunkey continues on a general southeasterly course to West Point, Virginia, where it is joined by 3-2-20 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report the Mattaponi River to form the York River. The York River flows into the Chesapeake Bay about 15 miles north of Hampton, Virginia. The North Anna River drains a watershed of 343 square miles above the dam, which is located about 4 miles north of Bumpass, Virginia, and about 0.5 mile upstream of Virginia Route 601.

As shown in Figure 2.3-1, Lake Anna is about 17 miles long and inundates several small tributaries, thereby resulting in an irregular shape with a shoreline length of approximately 272 miles. To provide optimum thermal performance for the existing units, Lake Anna is separated into two sections by three dikes. The larger section of about 9600 acres, termed the North Anna Reservoir, is a storage impoundment for plant cooling water. The smaller section, the WHTF, has an area of about 3400 acres and functions as a heat exchanger to transfer most of the existing units heat rejection to the atmosphere.

The elevation-volume curves for the North Anna Reservoir and the WHTF are provided in Figure 2.3-2. When both existing units are operating, eight circulating water pumps draw water from the North Anna Reservoir at a rate of 4246 cubic feet per second (cfs), circulate it through the condensers, and discharge it to the WHTF. Water moves through the three lagoons of the WHTF and back into the North Anna Reservoir at Dike 3 (Figure 2.3-1).

The North Anna Dam is an earth-filled structure about 5000 feet long and 90 feet high, with a central concrete spillway about 200 feet long. The dam crest is at Elevation 265 ft msl and has a width of 30 feet. The concrete spillway contains three radial crest gates, each 40 feet wide by 35 feet high, separated by concrete piers 10 feet wide. The discharge capacity of each of the three main gates is shown in Figure 2.3-4. The crest of the spillway ogee is at Elevation 219 ft msl. Two adjustable skimmer gates are provided for regulating small releases. The discharge capacity of each of the skimmer gates, which measure 8.5 feet by 8.5 feet, is shown in Figure 2.3-5. A concrete apron downstream from the spillway provides energy dissipation for releases from the North Anna Dam.

The North Anna Dam also incorporates at its base a small hydroelectric power plant of 855-kW capacity owned and operated by Virginia Power. The hydroelectric facility consists of two separate generating units (Units 5A and 5B), each unit possessing a single-state, open runner-type vertical turbine. Peak operational efficiency is at a flow of 40 cfs for Unit 5A and 133 cfs for Unit 5B. Water for the hydroelectric facility is withdrawn from near the surface of Lake Anna (depth of less than 7 feet). It comes through a skimmer gate and associated sluice pipe that is connected to a 5-foot diameter penstock. Water is then directed by a bifurcation piece through 24- and 48-inch conduits to Units 5A and 5B, respectively. After passing through the turbines, water is discharged into the North Anna River just downstream of the dams spillway. (Reference 3)

The normal pool level for the North Anna Reservoir is maintained at Elevation 250 ft msl. The Commonwealth of Virginia requires a minimum discharge of 40 cfs from the North Anna Dam, except under drought conditions. These minimum flow requirements are established to maintain 3-2-21 Revision 1 October 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report instream flows and water quality in the North Anna River below the dam, and in the Pamunkey and York Rivers further downstream. Should drought conditions occur and the Lake Anna water surface elevations fall below 248 ft msl, Virginia Power may reduce releases below 40 cfs in accordance with the Lake Level Contingency Plan as stipulated in Part I.F of the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit (Reference 4). A flood surcharge of 15 feet above the normal pool level is provided for flood storage. The total Lake Anna volume of 550,000 acre-feet is allocated as described in Table 2.3-1.

Table 2.3-1 Lake Anna Storage Allocation Volume Purpose (acre-feet)

Minimum recreational pool and inactive storage below 246 ft msl 255,000 Conservation and active storage, 246 to 250 ft msl 50,000 Flood control storage, 250 to 265 ft msl 245,000 Total storage 550,000 Streamflows have been gauged at various locations in the North Anna River watershed. Table 2.3-2 summarizes the stream gauge site numbers, names, drainage areas, and periods of record, while Table 2.3-8 provides the associated monthly streamflow statistics. Figure 2.3-6 indicates the locations of the stream gauging stations. Inflows to Lake Anna have been gauged at Pamunkey Creek at Lahore, Virginia, and Contrary Creek, Near Mineral, Virginia. The Pamunkey Creek station gauges a drainage area of 40.5 square miles, while the Contrary Creek station gauges a drainage area of 5.53 square miles. Inflows from the remaining 297 square miles of the 343-square mile Lake Anna catchment are not gauged. Outflows from Lake Anna have been measured on the North Anna River near Partlow, Virginia, which is located just downstream of the dam at the Virginia Route 601 bridge. The drainage area at this stream gauge is 344 square miles. Additional stream gauging stations are located further downstream on the North Anna River near Doswell, Virginia, and at Hart Corner Near Doswell, Virginia.

3-2-22 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.3-2 USGS Stream Gauge Data Drainage Area Site (square Period of Number Name Location miles) Record Source 01670180 Pamunkey Creek at Latitude 38°11'33", 40.5 1989-08-25 (Reference 5)

Lahore, VA Longitude 77°58'09" 1993-07-19 01670300 Contrary Creek Near Latitude 38°03'53", 5.53 1975-10-01 (Reference 6)

Mineral, VA Longitude 77°52'45" 1987-01-09 01670400 North Anna River Near Latitude 38°00'46", 344 1978-10-01 (Reference 7)

Partlow, Virginia Longitude 77°42'05" 1995-10-09 01671000 North Anna River Near Latitude 37°53'15", 441 1929-04-01 (Reference 8)

Doswell, VA Longitude 77°29'15" 1988-09-30 01671020 North Anna River at Hart Latitude 37°51'00", 463 1979-10-01 (Reference 9)

Corner Near Doswell, VA Longitude 77°25'41" 2001-09-30 01673000 Pamunkey River Near Latitude 37°46'03", 1081 1941-10-01 (Reference 10)

Hanover, VA Longitude 77°19'57" 2001-09-30 Lake Anna water levels have been recorded since the existing units were placed into operation.

The available record begins in August 1978 and continues to be recorded for each day. Table 2.3-3 summarizes the water level elevation statistics. Section 5.2.2 describes the historical variations in the Lake Anna water level and the dependability of the impoundment in more detail. That section also describes the net losses due to evaporation, including the forced evaporation associated with the existing units and the new units. Section 2.4.1.8 describes the wetlands located within the ESP site. Part 2: Section 2.4.3 provides the design basis flood elevation for Lake Anna.

Table 2.3-3 Monthly Water Level Statistics for Lake Anna, August 1978 through March 2003 (ft msl)

Statistic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec N 22 23 24 22 21 23 24 25 22 23 24 24 Min 247.42 247.36 247.15 247.30 247.67 247.21 246.66 245.87 245.57 245.21 246.29 247.46 Mean 249.79 249.89 249.95 249.91 249.88 249.77 249.59 249.43 249.12 248.97 249.14 249.49 Max 250.25 250.39 250.30 250.21 250.15 250.12 250.12 250.06 250.11 250.10 250.13 250.31 N = number of monthly observations (months with incomplete daily data excluded)

Min = minimum monthly value Mean = average monthly value Max = maximum monthly value 3-2-23 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report The hydrodynamic characteristics of Lake Anna are discussed in Section 5.3.1.1. Section 5.3.2.1 provides information on the temperature distribution, stratification, and seasonal variation of density-induced currents.

2.3.1.2 Groundwater Aquifers The ESP site lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Three types of groundwater aquifers are present within the consolidated rocks of the Piedmont, along with a surficial aquifer system in the overlying unconsolidated sediments. The three consolidated-rock aquifers consist of:

1) crystalline and undifferentiated sedimentary rocks, 2) carbonate rocks, and 3) early Mesozoic age rift-basin sedimentary and igneous rocks. The unconsolidated sediments are likely to consist of residual soil, saprolite (bedrock that has been weathered to a soil but that retains the rock structure), or alluvial deposits along stream channels. Although crystalline rocks form the predominant aquifers in the Piedmont Province, carbonate rocks, which are primarily found in the portion of the Piedmont that extends from Maryland northward, form the most productive aquifers.

(Reference 11)

Recharge to aquifers in the Piedmont aquifers occurs largely as infiltration of local precipitation in interstream areas. That portion of the precipitation that does not migrate laterally through the unconsolidated surficial materials for discharge to nearby streams or low areas percolates vertically downward to the bedrock, where it enters water-bearing openings in the rock. (Reference 11) The average recharge to aquifers from precipitation in the Virginia Piedmont is estimated to be about 8 to 10 inches per year (Reference 12) (Reference 13). Although an intricate network of rivers and streams that follow a dendritic drainage pattern generally dissects the Piedmont Province, some of the drainage (or portions thereof) follow nearly straight courses that are controlled by joint or fault systems in the underlying bedrock. Those streams passing through the area from other geologic provinces provide a secondary source of recharge to the groundwater. The Piedmont Province of Virginia is estimated to have as much as 1.5 billion gallons of water per square mile held in storage in the consolidated and unconsolidated aquifers. This volume of water is considered suitable for domestic and other small supply requirements. (Reference 13)

In the area around the ESP site, the bedrock consists of Precambrian to Paleozoic age crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks, while the overlying unconsolidated material is largely a weathering product (residual soil or saprolite) of the underlying bedrock. Groundwater in the crystalline rocks is stored and transmitted through joints and fractures in the rocks, while the main body of the rock between the joints and fractures is essentially impermeable. The number and extent of the joints/fractures, and the width of the openings between their surfaces, generally decrease with depth, thus limiting the significance of the water-transmitting capability of the bedrock to its upper few hundred feet. (Reference 14)

Saprolite at the ESP site is generally exposed at the ground surface or underlies a thin layer of residual soil or fill. The saprolite extends to the top of the rock from which it was derived; however, 3-2-24 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report the contact between the saprolite and sound rock may be gradational and not well defined (Reference 1). The saprolite is reported to range in thickness from about 2 to 125 feet and is of variable lithology, depending on the type of parent material from which it was derived (Reference 15). Borings drilled at the ESP site as part of the ESP subsurface investigation program penetrated saprolite to depths ranging from about 6 to 35 feet (Part 2: Appendix 2.5.4 B). The saprolite penetrated by these borings is classified as a micaceous, silty-clayey, fine-to-coarse sand or sandy silt, with occasional rock fragments.

Bedrock beneath the saprolite belongs to the Ta River Metamorphic Suite. In the site area, these rocks are predominantly biotite gneiss and schist with smaller amounts of amphibolite gneiss.

(Reference 16) The results of borings at the ESP site indicate the main rock type to be gneiss. The gneiss is generally described as quartz gneiss with some biotite quartz gneiss; and quartz gneiss, biotite quartz gneiss, and hornblende gneiss. The rock exhibits a variable weathering profile and joint/fracture presence. The degree of jointing and fracturing is the controlling factor for groundwater movement through the rock.

Groundwater at the ESP site occurs in unconfined conditions in both the saprolite and underlying bedrock. The results of previous investigations at the NAPS site indicate that a hydrologic connection exists between the saprolite and the bedrock. (Reference 17) This condition has been confirmed as part of the ESP subsurface investigation program (Part 2: Appendix 2.5.4B) by the presence of nearly equal water level elevations recorded in 2 observation wells (OW-845 and OW-846, Table 2.3-2) installed adjacent to each other and sealed in the bedrock and saprolite, respectively. At the ESP site, the water table is considered to be a subdued reflection of the ground surface and, therefore, the direction of groundwater movement is toward areas of lower elevations (Reference 17). Measurements made between December 2002 and June 2003 in observation wells at the ESP site exhibit water level elevations ranging from about Elevation 241 ft msl to Elevation 311 ft msl, with corresponding ground surface elevations of about Elevation 283 ft msl and Elevation 335 ft msl, respectively (Table 2.3-9). The measurements shown in Table 2.3-9 represent three quarterly rounds of groundwater level measurements taken at the ESP site to characterize seasonal variability in the water levels. Figure 2.3-7 presents hydrographs based on the water levels provided in this table for the nine observation wells (OW-841 through OW-849 on Figure 2.3-8) installed as part of the ESP subsurface investigation program. The other wells that were monitored (P- and WP-) were previously installed to monitor groundwater beneath the Service Water Reservoir (SWR) and the ISFSI, respectively.

A piezometric head contour map (Figure 2.3-8), prepared using the water levels measured in March 2003 (Table 2.3-9), indicates that groundwater flow is generally to the north and east, toward Lake Anna (). Freshwater Creek and Elk Creek, both of which flow to Lake Anna, form hydrologic boundaries to the west and south of the site, respectively (Reference 18). Because the water levels in the observation wells are generally above the top of the well screen, the water level elevation represents the piezometric head. An evaluation of the piezometric head contours shown on 3-2-25 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Figure 2.3-8 indicates a hydraulic gradient toward Lake Anna of about 3 feet per 100 feet. This gradient compares with an initial hydraulic gradient estimated for the NAPS site before the filling of Lake Anna of 8 feet per 100 feet (Reference 15). Prior to the filling of Lake Anna, it was estimated that a gradient of 6 feet per 100 feet would develop following the filling of the lake (Reference 1).

Prior to construction of the existing units, it was predicted that the filling of Lake Anna would raise the base level of groundwater discharge about 50 feet. It was estimated that this would result in a small rise in the water table where it intersects the surface of the impoundment area. Beyond this zone of intersection, however, it was estimated that the filling of the lake would have only a minor effect on the water table, and that the water table in the area of the existing units would essentially remain unchanged. (Reference 15) More recent evidence of the connection between Lake Anna and the surrounding groundwater regime is contained in the Lake Anna Special Area Plan (Reference 19). This Plan indicates that average well yields are higher in areas adjacent to the lake than in other areas of the Lake Anna watershed which are, in turn, slightly higher than in other areas of Louisa County. It was concluded that these higher yields are likely due to the presence of the lake, which enhances groundwater recharge.

The nine groundwater observation wells installed at the site as part of the ESP subsurface investigation program were tested using the slug test method to determine hydraulic conductivity values for the saprolite and underlying shallow bedrock (Part 2: Appendix 2.5.4 B). Hydraulic conductivities calculated for the saprolite, based on tests in eight of the wells, range from about 0.2 to 3.4 feet per day, with a geometric mean value of 1.3 feet per day. The hydraulic conductivity of the shallow bedrock, as determined from the tests in one of the wells, is estimated to be about 2 to 3 feet per day, although the results of the test are of limited value due to the short duration of stable water level recovery measurements. Table 2.3-10 summarizes the available hydraulic conductivity data.

Laboratory tests performed on samples of saprolite from the site indicate a bulk density for this material of 125 to 130 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Bulk densities for the bedrock range from 145 pcf for highly to moderately weathered rock to 163 pcf for moderately weathered to fresh rock.

Laboratory tests to determine moisture contents of saprolite samples indicate an average moisture content of about 26 percent, while the moisture content in the vadose zone ranges from about 11 to 40 percent with an average of about 22 percent. Using the average moisture content of 26 percent and a value of 2.68 for the specific gravity of the saprolite (Reference 1), the void ratio of the saprolite is estimated to be about 0.7. A total porosity of about 41 percent is estimated from this void ratio and an effective porosity of about 33 percent is estimated based on 80 percent of the total porosity. The specific yield of the saprolite was not determined; however, an estimate of this value taken from published literature for materials of similar composition indicates that it may be in the range of 0.30 to 0.33 (Reference 20).

Based on the estimated hydraulic gradient, hydraulic conductivity, and effective porosity indicated above, groundwater beneath the ESP site is expected to flow toward Lake Anna at a rate of about 3-2-26 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 0.12 feet per day. Using a distance of approximately 1800 feet from the center of the proposed overall plant footprint for the new units to the closest point along the shoreline of Lake Anna, the groundwater travel time from the ESP site to Lake Anna is estimated to be about 40 years.

No aquifers in the Piedmont Province of Virginia have been designated as sole source by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Reference 21). The aquifer (designated as sole source) nearest the ESP site is about 120 miles to the southeast, at the southern end of the Delmarva Peninsula in Accomack and North Hampton Counties, Virginia, within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. An area southeast of the site has been designated as the Eastern Virginia Ground Water Management Area by the VDEQ. Groundwater withdrawal in this area is permitted based on need and an evaluation by the VDEQ of the impacts of proposed withdrawals. The area, comprised of several counties or portions thereof in southeastern Virginia, lies entirely within the Coastal Plain Province. (Reference 22) 2.3.2 Water Use This section describes surface water and groundwater uses that could affect or be affected by the construction, operation, or decommissioning of new units at the ESP site. Included are descriptions of the types of consumptive and non-consumptive water uses, identification of their locations, and quantification of water withdrawals and returns. Plant water use is described in Section 3.3.

2.3.2.1 Surface Water The surface water bodies that are within the hydrologic system in which the ESP site is located and that may affect or be affected by the construction, operation, or decommissioning of new units include Lake Anna and associated downstream surface water bodies. These downstream surface water bodies include the North Anna River from below the North Anna Dam to its confluence with the South Anna River where the Pamunkey River is formed, the Pamunkey River to its confluence with the Mattaponi River where the York River is formed, the York River estuary to the Chesapeake Bay, and the Chesapeake Bay. Figure 2.3-9 illustrates these surface water bodies.

Consumptive surface water users within this hydrologic system have been identified from the water use database maintained by VDEQ (Reference 24), which includes users whose average daily withdrawal during any single month exceeds 10,000 gallons per day (gpd). Users include the existing units, Bear Island Paper Company, the Doswell Water Treatment Plant, and St. Laurent Paper Products Corporation. Figure 2.3-10 identifies the locations of these surface water withdrawals. Table 2.3-4 identifies the water use and the water body from which withdrawals are made, while Table 2.3-5 summarizes the monthly withdrawal rates. These data indicate that withdrawal of water by the existing units from the North Anna Reservoir for cooling purposes represents the single largest consumptive use in the affected hydrologic system. Virtually all of the water withdrawn from the North Anna Reservoir portion of Lake Anna is returned to the reservoir via 3-2-27 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report the WHTF (Reference 1). A portion of the returned water is lost to the atmosphere by evaporation as discussed in Section 5.2.2.

Table 2.3-4 Consumptive Surface Water Users in the Affected Hydrologic Systema Facility Water Use Water Body NAPS Unit 1 Cooling Lake Anna NAPS Unit 2 Cooling Lake Anna Bear Island Paper, Ashland Plant Manufacturing North Anna River Doswell Water Treatment Plant Municipal water system North Anna River St. Laurent Paper, West Point Plant Manufacturing Pamunkey River

a. (Reference 24)

No known future surface water withdrawals from the affected hydrologic system are planned for Louisa County, even though the county population and water supply demand is projected to increase (Reference 25). The surface water sources, such as Northeast Creek Reservoir and Lake Gordonsville, that are anticipated to supply the future demand are located outside the Lake Anna watershed and the affected hydrologic system.

Surface water bodies within a 10-km (6.2-mile) radius of the ESP site include Lake Anna and some of its tributaries, as illustrated on Figure 2.3-10. Non-consumptive water use of these surface water bodies is primarily recreational. Public use of the North Anna Reservoir includes fishing, boating, swimming, and water skiing. Public access is provided via Lake Anna State Park, which is on the Spotsylvania County side of the Lake. In the mid-1990s total park attendance peaked, reaching 180,000 visitors in 1997. In 1998, attendance decreased to about 142,500 visitors, with the beach area being the destination for about 20% of the park visitors. Access to the WHTF is limited to adjacent property owners. Recreational use of Lake Anna is seasonal with higher usage rates in the summer months. Future non-consumptive water use of the lake is expected to continue to be primarily recreational at usage rates comparable to current levels. (Reference 26)

The Commonwealth of Virginias Surface Water Management Act of 1989 and associated regulations (9 VAC 25-220-10 et seq.) impose legal restrictions on surface water withdrawals where surface water resources have a history of low flow conditions that threaten important in-stream and off-stream uses. The purposes of these regulations are to maintain surface water flow at minimum levels during periods of drought, ensure assimilation of treated wastewater, and support of aquatic and other water-dependent wildlife. In an area designated by the State Water Control Board as a surface water management area, water withdrawals of 300,000 gallons per month or more are required to have a surface water withdrawal permit. Permits and certificates must include a conservation plan that is activated during low-flow surface water conditions. As of October 2001, 3-2-28 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.3-5 Consumptive Surface Water Use Statistics for the Affected Hydrologic Systema Bear Island St. Laurent Doswell c Paper, Ashland Paper, West Water Treatment Month NAPS Unit 1 NAPS Unit 2 Plant Point Plantb, c Plant (Millions of Gallons)

January 24,930 24,833 8.02 - -

February 20,555 22,645 24.32 - -

March 21,869 20,445 8.15 - -

April 26,665 21,845 14.15 - -

May 33,653 36,947 8.36 - -

June 37,693 39,465 19.70 - -

July 41,975 41,975 40.78 - -

August 41,713 41,749 35.33 - -

September 32,319 31,303 29.63 - -

October 32,974 34,136 22.92 - -

November 30,818 29,278 31.53 - -

December 27,573 26,954 12.33 - -

Annual 372,737 371,576 252.22 - -

Dailyd 1,021 1,018 0.70 - 4.0e

a. Reference 24 numeric data represent mean values for the 1996-2001 period.

b. Listed in the VDEQ water use database, but no withdrawals reported in the 1996-2001 period.

c. Data not available.

d. Million gallons per day.

e. Rated capacity.

the Virginia State Water Control Board had not designated any surface water management areas in the state (Reference 27).

2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use Groundwater for use at and in the vicinity of the ESP site is obtained from springs and wells in either the saprolite or underlying crystalline bedrock. Most wells completed in the saprolite have been excavated either by hand digging or augering. These wells are susceptible to becoming dry due to seasonal fluctuations in the water table. Drilled wells generally extend through the saprolite to depths of up to several hundred feet in the underlying bedrock. These wells are cased from the 3-2-29 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report ground surface to the top of bedrock. (Reference 25) The production of groundwater in the vicinity of the ESP site is generally not sufficient to satisfy large water demands because of the relatively low yield of the aquifers, as discussed in Section 2.3.1.2. The majority of groundwater development in the area is for domestic and agricultural use, with some public, light industrial and commercial use (Reference 28).

The following sections discuss groundwater use in the vicinity of the ESP site and by the existing units. Aquifers designated by the EPA as sole source are discussed with respect to the ESP site in Section 2.3.1.2.

2.3.2.2.1 Local Use There are no known users of large quantities of groundwater within 25 miles of the ESP site (Reference 1). The vast majority of wells in the area yield less than 50 gallons per minute (gpm)

(Reference 25). Based on the presence of Lake Anna and the hydrologic boundary it presents to groundwater movement north and east of the ESP site, further discussion of groundwater use in the vicinity of the ESP site is limited to Louisa County.

Every 5 years, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) compiles national water-use estimates and publishes a report containing the results of this effort. Data from the latest available report, for the year 1995, are provided on the USGS web site for Virginia, by county or independent city (Reference 29). The following groundwater withdrawal estimates for Louisa County, in millions of gallons per day (mgpd), are provided by withdrawal category:

• Public water supply = 0.18 mgpd

• Domestic water supply = 1.45 mgpd

• Commercial/Industrial water supply = 0.10 mgpd

• Thermoelectric power water supply = 0.02 mgpd

• Agricultural water supply = 0.05 mgpd VDEQ requires that any groundwater user in Virginia whose average daily withdrawal during any single month exceeds 10,000 gpd provide a report by January 31 of each year stating the water withdrawal and use data for the previous year. The only exceptions to this regulation are agricultural users who have slightly modified requirements based on their location, withdrawal, or withdrawal facility. (Reference 24) For the year 2001, no withdrawals were reported for Louisa County that meet or exceed this threshold.

A study previously performed for Louisa County included the compilation and evaluation of records of wells permitted by the Louisa County Health Department. (Reference 25) These records addressed 2155 drilled wells and 1743 dug or augered (bored) wells. The majority of the drilled wells serve single-family residences. The locations of the wells are currently referenced only to county tax maps.

3-2-30 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report The average yield of all wells in Louisa County is estimated to be about 14.5 gpm. However, the average yield of public wells is estimated to be about 42 gpm. The public water supply wells have an average depth of nearly 300 feet, and almost all are less than about 400 feet deep. The residential wells are generally only 100 to 200 feet deep. The Louisa County and previous studies in the Piedmont Province suggest that yields from individual wells in this area can vary greatly over distances as small as 100 feet. (Reference 25)

There are 29 public water supplies in Louisa County that obtain their water from springs or wells.

Data describing these public water supplies are presented in Table 2.3-11. The public supplies closest to the existing units are Lake Anna Plaza, about 2.6 miles to the northwest, and Jerdone Island, about 4.3 miles to the south-southeast. Based on their distance from the ESP site and the presence of one or more arms of Lake Anna between the site and these public water supplies, any impact the new units may have on the aquifers beneath the site is not expected to affect these supplies. Likewise, withdrawal by these public supplies is not expected to affect the ability of the new units to withdraw groundwater for potable water needs.

Private water wells provide about 80 percent of the domestic water supply to residents of Louisa County (Reference 30). The residential water supply well nearest the existing units is located about one mile to the south-southeast in Lot 32 of the Aspen Hill subdivision. Based on its distance from the ESP site and the presence of Sedges Creek between the site and this well, any impact the new units may have on the aquifers beneath the ESP site would not affect the domestic water supply provided by this well. Likewise, withdrawal by the well would not affect the ability of the new units to withdraw groundwater for potable water needs.

Population growth projections for Louisa County by the year 2015 range from about 32,000 to 46,000. Such growth would result in an estimated public water supply demand of between 2.8 and 4.1 mgpd for an average day and between 4.5 and 6.6 mgpd on a peak day. This water supply demand is expected to be satisfied largely by the use of surface water sources such as Northeast Creek Reservoir and Lake Gordonsville. However, these sources are expected to be supplemented by groundwater supply where available. To meet projected water demands beyond the year 2015, a large groundwater supply may need to be considered in conjunction with the development of alternative surface water sources. (Reference 25) 2.3.2.2.2 On-Site Use Groundwater withdrawal for use by the existing units is accomplished from 4 water supply wells permitted for public use by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH). These 4 wells (Nos. 2, 3A, 4

[new], and 6) comprise a single water supply system at the site. A 5th well (No. 4 [old]) is no longer used as part of this system, but is available for emergency purposes only. A separately permitted well (NANIC) provides the water supply for the North Anna Nuclear Information Center. A new well was constructed at the site in 2003 to support an increase in water demand at the security training building. The proposed location of this well was evaluated by the VDH prior to its construction. The 3-2-31 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report locations of these wells are shown on Figure 2.3-11 and the wells are described in Table 2.3-6. Four small wells not requiring permits at the NAPS site provide minor additional water for plant use (Reference 3). The locations of these 4 wells are not well documented. One of the wells is likely to be the well used to supply the Metrology laboratory and its location is shown on Figure 2.3-11. A second well is located at the security training building in the vicinity of the newly constructed well described above.

Table 2.3-6 North Anna Power Station Water Supply Wells Depth Measured Well (ft) Yield (gpd) Water Treatment No. 2 a, b 385 12,960 Chlorination (normally not in use)

No. 3A a, b 185 74,880 No. 4 (new) a, b 305 63,360 No. 6 a, b 375 79,200 No. 4 (old) a, b (not used) 200 77,760 NA a, c NANIC 260 106,560 Calcite filtration Security Training Building d d d

a. Reference 25

b. Reference 31

c. Reference 32

d. Information not available.

The 4 active wells comprising the primary groundwater supply system for the new units have individual capacities ranging from 9 to 55 gpm and a total capacity of 160 gpm. However, these 4 wells are permitted for a total design capacity of only 53,040 gpd or about 37 gpm. This capacity is currently dictated by the available storage tank capacity at the site. The NANIC well has a measured capacity of 74 gpm (106,560 gpd) but a design capacity of 19,600 gpd. (Reference 31)

(Reference 32)

As a condition of the well permits, Virginia Power is required to submit to the VDEQ by January 31 of every year an annual report of water withdrawals for the previous year. Table 2.3-12 shows the monthly withdrawal quantities that were reported for the year ending December 31, 2002. It can be determined from this table that the 4 primary wells withdrew a combined average of almost 14 gpm for the year, and that the NANIC well withdrew an average of a little over 1 gpm. The highest total monthly withdrawal in 2002 for the 5 wells averaged almost 38 gpm in January. The highest reported monthly withdrawal average was 41 gpm in March 1994 (Reference 3). The four wells not requiring permits are also not required to report their withdrawals, but based on their small size and 3-2-32 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report limited use they are not expected to add more than 1 or 2 gpm to the average withdrawal by the permitted wells (Reference 3).

Any groundwater supply required by the new units would likely come from an increase in the storage capacity for the existing wells or from drilling additional wells. In either event, additional groundwater withdrawal by the new units is not expected to impact any offsite wells due to: 1) their distance from the site, 2) the direction of the hydraulic gradient toward Lake Anna and the lakes recharge effect, and 3) the existence of hydrologic divides between the ESP site and the offsite wells.

2.3.3 Water Quality This section describes the water quality characteristics of surface water bodies and groundwater aquifers that could affect plant water use and effluent disposal, or be affected by the construction, operation, or decommissioning of new units at the ESP site. Site-specific and regional data on the physical, chemical, and biological water quality characteristics of surface water and groundwater are summarized to provide the basic data for evaluating water quality impacts on water bodies, aquifers, aquatic ecosystems, and water use.

2.3.3.1 Surface Water As described in Section 2.3.1, it is anticipated that the first new unit would utilize once-through cooling, wherein cooling water is withdrawn from Lake Anna, circulated through condensers, and returned to the WHTF. It is anticipated that a second new unit would use a closed-cooling water system and mechanical or natural draft cooling towers for heat dissipation. Cooling tower make-up water to replace water lost to evaporation would be obtained from Lake Anna and supplemented, as necessary, from an outside source to maintain acceptable lake levels. Cooling tower blowdown would be discharged to the WHTF. Therefore, Lake Anna is the primary surface water body that could affect plant water use and effluent disposal, or be affected by the construction and operation of new units at the ESP site.

An extensive set of water temperature data for Lake Anna has been collected in accordance with the VPDES monitoring requirements for the existing units. The VPDES permit (Reference 4) requires continuous monitoring of temperature at 11 stations. Temperature measurements are taken hourly at the surface at Stations 1 through 9 inclusive and 11 and at a depth of 3 meters at Station 10. Figure 2.3-12 identifies the locations of the fixed continuous temperature recorders. The VPDES permit (Reference 4) also requires that a quarterly thermal plume survey be conducted at 14 stations located along the length of the North Anna Reservoir. At each station, temperature measurements are taken from the water surface to the lake bottom at one-meter intervals.

Figure 2.3-12 identifies the locations of these stations, which are designated as Stations A through N.

3-2-33 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Water temperature statistics from 4 of the fixed continuous monitors are summarized in Table 2.3-7.

The locations of these stations are as follows:

• North Anna Reservoir near the cooling water intakes for the existing units (Station 2/NALINT)

• The end of the discharge canal leading into Lagoon 1 of the WHTF (Station 7/NADISC1)

• Upstream of Dike 3 in Lagoon 3 of the WHTF (Station 9/NAWHTF3)

• North Anna Reservoir across from Burrus Point (Station 3/NALBRPT)

The same data are plotted in Figure 2.3-13 from 1978 through 2001 to illustrate temporal trends.

Table 2.3-7 Daily Water Temperature Statistics for Lake Anna Station 2 Station 7 Station 9 Station 3 Statistic (NALINT) (NADISC1) (NAWHTF3) (NALBRPT)

Number measurements 8087 8175 8301 7823 Average, °F 63.8 77.1 69.7 65.6 Minimum, °F 34.2 39.4 36.1 34.7 Maximum, °F 90.1 102.2 95.0 89.4 80% quantile, °F 80.6 92.1 85.5 81.1 90% quantile, °F 83.7 96.1 88.7 84.2 95% quantile, °F 85.1 97.7 90.1 85.8 99% quantile, °F 87.3 100.2 92.5 87.6 Additional physical and chemical water quality parameters were measured as part of a Clean Water Act (CWA) 316(a) demonstration for the existing units (Reference 33). Fifteen physical and chemical parameters, in addition to water temperature, were monitored at 14 water quality stations in the North Anna Reservoir and the WHTF. The locations of these stations are shown on Figure 2.3-12. Eight of these water quality monitoring stations coincide with current fixed continuous temperature recorders, while the remaining six were located independently. Virginia Power has also measured selected water quality parameters at the same 14 water quality stations to support their operation of the existing units. Table 2.3-13 summarizes the water quality data obtained from the sources cited above for each of the water quality stations.

Pre-existing environmental stresses on the water quality of Lake Anna are described in the CWA 316(a) demonstration report (Reference 33). One known impact is associated with acid mine drainage into Contrary Creek due to historical mining of the Contrary Creek watershed for pyrite ore. This drainage produced higher concentrations of metals and an acidic pH in the Contrary Creek arm of Lake Anna relative to the rest of the lake, which is evident in the data presented in Table 2.3-13.

3-2-34 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Other known lake water impacts include elevated concentrations of nutrients associated with the application of fertilizers for crop production in the watershed. With declining agricultural activity in recent years, however, nutrient concentrations have decreased and stabilized since inundation.

Compared to other regional lakes, there does not appear to be an excess of nutrients (Reference 33).

Several tributaries to the North Anna Reservoir, and portions of North Anna Reservoir, appear on the VDEQs 303(d) list of impaired waters (Reference 34). Many of these waterways have been listed based on the presence of fecal coliform bacteria. The source of fecal coliform bacteria is stated to be unknown in the 303(d) report. Sources might include livestock, wildlife, failing septic systems, pets, and waste from boats (Reference 19). Contrary Creek, Goldmine Creek, and Lake Anna are listed due to the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissues at concentrations in excess of the human health-based screening value. The source of this impairment is unknown.

Contrary Creek has also been listed because of low pH.

The known permitted discharges to Lake Anna are limited to those from the existing units. These sources and permitted discharge limits are described in the VPDES permit (Reference 4).

2.3.3.2 Groundwater Aquifers Groundwater at the ESP site occurs under water table conditions at depths ranging from about 6 to 58 feet in the saprolite and underlying metamorphic bedrock. The most dependable supplies of groundwater are obtained by wells drilled into the lower part of the weathered zone and the upper part of the underlying fractured bedrock (Reference 35). As discussed in Section 2.3.2, the existing units obtain potable water from wells in these zones. Regionally, this aquifer can be considered a Piedmont crystalline aquifer (Reference 13). This aquifer is the primary groundwater aquifer that could affect plant water use and effluent disposal, or be affected by the construction, operation, or decommissioning of new units at the ESP site.

No site-specific data are available to establish the physical, chemical, and biological water quality characteristics of the groundwater at the ESP site. However, a number of studies have been conducted to characterize the water quality of the Piedmont crystalline aquifers in the region. Data published in these studies are expected to be representative of site conditions. Table 2.3-14 summarizes these regional data.

In comparison with groundwater in widely scattered regions of the world, the water in the Piedmont region ranks among the best in chemical quality (Reference 36). The groundwater from most light-colored crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks of the region is generally soft (hardness 60 mg/l), slightly acidic (pH <7.0), and low in dissolved solids; while that from the dark-colored crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks is generally harder, slightly more alkaline, and moderately higher in dissolved solids (Reference 36). As Figure 2.3-13 illustrates, water from the crystalline rocks contains a balanced mixture of calcium, magnesium, and sodium ions. This figure also indicates that the water is rich in bicarbonate ions. The crystalline igneous and metamorphic 3-2-35 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report rocks of the Piedmont province also have relatively high levels of naturally occurring radioactivity in the groundwater (Reference 37).

Based on the Louisa County Water Testing Program undertaken in 1992, there is evidence of groundwater quality degradation near the ESP site due to coliform contamination (Reference 19).

Of the 119 wells tested by Louisa County in 1992, 29 wells were in the Lake Anna watershed. Of those 29, 18 were residential, 10 were on farms, and one was at a quarry. Sixteen of the 29 wells were in the lakeside area. All wells in the Louisa County Water Testing Program were tested for pH, total and fecal coliforms, metals, anions, and total organic carbon. Of the 29 wells in the Lake Anna watershed, total and fecal coliforms were present in 41 percent and 31 percent of the wells, respectively. Sources of this coliform contamination likely include the septic systems typically used by the residential developments and farms surrounding Lake Anna. Of the remaining parameters for which tests were conducted, only manganese and nitrate were found at elevated levels in the Louisa County portion of the Lake Anna watershed. Four of the 29 wells had manganese present at concentrations in excess of the secondary maximum contaminant level of 0.05 mg/l. One well, located on a farm, had nitrate present at a concentration in excess the maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/l. (Reference 19)

Section 2.3 References

1. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, North Anna Power Station Units No. 1 and 2, Revision 38, Virginia Power.

2. Applicants Environmental Report Supplement, North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 and Units 3 and 4, Virginia Electric and Power Company, March 15, 1972.

3. Appendix E, Applicants Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage, North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7, Virginia Electric & Power Company, May 2001.

4. Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Law, Virginia Electric & Power Company, North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Permit No. VA0052451, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, January 2001.

5. U. S. Geological Survey, USGS 01670180 Pamunkey Creek at Lahore, VA. Available at waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=01670180&agency_cd=USGS. Accessed April 22, 2003.

6. U. S. Geological Survey. USGS 01670300 Contrary Creek Near Mineral, VA. Available at waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=01670300&agency_cd=USGS. Accessed April 22, 2003.

3-2-36 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

7. U. S. Geological Survey, USGS 01670400 North Anna River Near Partlow, VA. Available at waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=01670400&agency_cd=USGS. Accessed April 22, 2003.

8. U. S. Geological Survey, USGS 01671000 North Anna River Near Doswell, VA. Available at waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=01671000&agency_cd=USGS. Accessed April 22, 2003.

9. U. S. Geological Survey, USGS 01671020 North Anna River at Hart Corner Near Doswell, VA.

Available at waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=01671020&agency_cd=USGS.

Accessed April 8, 2003.

10. U. S. Geological Survey, USGS 01673000 Pamunkey Anna River Near Hanover, VA. Available at waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman/?site_no=01673000&agency_cd=USGS. Accessed April 22, 2003.

11. Trapp, H., Jr., and Horn, M. A., Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Segment 11, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, U.S.

Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-L, 1997.

12. van der Leeden, F., Water Atlas of Virginia, Tennyson Press, Lexington, Virginia, 1993.

13. Powell, J. D., and Abe, J. M., Availability and Quality of Ground Water in the Piedmont Province of Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4235, 1985.

14. Poff, J. A., A Guide to Virginias Ground Water, Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, available at www.vwrrc.vt.edu/publications/educatio.htm, 1999.

15. Report, Site Environmental Studies, Proposed North Anna Power Station, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Included in Units 1 and 2 PSAR as Appendix A), Dames & Moore, January 13, 1969.

16. Mixon, R. B., Pavlides, L., Powars, D. S., Froelich, A. J., Weems, R. E., Schindler, J. S.,

Newell, W. L., Edwards, L. E., and Ward, L. W., Geologic Map of the Fredericksburg 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and Maryland, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series Map I-2607, 2000.

17. Report, Site Environmental Studies, North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Proposed Units 3 and 4, Louisa County, Virginia, Dames & Moore, August 18, 1971.

3-2-37 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

18. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Safety Analysis Report, North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Revision 3, Virginia Electric and Power Company, June 2002.

19. Lake Anna Special Area Plan, Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee, March 2000.

20. McWhorter, D. B., and Sunada, D. K., Ground-Water Hydrology and Hydraulics, Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, 1977.

21. Source Water Protection, Designated Sole Source Aquifers in EPA Region III, District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Water Protection Division, available at www.epa.gov/OGWDW/swp/ssa/reg3.html, November 26, 2002.

22. Status of Virginias Water Resources, A Report on Virginias Water Supply Planning Activities, A Report to the Honorable James S. Gilmore III, Governor, and the General Assembly of Virginia, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, available at www.deq.state.va.us/pdf/gareports/waterresources2001.pdf, October 2001.

23. Report of Installation of Standpipe Piezometers Along the Toe of the Service Water Reservoir, North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Virginia Geotechnical Services, P.C., July 21, 1998.

24. Virginia DEQ Water Programs, Water Withdrawal Reporting, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, available at www.deq.state.va.us/water/waterwith.html, October 18, 2002.

25. County of Louisa, Water Quality Management Plan and Groundwater Study, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, Louisa County Planning Department, Louisa County Water Authority, Draper Aden Associates, January 1998.

26. Lake Anna Special Plan, Lake Anna Special Plan Committee, March 2000.

27. Status of Virginias Water Resources, A Report on Virginias Water Supply Planning Activities, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, October 2001.

28. Report, Site Environmental Studies, North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Proposed Units 3 and 4, Louisa County, Virginia, Dames & Moore, August 18, 1971.

29. Total Water Withdrawals for Virginia, 1995, U.S. Geological Survey, available at va.water.usgs.gov/w_use/wu_index.htm, January 2, 2003.

3-2-38 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

30. NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7, Regarding North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, November 2002.

31. Water Description Sheet, Virginia Department of Health, January 15, 1998.

32. Engineering Description Sheet, Virginia Department of Health, June 17, 1991.

33. North Anna Power Station Section 316(a) Demonstration, Virginia Power, June 1986.

34. 2002 303(d) Report on Impaired Waters, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, September 30, 2002. Available at www.deq.state.va.us/water/303d.html. Accessed January 2, 2003.

35. Sinnott, A., and Cushing, E. M., Summary Appraisals of the Nations Ground-Water Resources

- Mid-Atlantic Region, Geologic Survey Professional Paper 813-I, 1978.

36. Powell, J. D., and Abe, J. M., Availability and Quality of Ground Water in the Piedmont Province of Virginia, U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4235, 1985.

37. Powell, J. D., and Hamilton, P. A., Virginia Ground-Water Quality, U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-0759, 1987.

38. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), Virginia, Louisa County, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, available at www.epa.gov/enviro/html/sdwis/sdwis_query.html, April 16, 2003.

39. Engineering Description Sheet, Virginia Department of Health Department, July 24, 1991.

40. Engineering Description Sheet, Virginia Department of Health, February 28, 2003.

41. Annual Report of Water Withdrawals, North Anna Nuclear Power Plant, January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002, submitted by Dominion Virginia Power to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, January 31, 2003.

42. LeGrand, H. E., Ground Water of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces in the Southeastern States, Geologic Survey Circular 538, 1967.

43. van der Leeden, F., Water Atlas of Virginia - Basic Facts About Virginias Water Resources, A Hennyson Press Publication, Lexington, Virginia, 1993.

3-2-39 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.3-8 Monthly Streamflow Statistics (cfs)

Statistic Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Pamunkey Creek at Lahore, VA N 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 Min 25.7 25 37.9 35.3 19.9 14.4 14.9 1.46 2.03 2.3 6.25 24.6 Mean 61.2 37.5 49.0 62.0 43.0 23.9 19.3 9.72 14.5 31.8 31.8 47.6 Max 91.5 53.5 65.3 114 81 32.8 26.6 16.6 22.2 57.1 49.1 87.7 Contrary Creek near Mineral, VA N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 Min 1.69 3.49 2.05 2.18 1.66 0.63 0.31 0.1 0.13 0.67 0.68 1.64 Mean 7.97 9.37 8.92 8.36 4.33 2.46 1.34 3.40 1.20 3.16 5.05 5.46 Max 20.1 25.5 21.9 21.1 12.8 6.76 2.27 14.3 4.13 10.5 19 8.68 North Anna River near Partlow, VA N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Min 45.2 55.6 51.8 55.7 53.5 46.1 45.7 49.1 44.3 42.4 44 45.4 Mean 401 507 601 485 330 215 133 134 109 138 244 265 Max 926 1361 1762 1378 947 784 563 478 530 1085 1230 682 North Anna River near Doswell, VA N 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 Min 68.1 87.2 77.7 91.6 111 71.2 32.2 14.7 6.16 5.45 24.8 53.2 Mean 554 602 645 592 368 244 210 269 177 230 285 407 Max 1974 1767 1515 1922 1043 1325 1321 2688 1490 1345 1464 1723 North Anna River at Hart Corner near Doswell, VA N 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 Min 71.9 100 90.5 108 61.9 50.6 47.7 49.3 41.7 43.7 46.7 75.2 Mean 536 677 820 648 424 244 159 155 144 207 315 377 Max 1389 2660 2345 1887 1217 795 591 614 1185 1428 1561 1320 Pamunkey River near Hanover, VA N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Min 197 396 248 434 197 82 91.9 63.1 30.3 60.6 113 166 Mean 1434 1624 1883 1535 1027 680 501 619 427 581 727 1114 Max 4334 7118 5430 5009 2821 4293 2747 6381 2939 3461 3505 3782 N = number of monthly observations Min = minimum monthly value Mean = average monthly value Max = maximum monthly value 3-2-40 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.3-9 Quarterly Groundwater Level Elevations Top of Reference Well Well Well Reference Point Screen Screen Groundwater Level Elevations Observation Depth* Point Elev. Stickup** Elev. Length Well No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 12/17/02 03/17/03 06/17/03 OW-841 34.3 251.6 1.5 228.1 9.7 248.9 249.6 249.6 OW-842 49.6 336.7 1.5 297.8 9.6 307.5 308.9 310.8 OW-843 49.2 320.6 1.5 282.1 9.7 285.1 288.1 290.8 OW-844 24.6 273.5 1.5 257.6 9.6 265.5 266.7 267.3 OW-845 55.0 297.3 1.5 253.0 9.7 272.7 274.9 277.4 OW-846 32.7 297.3 1.5 273.5 9.8 272.5 274.8 277.1 OW-847 49.8 319.7 1.5 280.6 9.6 285.4 287.0 289.5 OW-848 47.3 284.5 1.5 240.8 5.0 241.7 242.9 243.6 OW-849 49.8 298.5 1.5 259.4 9.7 265.5 269.5 271.7 P-10 22.5 286.4 2.4 267.0 5 274.4 274.8 275.2 P-14 N/A 327.1 N/A N/A N/A 271.6 272.2 272.8 P-18 N/A 329.0 N/A N/A N/A 285.7 286.5 287.5 P-19 58.5 322.3 N/A N/A 5 284.3 285.2 286.3 P-20 61.0 320.6 N/A N/A 5 274.9 275.4 275.8 P-21 58.5 319.2 N/A N/A 5 Dry 261.2 262.0 P-22 60.0 320.5 N/A N/A 5 276.8 277.8 278.6 P-23 41.2 296.4 1.9 258.7 5 261.1 262.6 263.3 P-24 25.0 293.4 2.3 271.3 5 276.4 277.1 278.4 WP-3 N/A 317.9(?) N/A 266.5 5 299.7 301.0 302.8 Lake Anna Water Level Elevation 248.1 250.1 250.4 Service Water Reservoir Water Level Elevation 314.6 313.3 314.6 OW - wells installed in December 2002 as part of ESP Subsurface Investigation Program.

P - wells installed previously to monitor NAPS Units 1 and 2 Service Water Reservoir.

WP - well installed previously as part of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation monitoring program.

• Below ground surface at time of installation.

• • Above ground surface at time of installation.

N/A - not available 3-2-41 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.3-10 Hydraulic Conductivity Values Depth Hydraulic Conductivity Observation Interval Tested Well No. (ft) Elevation Material cm/sec ft/day PT-1a Near-surface Unknown Saprolite 2.8 x 10-5 0.08 PT-2a Near-surface Unknown Saprolite 1.4 x 10-5 0.04 P-10b 14.5 - 22.5 269.5 - 261.5 Saprolite 6.1 x 10-4 to 6.1 x 10-5 1.7 to 0.17 P-24b 16.8 - 25.0 274.3 - 266.1 Saprolite 2.9 x 10-4 to 6.6 x 10-6 0.8 to 0.02 P-23b 33.7 - 41.2 260.7 - 253.2 Saprolite 6.6 x 10-5 0.19 c -5 OW-844 12.7 - 24.6 259.3 - 247.4 Saprolite 9.9 to 8.9 x 10 0.28 to 0.25 OW-841c 20.1 - 34.3 230.0 - 215.8 Saprolite 8.2 to 7.8 x 10-4 2.3 to 2.2 OW-846c 20.3 - 32.7 275.5 - 263.1 Saprolite 1.2 x 10-3 to 6.8 x 10-4 3.4 to 1.9 OW-847c 35.0 - 49.8 283.2 - 268.4 Saprolite 2.3 to 2.1 x 10-4 0.66 to 0.58 OW-842c 35.3 - 49.6 299.9 - 285.6 Saprolite 3.3 x 10-4 0.93 OW-849c 35.6 - 49.8 261.4 - 247.2 Saprolite 1.1 x 10-3 to 7.0 x 10-4 3.2 to 2.0 OW-843c 36.4 - 49.2 282.7 - 269.9 Saprolite 4.9 to 4.5 x 10-4 1.4 to 1.3 OW-848c 39.1 - 47.3 243.9 - 235.7 Saprolite 1.2 x 10-3 to 9.9 x 10-4 d 3.4 to 2.8 d OW-845c 39.7 - 55.0 256.1 - 240.8 Quartz 1.1 x 10-3 to 6.3 x 10-4 e 3.1 to 1.8 e Gneiss Test Results B-48a 3.5 290.5 Sandy silt 1 x 10-6 0.003 B-8a 5.5 293.5 Fine sand, tr. 1 x 10-6 0.003 silt B-2a 15.5 269.5 Fine to med. 4 x 10-5 0.11 sand, w/clayey silt B-15a 36 281 Silty fine sand 1.3 x 10-5 0.04

a. Reference 15

b. Reference 23

c. Part 2: Appendix 2.5.4B

d. Results may not be accurate due to static water level approximately 0.5 ft below top of well screen.

e. Results not be accurate due to short duration of stable water level recovery measurements.

3-2-42 Revision 0 September 2003

Table 2.3-11 Public Groundwater Supplies In Louisa County Water Depth Measured Yield Design Yield Population Installation Typea Source (ft) (gpd) (gpd) Served a Town of Louisa b Community spring NA 38,880 1950 (primary source is surface water) 3 wells 200-405 43,200-53,280 Town of Mineral b Community 2 springs NA 57,600 670 4 wells 200-600 14,400-165,600 Acorn West Trailer Park b Community well 120 8640 70 Blue Ridge Shores b Community 4 wells 163-405 288,000 160,000 1380 Bumpass Park/Lake Anna Rescue a Non-Community 250 Burger King Zion Crossroads a Non-Community 250 Christopher Run Campground a Non-Community 608 Crescent Inn Restaurant a Non-Community 200 Crossing Point (VA Oil Co) b Non-Community 2 wells 305 21,600-28,800 10,400 45 East End Elementary School b well 345 61,920 31,200 Expressions Learning Center b Non-Community well 205 17,280 45 Jerdone Island b,c Community well 200 83,520 19,600 49 Jouette Elementary School b Non-Community well 345 61,920 19,600 741 Klockner Barrier Film b well 305 53,280 22,000 Klockner-Pentaplast b Non-Community 2 wells 205-280 21,600-57,600 44,000 526 Lake Anna Family Campground a Non-Community 240 Lake Anna Plaza d Community 2 wells 335-230 11,520-86,400 41,200 Louisa County Zion Crossroads a Non-Community 30 Louisa Water Authority b well 550 34,560 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-43 September 2003

Table 2.3-11 Public Groundwater Supplies In Louisa County Water Depth Measured Yield Design Yield Population Installation Typea Source (ft) (gpd) (gpd) Served a Prospect Hill a Non-Community 50 Shennandoah Crossing b Non-Community 2 wells 280-300 123,840-97,920 98,400 850 Sieberts Amoco & Dairy Queen a Non-Community 25 Six-o-Five Village b Community 2 wells 310-365 64,800-10,800 10,700 201 Small Country Campground a Non-Community 112 a

Tavern on the Rail Non-Community 150 Trevillians Elementary School b Non-Community well 204 57,600 19,600 676 Trevilians Square Apartments a Community 61 Twin Oaks Community b Community well 250 e 7200 75 West End Elementary School b well 204 57,600 20,000 Note: Blank entries indicate data not provided in cited reference.

a. Reference 38

b. Reference 25

c. Reference 39

d. Reference 40

e. Reference 1 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-44 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.3-12 North Anna Power Station Groundwater Usea January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 Month Well #2 Well #3A Well #4 Well #6 NANIC (Millions of Gallons)

January 0.0032 0.4268 0.4519 0.7444 0.0485 February 0.0032 0.1395 0.4010 0.5095 0.0467 March 0.0025 0.0263 0.1050 0.1642 0.0555 April 0.0046 0.0368 0.1253 0.1459 0.0474 May 0.0076 0.0376 0.2565 0.1041 0.0690 June 0.0021 0.0531 0.2524 0.1458 0.0502 July 0.0018 0.0511 0.3585 0.0189 0.0525 August 0.0077 0.0611 0.3434 0.0526 0.0656 September 0.0071 0.1020 0.4018 0.1655 0.0474 October 0.0062 0.0874 0.2118 0.1574 0.0651 November 0.0148 0.0694 0.2126 0.1846 0.0586 December 0.0037 0.2005 0.0648 0.2070 0.0482 Total 0.0645 1.2916 3.1850 2.5999 0.6547 Monthly Average 0.0054 0.1076 0.2654 0.2167 0.0546

a. Reference 41 3-2-45 Revision 0 September 2003

Table 2.3-13 Water Quality Statistics for Lake Anna Total Ortho- Meta-Hardness Dissolved Phosphate phosphate phosphate Ammonia Nitrate Alkalinity Sulfate Copper Iron Lead Zinc (mg/l as Turbidity Oxygen (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l (mg/l as pH Statistic CaCO3) (NTU) (mg/l) P) P) P) N) N) CaCO3) SO4) Cu) Fe) as Pb) Zn) (SU)

Pamunkey Creek Arm of Lake Anna at Route 719 Bridge (Station 5/NAL719N)

Observations 84 192 192 97 49 79 106 99 192 116 22 99 5 33 206 Average 18.92 8.07 8.41 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.48 14.62 7.70 0.02 0.30 0.12 0.02 7.07 Maximum 39.3 37 13.6 0.33 0.26 0.21 0.24 3.16 21.2 17.5 0.05 3.4 0.3 0.15 8.9 Minimum 7.8 0.4 0.1 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.01 6.8 1.6 0.003 0.01 0.002 0.01 6.3 North Anna River Arm of Lake Anna at Route 719 Bridge (Station 6/NAL719S)

Observations 84 192 192 94 45 88 95 95 192 115 24 98 9 34 206 Average 18.37 6.80 8.63 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.41 14.64 7.46 0.02 0.34 0.13 0.02 7.08 Maximum 39.3 41 14.2 0.16 0.05 0.16 0.2 2.05 25.8 18 0.04 6.81 0.38 0.11 8.5 Minimum 8.9 0.4 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.01 6.1 1.3 0.001 0.05 0.002 0.01 6.2 Lake Anna at Route 208 Bridge (Station 4/NAL208)

Observations 51 192 192 53 8 50 73 80 192 80 28 102 7 66 213 Average 14.14 3.46 8.50 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.15 10.83 8.16 0.06 0.48 0.10 0.03 6.90 Maximum 22.2 20 13.8 0.3 0.3 0.25 0.91 0.58 19.3 11.6 1.1 22.15 0.38 0.11 7.4 Minimum 5.1 0.3 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 7.1 4 0.003 0.03 0 0.01 5.6 Contrary Creek Arm of Lake Anna Observations 36 176 176 8 5 5 36 32 167 36 50 85 6 78 191 Average 17.81 3.84 8.88 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.09 5.51 17.15 0.07 0.78 0.11 0.28 6.09 Maximum 32.5 40.4 13.5 0.32 0.06 0.26 0.35 0.22 15.2 39.8 0.22 6.4 0.18 1.14 7.4 Minimum 12 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 10.6 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 3.8 Note: Blank entries indicate no data available.

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-46 September 2003

Table 2.3-13 Water Quality Statistics for Lake Anna Total Ortho- Meta-Hardness Dissolved Phosphate phosphate phosphate Ammonia Nitrate Alkalinity Sulfate Copper Iron Lead Zinc (mg/l as Turbidity Oxygen (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l (mg/l as pH Statistic CaCO3) (NTU) (mg/l) P) P) P) N) N) CaCO3) SO4) Cu) Fe) as Pb) Zn) (SU)

Lake Anna at North Anna Power Station Intakes (Station 2/NALINT)

Observations 72 178 178 76 29 59 89 102 178 105 27 94 11 60 199 Average 14.14 2.66 8.46 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.39 10.13 9.06 0.02 0.23 0.07 0.02 6.89 Maximum 27.4 13 13.2 0.45 0.16 0.29 0.19 1.57 18 18 0.04 3.97 0.19 0.043 7.5 Minimum 5.2 0.6 0.1 0 0 0 0.01 0.04 6.9 3.5 0.001 0.03 0.002 0.008 5.1 Lake Anna at Mid Lake Observations 36 72 72 42 11 38 56 68 72 67 2 52 2 26 93 Average 13.65 2.42 8.30 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.17 9.17 8.44 0.02 0.38 0.01 0.02 6.88 Maximum 18.8 9.5 12.8 0.35 0.25 0.14 0.19 0.48 15 14 0.03 8.96 0.02 0.04 7.3 Minimum 10.3 0.6 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 6.9 3.6 0.003 0.03 0.001 0.01 6.1 Lake Anna Near Burrus Point Observations 33 72 72 14 6 13 36 36 72 36 35 18 72 Average 13.37 2.29 8.26 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.15 9.19 8.52 0.10 0.01 6.92 Maximum 18.8 6 12.8 0.45 0.18 0.41 0.12 0.34 16.4 11.8 0.16 0.02 7.3 Minimum 1.2 0.2 0.6 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.06 7.3 7.3 0.04 0.01 6.7 Lake Anna Near Dike 3 (Station 10/NALST10)

Observations 36 72 72 13 5 10 36 36 72 36 36 21 72 Average 13.70 2.23 8.29 0.10 0.22 0.02 0.08 0.15 9.00 8.34 0.11 0.01 6.90 Maximum 17.1 7.4 12.5 0.9 0.9 0.04 0.13 0.3 12.1 9.8 0.17 0.03 7.2 Minimum 10.3 0.7 4.7 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.06 5 7.2 0.03 0.01 6.3 Note: Blank entries indicate no data available.

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-47 September 2003

Table 2.3-13 Water Quality Statistics for Lake Anna Total Ortho- Meta-Hardness Dissolved Phosphate phosphate phosphate Ammonia Nitrate Alkalinity Sulfate Copper Iron Lead Zinc (mg/l as Turbidity Oxygen (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l (mg/l as pH Statistic CaCO3) (NTU) (mg/l) P) P) P) N) N) CaCO3) SO4) Cu) Fe) as Pb) Zn) (SU)

Lake Anna at the Dam Observations 84 192 192 79 31 61 99 115 192 116 101 69 213 Average 15.27 3.03 7.89 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.39 10.64 9.01 0.29 0.03 6.86 Maximum 42.8 17 12.8 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.84 2.13 34.4 18.8 5.19 0.15 7.3 Minimum 5.1 0.2 0 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 6.6 3.5 0.01 0.01 6.2 Lagoon 1 of the WHTF (Station 7/NADISC1)

Observations 72 180 180 75 35 59 92 100 180 101 85 44 194 Average 14.98 2.65 8.66 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.39 10.02 9.03 0.15 0.03 6.92 Maximum 29.1 8.5 13 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.18 1.57 18 16.8 0.71 0.17 7.3 Minimum 6.1 0.2 5 0 0 0 0.01 0.05 6.3 0.3 0.01 0.01 6.4 Elk Creek Arm of the Waste Heat Treatment Facility Observations 174 174 174 174 Average 2.48 8.69 9.91 6.98 Maximum 6.9 13.2 14.4 7.6 Minimum 0.2 1.2 6.2 6.5 Millpond Creek Arm of the Waste Heat Treatment Facility Observations 180 180 180 180 Average 2.66 8.56 9.76 6.97 Maximum 17 13 16.5 7.4 Minimum 0.2 0.3 6.5 6.5 Note: Blank entries indicate no data available.

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-48 September 2003

Table 2.3-13 Water Quality Statistics for Lake Anna Total Ortho- Meta-Hardness Dissolved Phosphate phosphate phosphate Ammonia Nitrate Alkalinity Sulfate Copper Iron Lead Zinc (mg/l as Turbidity Oxygen (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l as (mg/l (mg/l as pH Statistic CaCO3) (NTU) (mg/l) P) P) P) N) N) CaCO3) SO4) Cu) Fe) as Pb) Zn) (SU)

Lagoon 2 of the WHTF (Station 8/NAWHTF2)

Observations 24 183 183 30 1 30 48 56 183 56 2 39 1 14 204 Average 13.06 2.36 8.08 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.17 9.75 8.30 0.03 0.20 0.02 0.02 6.90 Maximum 17.1 6.2 12.7 0.41 0.13 0.41 0.1 0.66 16 13.4 0.03 0.88 0.02 0.1 7.4 Minimum 10.3 0.2 0.2 0.01 0.13 0.01 0 0.01 6.6 6 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 6.2 Lagoon 3 of the WHTF (Station 9/NAWHTF3)

Observations 69 180 179 71 30 56 84 101 180 101 24 89 6 45 200 Average 14.81 2.54 8.36 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.39 9.53 9.06 0.03 0.19 0.11 0.02 6.90 Maximum 32.5 7.2 12.7 0.4 0.42 0.15 0.14 2.89 17 16.8 0.05 3.01 0.18 0.06 7.3 Minimum 4.4 0.2 1.5 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 6.2 3.5 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 6.2 Note: Blank entries indicate no data available.

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-49 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.3-14 Water Quality Data for the Piedmont Crystalline Aquifers Parameter Average Maximum Minimum Source Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 100 200 40 Reference 37 70-150 250 Reference 42 60-120 Reference 43 Hardness (mg/l as CaCO3) 40 100 10 Reference 37 10-50 100 10 Reference 42 20-70 Reference 43 Nitrate 0.05 1 < 0.01 Reference 37 (mg/l as N)

< 10 20 Reference 42 Chloride (mg/l) 1-20 40 1 Reference 42 Sulfate (mg/l) 1-40 100 1 Reference 42 Calcium (mg/l) 5-20 60 5 Reference 42 Magnesium (mg/l) 5-20 60 5 Reference 42 Silica (mg/l) 20-35 45 15 Reference 42 Iron (mg/l) 20 600 < 10 Reference 37

< 0.3 Reference 42 Bicarbonate (mg/l as HCO3)30-100 150 15 Reference 42 pH 5.5-6.8 7.5 5.5 Reference 42 Note: Blank entries indicate data not provided in cited reference.

3-2-50 Revision 0 September 2003

ORANGE Wast Rese oads sh Figure 2.3-1 Lake Anna North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-51 September 2003

WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE MSL 280 270 260 250 WHTF RESERVOIR (EXCLUDING WHTF) 240 230 220 210 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 VOLUME OF WATER-ACRE-FT (103)

Figure 2.3-2 Elevation-Area Curves for North Anna Reservoir and Waste Heat Treatment Facility North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-52 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Figure 2.3-3 Deleted 3-2-53 Revision 1 October 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Figure 2.3-4 Spillway Discharge Capacity (One Gate of Three) North Anna Dam 3-2-54 Revision 0 September 2003

DISCHARGE 400 CONDITIONS GOVERN 5

25 APPROACH SINGLE GATE DISCHARGE (CFS) 4 CONDITIONS 300 25 GOVERN 3

25 2

25 200 1

25 9 0 24 8 25 24 47

=2 100 AGE S T GATE CREST 0250 249 248 247 246 245 244 243 ELEV.

GATE OPENING 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOTE:

7 FT. IS MAXIMUM GATE OPENING Figure 2.3-5 Skimmer Gate Discharge Capacity for North Anna Dam North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-55 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Figure 2.3-6 Locations of USGS Stream Gauging Stations in the North Anna River Watershed 3-2-56 Revision 0 September 2003

Figure 2.3-7 Ground Water Level Hydrographs North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-57 September 2003

Figure 2.3-8 Piezometric Head Contour Map North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-58 September 2003

The York River Watershed Orange Spotsylvania Bear Island Paper Louisa Caroline Virginia Hanover King King and NAPS William Queen St. Laurent Paper Products Doswell WTP New Kent Gloucester James City York Figure 2.3-9 Surface Water Bodies That Could Affect or Be Affected by Plant Water Use North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-59 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report s

adiu 2 -Mile R 6 .

0 1 2 Miles Figure 2.3-10 Surface Water Bodies Within 10 Kilometers (6.2 Miles) 3-2-60 Revision 0 September 2003

Figure 2.3-11 Existing Water Supply Wells North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-61 September 2003

Figure 2.3.3-1 Temperature and water quality sampling stations 18 Rt. 719 UP P Sy Symbol Temper mperature e Pr Program ER LA 16 KE XXXX Plume Transects A - N M

• Water quality Stations 14 Temperature Recorders STATION 5/NAL719N PAMUNKEY CREEK ARM OF LAKE ANNA AT ROUTE 719 BRIDGE 12 Rt. 719 N

L 10 STATION 4/NAL208 MI LAKE ANNA AT ROUTE DD 208 BRIDGE LE LA KE 8

STATION 2/NALINT STATION 6/NAL719S LAKE ANNA AT NAPS NORTH ANNA RIVER K

INTAKES ARM OF LAKE ANNA AT ROUTE 719 BRIDGE Rt. 208 6 STATION 1/NALTHIS LAKE ANNA NEAR J I THURMAN ISLAND 4

MIDLAKE LO W

G ER LA H KE

• NOR NORTH ANNA PO NNA POWER H

STATION 3/NALBRPT LAKE ANNA NEAR BURRUS POINT 2

ST STATION CONTRARY F CREEK 0 STATION 7/NALDISC1 BURRUS POINT LAGOON 1 KILOMETERS E D 0 2 4 6 ELK CREEK A N 0 1 2 3 C B MILES DAM MILLPOND * *

• NORTH ANNA RIVER CREEK STATION 11/NARIV601 NORTH ANNA RIVER AT ROUTE 601 BRIDGE STATION 10/NALST10 LAKE ANNA NEAR DIKE 3 STATION 9/NAWHTF3 LAGOON 3 STATION 8/NAWHTF2 LAGOON 2 Figure 2.3-12 Temperature and Water Quality Sampling Stations North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-62 September 2003

110.0 100.0 90.0 80.0 Temperature (F) 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 Jan-78 Jan-79 Jan-80 Jan-81 Jan-82 Jan-83 Jan-84 Jan-85 Jan-86 Jan-87 Jan-88 Jan-89 Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 NALINT NADISC1 NAWHTF3 NALBRPTT Figure 2.3-13 Temporal Variation in Lake Anna Water Temperature at Selected Locations North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-63 September 2003

Figure 2.3.3-3 Water Quality in Crystalline Terrane (Pittsylvania and Halifax Counties, Virginia) (Ref. 2.3.3-6) 100 100 CRYSTALLINE ROCKS EXPLANATION Pittsylvania and Halifax 80 80 Counties +C CALCIUM +

4 I

MAGNESIUM Ca SO SULFATE Mg

+C 60 60 Ca I

g

+M 4

SO 40 40 CALCIUM SODIUM 0 MAGNESIUM 0 CHLORIDE BICARBONATE 20 20 100 0 0 100

• 3 CO SODIUM

• Na

+

+H BICARBONATE 3 +

K

• CO

• HC 0 0 MAGNESIUM SULFATE

• O

+

Mg Na 3 K

CO 3

SO 4 100 20 *

• 20 100 0 *

• 0 100 SODIUM CALCIUM BICARBO- CHLORIDE POTASSIUM NATE 0

• 40 0 100 100 0

0 4 3 20 0 100 20 + +H 80 Ca CI 80 CO Na CATIONS ANIONS K PERCENT OF TOTAL MILLIEQUIVALENTS PER LITER 60 3 60 CO 3 CO 40 60 40 + 60 Mg Na +H SO K 80 CO 3 4

• 80 60 60

• 40 40

• *

• 100 80 20

• 80

• 20 0 **

• 10 0 10 0

• *

• 0 0 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 10 10 0 0 Ca CI CATIONS ANIONS Figure 2.3-14 Water Quality in Crystalline Terrane (Pittsylvania and Halifax Counties, Virginia)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-64 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.4 Ecology This section describes the terrestrial and aquatic ecological resources that exist within the ESP site, vicinity, and correlating transmission corridors, and potential impacts on those resources from the new units. Ecological resources are those species and habitats that are considered important as presented in NUREG-1555, Tables 2.4.1-1 and 2.4.2-1. The description of ecological resources focuses on the terrestrial and aquatic environments that could affect or be affected by the construction or operation of the new units.

2.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology This section describes the terrestrial ecology of the ESP site. Chapter 4 describes the impact of the construction of new units on the terrestrial ecology of the ESP site, and Chapter 5 describes the impact of the new units operation on the terrestrial ecology.

The ESP site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. This portion of north-central Virginia, settled in the Colonial era, no longer contains virgin forests. Land use surrounding the ESP site is an irregular patchwork of row crops, pastures, pine plantations, abandoned (old) fields, and second growth forests of hardwoods and mixed pine-hardwoods.

Construction activities would occur within the NAPS site boundary, so no discussion of the terrestrial environment except at the NAPS site is presented here. Current land use at the ESP site is discussed in Section 2.2. Approximately 30 percent of the NAPS site consists of generation and maintenance facilities, parking lots, roads, cleared areas, and mowed grass. No other pre-existing NAPS-generated site stresses or stressors to wildlife are known. Hardwood forests exist on the approximately 70 percent of the site that has not been cleared for the construction or operation of the existing units. These wooded areas are remnants of forests that were used for timber production prior to acquisition by Virginia Power and are dominated by a variety of oaks, yellow poplar, sweet gum, and red maple trees. Scattered loblolly pines, Virginia pines, and short-leaf pines exist in some wooded areas. Electric transmission corridors that originate at the existing units pass through forested and agricultural lands typical of north central Virginia.

2.4.1.1 Terrain The Piedmont region of Virginia is characterized by gently rolling hills with scattered moderately steep ridges; although moderately steep ridges are absent from the ESP site. The rolling terrain at the site extends down slope to the waters of Lake Anna, resulting in essentially no marsh habitat along the shoreline. Hydrophytic vegetation, such as cattail and rushes, are typically absent or extend only 1 to 3 feet beyond the shoreline.

2.4.1.2 Wildlife Species Wildlife species found in the forested portions of the NAPS site are those typically found in upland Piedmont forests of north-central Virginia. Frequently observed mammals, such as the white-tailed 3-2-65 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report deer, raccoon, opossum, gray squirrel, and gray fox, exist at the site, as do smaller mammals such as moles, shrews, and a variety of mice and voles. Woodchucks live in the grassy areas near forest edges at the NAPS site, and beavers occur in Lake Anna and its tributaries. Various birds, reptiles, and amphibians (e.g., snakes, lizards, and toads) live in uplands and along the edge of Lake Anna.

2.4.1.3 Common Bird Species Virginia Power has cooperated with the National Audubon Society in conducting periodic Christmas Bird Counts during December or January. Common bird species recorded in upland areas on and near the NAPS site during these surveys include the American crow, blue jay, Carolina chickadee, mourning dove, black vulture, turkey vulture, European starling, song sparrow, white-throated sparrow, dark-eyed junco, Northern cardinal, house finch, tufted titmouse, red-bellied woodpecker, downy woodpecker, and Northern flicker (Reference 1).

Birds known to nest within forested areas at the NAPS site, along forested edges, and in open areas (e.g., Northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee, blue jay) commonly nest in upland Virginia habitats. Virginia Power has placed bluebird nest boxes in suitable habitats at the NAPS site and has constructed roofed structures for swallows in some locations. Eastern bluebirds annually utilize the nest boxes, and barn swallows nest beneath the roofed structures.

2.4.1.4 Wading Birds and Waterfowl Several species of residential and migratory wading birds and waterfowl utilize Lake Anna. Virginia Power biologists have documented breeding at Lake Anna by mallards, wood ducks, and Canada geese (Reference 2, Section 4.5). Virginia Power, in association with the Louisa County Chapter of Ducks Unlimited, has placed wood duck nest boxes on Lake Anna and wood ducks have utilized several of these nest boxes (Reference 2, Section 4.5). Belted kingfishers, great blue herons, and green-backed herons are present at Lake Anna throughout the year, and kingfishers and green-backed herons presumably nest on or near Lake Annas shoreline. Great blue herons typically nest in rookeries, and because there are no known rookeries at Lake Anna (Reference 3),

it is unlikely that great blue herons nest on the lake.

Waterfowl are typically most abundant at Lake Anna during the winter. Lake Anna provides important habitat for migratory waterfowl on the Atlantic Flyway, especially during extremely cold winters when the elevated water temperature from station operation maintains a large ice-free body of water. The most common ducks observed during winter are mallard, American black duck, bufflehead, and greater scaup. The Canada goose, American coot, ringed-billed gull, and herring gull are also abundant on Lake Anna during the winter. (Reference 1) (Reference 2, Section 4.5).

3-2-66 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.4.1.5 Critical Habitat No areas designated by the USFWS as critical habitat for endangered species exist at or near the ESP site, or along or adjacent to associated transmission lines. In addition, the transmission corridors do not cross any state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, or wildlife management areas.

2.4.1.6 Endangered Species The USFWS maintains current lists of threatened or endangered species at its website (Reference 4). The VDGIF also maintains lists of state protected species at its website (Reference 3). These lists have been consulted to determine the species that might live at the ESP site. This review identified no protected species other than those previously identified by Virginia Power.

Bald eagles, state and federally classified as threatened, are occasionally observed along Lake Anna. However, there are no known eagle nests at the ESP site (Reference 5). The nearest known bald eagle nest is near the north end of Lake Anna, approximately 10 miles upstream of the existing units. Dominion is not aware of any eagle nests along NAPS-associated transmission lines.

Loggerhead shrikes, classified by the state as threatened, have been observed in the vicinity of NAPS during Christmas bird counts, but breeding loggerhead shrikes have not been recorded at the NAPS site or along the transmission corridors (Reference 3). Loggerhead shrikes inhabit mowed or grazed grassy areas and margins of wooded areas.

With the exception of the bald eagle and loggerhead shrike, terrestrial species that are federally-and/or state-listed as endangered or threatened species are not known to exist at the NAPS site or along the transmission corridors.

2.4.1.7 Rare Plant Species The transmission corridors are managed to prevent woody growth from reaching the transmission lines. The removal of woody species can provide outstanding grassland and bog-like habitat for many rare plant species dependent on open conditions. Virginia Power has cooperated with the VDCRs Natural Heritage Program in rare plant surveys within transmission corridors. The Natural Heritage Program prepared reports on the results of the rare plant species surveys. Although several rare plant species have been located along other Virginia Power transmission corridors, no endangered or threatened plants were noted along the corridors associated with the NAPS site.

2.4.1.8 Wetlands Two intermittent streams flowing north into an unnamed arm of Lake Anna, just northwest of the power-block area bisect the area where cooling towers would be located. A narrow band of wetlands is associated with each of these streams. A small isolated wetland is located within the ESP site. Prior to any construction activities, the wetlands would be surveyed to determine if they 3-2-67 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report are subject to federal and state jurisdiction and all appropriate state and federal permits would be obtained.

2.4.1.9 Important Species No important species as defined by NUREG-1555 live on the NAPS site, and with the exception of the wetlands described above, no important habitats exist on the NAPS site. Important species are those that are: listed by the state or federal government as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, commercially or recreationally valuable, essential to the maintenance or survival of species that are rare or commercially or recreationally valuable, critical to the structure and function of the local terrestrial ecosystem, or biological indicators.

Important habitats are wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or preserves; habitats identified by state or federal agencies as unique, rare, or of priority for protection; wetlands, floodplains, or other resources specifically protected by federal or state regulations; or land areas identified as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species.

2.4.1.10 Proposed Site Section 4.1.1 provides information on the acreage that would comprise the construction site. Much of the proposed laydown area consists of dirt roads, cleared areas, parking lots, buildings, and weedy habitats. The western portion of the current and proposed laydown area can be classified as old-field habitat. None of the current or proposed laydown area is forested. The area proposed for temporary offices is an existing office complex; thus, natural habitats are absent from this area.

Generally, wildlife species found in the forested portions of the ESP site and support areas are those typically found in the forested portions of the NAPS site and in upland Piedmont forests of north-central Virginia. Wildlife species in the old-field habitat of the laydown area and in the transmission rights-of-way within the ESP site would include most of those found in the adjacent wooded areas.

2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology 2.4.2.1 North Anna Drainage System The North Anna River rises in Louisa and Orange Counties, Virginia, and flows east for about 60 miles before joining the South Anna River to form the Pamunkey River Figure 2.4-1. The Pamunkey River flows to the southeast, joining with the Mattaponi River to form the York River, which flows into the Chesapeake Bay north of the Hampton Roads area of Virginia. The entire North Anna River watershed is approximately 600 square miles (Reference 6).

Lake Anna, built to supply cooling water for the power station, was created in 1971 by erecting a dam on the main stem of the North Anna River, just upstream of the confluence of the North Anna River and Northeast Creek (Figure 2.4-2). Lake Anna drains an area of 343 square miles (Reference 2). The dam is approximately 90 feet high and 5,000 feet long and contains 3-2-68 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 900,000 cubic yards of earth and rock (Reference 6). Lake Anna began filling in January 1972 and reached full pool in December of that year (Reference 6). For discussion purposes, Lake Anna may be divided into two distinct bodies of water, the WHTF and the North Anna Reservoir. The WHTF is the smaller body of water into which existing units waste heat is discharged via the discharge canal. The North Anna Reservoir is the larger body of water and is physically separated from the WHTF by a series of dikes.

Lake Anna is approximately 17 miles long, with 272 miles of shoreline. It is relatively shallow (maximum depth 90 feet; average depth approximately 25 feet at full pool), with a surface area of 13,000 acres (Reference 6). The normal elevation of the reservoir is 250 ft msl, at which stage it holds 305,000 acre-feet of water (Reference 6). The Commonwealth of Virginia requires a 40-cfs minimum discharge of water from the North Anna Dam, except under extreme drought conditions.

These minimum flow requirements have been established to maintain instream flows and water quality in the North Anna River below the dam and in the Pamunkey and York Rivers further downstream (Figure 2.4-1). Should these types of drought conditions occur, and Lake Anna surface water levels fall to 248 ft msl, Virginia Power would begin reducing releases incrementally below the 40 cfs level in accordance with the Lake Level Contingency Plan, as stipulated in Part I.F of the VPDES Permit.

Prior to impoundment, water quality in the North Anna River was degraded by sedimentation and acid mine drainage from Contrary Creek, an 8.5-mile-long tributary that flowed into the river from the west, near the town of Mineral, Virginia (Figure 2.4-2). Land adjacent to Contrary Creek had been the site of extensive iron pyrite mining operations during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Reference 2). When the mine was abandoned (circa 1920), mine shafts and tailings piles were left exposed to the weather. Runoff from the mine area was acidic, with high concentrations of metals.

Virtually no aquatic life was found in Contrary Creek downstream of the mine site (Reference 6).

Prior to impoundment, the density and diversity of fish and benthic macroinvertebrates were markedly reduced in the North Anna River immediately downstream of its confluence with Contrary Creek. Subtle changes were evident as far as 15 miles downstream, although water quality was generally satisfactory (Reference 2).

In 1976, the Virginia State Water Control Board, in association with the EPA, attempted to reclaim previously-mined and disturbed areas along Contrary Creek to reduce the impacts of sedimentation and acid mine drainage (Reference 2). The reclamation project reduced, to some extent, erosion and sedimentation in the area.

The creation of Lake Anna has mitigated most water quality impacts from Contrary Creek area runoff. Low-pH creek water is neutralized as it mixes with higher-pH reservoir water. Heavy metals are removed from the water column by adsorption to clay particles and the subsequent settling of these particles. Chemical precipitation (and co-precipitation with iron) may also remove zinc and copper ions from Contrary Creek water when it mixes with Lake Anna water.

3-2-69 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report A comprehensive study of Lake Annas water quality and aquatic communities was conducted in support of a CWA Section 316(a) Demonstration for NAPS (Reference 2). This evaluation was based on five years (1973-1977) of pre-operational studies and eight years (1978-1985) of operational studies. Water quality, water temperature, and biological monitoring were conducted in upper, middle, and lower portions of the North Anna Reservoir, and in the North Anna River below the reservoir.

Water quality in Lake Anna has historically been good to excellent. Turbidity levels are generally low, except during periods of heavy inflows from tributary streams.

Nutrient levels (nitrates and phosphates) from flooded farmland were elevated in the years following impoundment of the river and its valley, but stabilized in the 1980s at low levels sufficient to support a thriving community of benthic macroinvertebrates, plankton, and fish. As noted previously, there have been no indications of nutrient enrichment or eutrophication in Lake Anna, beyond those associated with normal reservoir aging. Lake Anna and the North Anna River are not among the water bodies designated by the Virginia State Water Control Board as nutrient-enriched waters. (Reference 7)

Recently, the Virginia DEQ has listed several of the upper-lake tributaries in its 303(d) list of impaired waters because of seasonal exceedances of fecal coliform. Also portions of the North Anna Reservoir itself have been added because of high values of PCBs in certain fish tissue analyses.

Since its creation, the North Anna Reservoir has developed into three ecological areas that were identified in the CWA 316(a) Demonstration as upper lake, mid- lake, and lower lake (Reference 2).

The physical characteristics are different among the areas. The upper lake is primarily riverine and shallow (average depth of 13 feet), and shows some evidence of stratification in summer. The mid-lake is deeper and stratifies in summer. It receives waters from Contrary Creek that, because of years of mining in its floodplain, are sometimes low in pH and high in metals. The lower lake is the deepest part of the reservoir, with an average depth of 36 feet. It is clearer (with more light penetration), and shows pronounced annual patterns of winter mixing and summer stratification.

The epilimnion (warm layer above the thermocline) was generally 8 feet deep during pre-operational years and 26 to 33 feet deep during operational years. The increase in depth of the epilimnion appears to be related to the heated discharge entering the reservoir from Dike 3 (see Figure 2.4-3) and the withdrawal of cooler, deeper water at the existing units intake (Reference 2).

The heated discharge, attendant mixing, and withdrawal of water at the intake have also increased the depth of oxygenation, with the layer of water holding at least 5 milligrams per liter of dissolved oxygen increasing from 16 feet (pre-operational) to 29 feet (operational).

The existing units use a once-through cooling system that withdraws water from mid-Lake and discharges it into a discharge canal. The canal is approximately 3600 feet long and discharges into the WHTF, which was formed by diking off a portion of Lake Anna. The cooling water residence 3-2-70 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report time in the WHTF is approximately 14 days, depending on condenser flow rate. More than half the existing units waste heat is dissipated in the WHTF. The only discharge from the WHTF into the North Anna Reservoir is through Dike 3, which abuts the lower lake near the dam. The discharge is a submerged, high-velocity jet that promotes rapid mixing with reservoir waters.

Temperature monitoring at Lake Anna indicates that the shallower upper lake warms earlier in spring and reaches maximum temperature in summer sooner than the lower lake. The lower lake, with its greater depth and volume, warms more slowly in spring and retains its heat later in the year.

It is estimated that the heat contributed by the existing units corresponds to about 10 percent of the solar heat entering the reservoir on summer days. (Reference 2)

From 1975 through 1985, Virginia Power monitored water temperatures at 10 (7 in North Anna Reservoir and 3 in WHTF) Lake Anna locations, as part of a CWA Section 316(a) Demonstration for NAPS (Reference 2, Section 3.5, Table 3.5-2). Temperatures were recorded hourly at most of these locations. Highest (hourly average) temperatures recorded in June, July, and August over this period were 91.8°F at an upper lake location in 1984, 92.7°F at an upper lake location in 1977, and 91.6°F at a lower lake location in 1980, respectively. The highest (hourly average) water temperature before the existing units began operating (92.7°F) was measured on July 19, 1977, at the northern-most location (Pamunkey Creek arm). The highest (hourly average) water temperature measured in an operational year was 92.3°F, recorded in July 1983. (Reference 2)

In recent years, Virginia Power has continued to monitor Lake Anna water temperatures, using fixed temperature recorders at 7 locations in North Anna Reservoir and 3 locations in the WHTF (Figure 2.4-4). This temperature monitoring is part of a larger post-316(a) Demonstration environmental monitoring effort that includes fish population studies. To allow for direct comparisons with historical data, temperatures in Lake Anna are reported as monthly means of daily high, mean, and low temperatures. The range of temperatures and between-location temperature trends recorded over a recent six-year period (1995-2000) have shown strong similarities to historical data (Reference 8) (Reference 9) (Reference 10) (Reference 11)

(Reference 12) (Reference 13). These temperature data do not indicate an overall long-term warming trend in North Anna Reservoir. Further, differences in temperature throughout the reservoir continue to be small, regardless of time of year or power station operating levels. Virginia Power submits annual reports to VDEQ and VDGIF on water temperatures and fisheries monitoring in Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

2.4.2.2 Biological Communities of Lake Anna The Environmental Impact Statement for NAPS License Renewal (Reference 5) summarizes studies of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic organisms conducted by Virginia Power over the 1973-1985 period. These studies are not reviewed here. The plankton and benthos communities that developed over the first several years of the existing units operation were typical of those seen in other Piedmont reservoirs.

3-2-71 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report The long narrow arm of Lake Anna just northwest of the power-block area is associated with two small intermittent streams that could be affected by the new units. Following heavy rainfall, these streams flow in a northerly direction into Lake Anna. Due to their intermittent nature, neither stream supports significant numbers or diversity of fish.

Because of the importance of recreational fishing in Lake Anna, its fish community has been the subject of wide-ranging studies. Abundance and distribution of fish were evaluated over a period from 1975-1985, using a variety of sampling methods to ensure that gear selectivity did not bias results. Larval fish studies, creel surveys, and a number of special studies focused on the reproduction and growth of important species, such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).

Seasonal movement and habitat preferences of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) were investigated, using ultrasonic tags.

From 1975 through 1985, 39 species of fish (representing 12 families) were found in Lake Anna Reference 2. Species included those historically found in the North Anna River, those that had been in local farm ponds inundated by the new reservoir, and nine species (four non-native) introduced by the VDGIF.

The community structure remained relatively stable over the 1975-1985 period, with some year-to-year variation in species composition. These variations were caused by 1) normal population fluctuations, 2) reservoir aging, 3) the introduction of forage species and competing predators, 4) the installation of fish attractors and artificial habitat, and 5) the increase in Corbicula fluminia (Asiatic clam) densities. Post-1975 changes included 1) a decline in relative abundance of yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), 2) an increase in the relative abundance of white perch (Morone americana) and threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense),

and 3) an increase in redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) abundance, with a corresponding decrease in pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus). None of these changes appeared to be related to existing units operation.

From 1975 to 1984, the mean standing crop ranged between 232 and 296 pounds of fish per acre, but it increased substantially in 1985 (to 417 pounds per acre) because of a large increase in introduced threadfin shad and an increase in the abundance of gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). Both species provide forage for Lake Annas game fish, which include largemouth bass, walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), and striped bass. Lake Anna appears to support a standing crop of fish higher than most U.S. reservoirs, with thriving populations of several forage species and highertrophiclevel (gamefish) species.

Standing stocks of largemouth bass, Lake Annas most popular sport fish, remained stable over the 1975-1985 period. In 1985, Lake Anna produced more largemouth bass of citation size (eight pounds or more) than any other lake or reservoir in Virginia. Life history studies of Lake Anna largemouth bass, summarized in the 316(a) Demonstration (Reference 2), suggest that the 3-2-72 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report reproductive success, feeding ecology, and growth of this species were similar in pre-operational and operational years.

Four non-native fish species (striped bass, walleye, threadfin shad, and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) have been stocked in the North Anna Reservoir by the VDGIF since 1972. Striped bass, introduced in 1973, have been stocked annually since 1975. They provide a put-grow-and-take fishery. Streams, including the North Anna River, that flow into the North Anna Reservoir lack the flow, depth, and length to support striped bass spawning runs. Studies show that striped bass grow and provide a substantial recreational fishery, but adults are subject to late-summer habitat restrictions (may be restricted to cooler-water refuge areas). As a consequence, they may lose weight and show a decline in condition. Walleyes are also stocked annually by the VDGIF and are highly sought-after game fish.

Threadfin shad, introduced in 1983 to provide additional forage for striped bass and other top-of-the-food-chain predators, are vulnerable to cold shock and winter kills, and would not be able to survive in Lake Anna if it were not for power station operation. Threadfin shad appear to be thriving and are an important source of food for game fish. Blueback herring, stocked by the VDGIF in 1980 as a forage species, have not been as successful.

In 1994, a fifth non-native species, the herbivorous grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), was stocked by Virginia Power (with the approval of the VDGIF) in the WHTF to control the growth of the nuisance submersed aquatic plant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata).

In addition to the previously described stocking programs, which are designed to expand fishing opportunities in the North Anna Reservoir, Virginia Power, in cooperation with VDGIF, placed 20 underwater fish structures in the reservoir over the 1983-1990 period to provide additional fish habitat in areas with clean bottoms (Reference 14). The structures, consisting of conically-shaped piles of cinder blocks, small trees, and brush (secured to the blocks) were designed to provide escape cover for young fish and spawning and feeding areas for larger fish. Although designed to provide habitat for largemouth bass, black crappie, and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) in particular, these fish structures benefit a variety of other species.

As noted previously in this section, Virginia Power has continued to monitor fish populations in Lake Anna since 1986, as part of a larger post-316(a) Demonstration environmental monitoring program.

Fisheries monitoring over a recent six-year period (1995-2000) reveals a balanced reservoir fish community comprised of healthy populations of top-of-the-food-chain predators (e.g., largemouth bass and striped bass) and the forage species on which they feed (e.g., threadfin shad and gizzard shad), panfish (e.g., bluegill, redear sunfish, redbreast), and catfish (channel catfish and white catfish), in particular.

Lake Anna is well known as a producer of trophy largemouth bass and large numbers of striped bass. In 2000, Lake Anna ranked third in the Commonwealth of Virginia in producing trophy 3-2-73 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report certificate (citation) largemouth bass (Reference 13), with 72 fish meeting the standard (at least 22 inches in length or 8 pounds in weight).

2.4.2.2.1 Commercially-Important Fisheries There is no commercial fishing on Lake Anna or the North Anna River. There are professional fishing guides who regularly take clients fishing for largemouth, striped bass and walleye on the North Anna Reservoir, but there are no commercial fishing operations in the sense that fish are netted or trapped and sold at market. Professional fishing guides must adhere to state fishing regulations, and are prohibited by law from selling their catch.

2.4.2.2.2 Recreationally Important Fisheries Lake Anna is a popular destination for anglers from central and northern Virginia. Its healthy fish populations and its proximity to the cities of Washington, D.C., Richmond, and Charlottesville mean that the reservoir is heavily fished, particularly in spring and fall. In summer, an influx of recreational boaters, water-skiers, and jet skiers discourages some fishermen. The heated effluent that flows into the North Anna Reservoir at Dike 3 creates conditions conducive to good fishing in winter, making the reservoir a popular fishing spot when cold weather slows or shuts down fishing at other ponds and lakes in the region.

The VDGIF estimated that 42,731 anglers fished Lake Anna for 232,439 hours0.00508 days <br />0.122 hours <br />7.258598e-4 weeks <br />1.670395e-4 months <br /> over a 12-month period in 2000 and 2001. The species most often sought were largemouth bass, striped bass, and crappie, with 69 percent, 15 percent, and 12 percent of anglers, respectively, pursuing these species (Reference 15). Black crappie, not largemouth bass, was the species most often harvested. Depending on the time of year, species such as bluegill, white perch, channel catfish, and walleye are also sought by Lake Anna fishermen.

2.4.2.2.3 Important North Anna Reservoir Species The VDGIF manages the fisheries of the North Anna Reservoir with particular emphasis on providing quality largemouth and striped bass fisheries within the capacity of available habitat (Reference 16). As a consequence, the VDGIF district biologists who conduct monitoring studies and research on the fishes of the North Anna Reservoir focus on these two species, both highly esteemed by local anglers. Other species, such as black crappie and channel catfish, are monitored by VDGIF but are not as actively managed.

a. Largemouth bass Electro-fishing catch rates for largemouth bass greater than 8 inches long in the North Anna Reservoir have been high in recent years (Reference 16) (Reference 17) (Reference 18).

Young-of-the-year catch rates, although lower, have been indicative of consistent recruitment.

Structural indices of the largemouth bass population indicate a population dominated by larger, older individuals. Growth of younger (1-to-4 year old) largemouth bass is excellent; however, growth of older bass (5 years and older) is below the district average (Reference 16).

3-2-74 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report On average (all age classes considered), largemouth bass in the North Anna Reservoir grow more rapidly than largemouth bass in other large Virginia impoundments (Reference 18).

In summary, largemouth bass tend to grow rapidly in their first four years of life, plateau at age 5, and grow relatively slowly thereafter. The population contains a high proportion of harvestable individuals, and provides excellent opportunities for anglers seeking larger, trophy-sized fish.

b. Striped bass Annual stockings of fry and fingerlings sustain the North Anna Reservoirs striped bass population. Normally, between 100,000 and 200,000 fingerlings are stocked annually, which equates to between 10 and 20 fish per acre (Reference 16). VDGIF is experimenting with lower (5 fish/acre) stocking rates to determine if recruitment is significantly affected.

Striped bass growth patterns in the North Anna Reservoir vary from year to year, with some of the variability apparently related to the size of fish stocked (dependent on size of fish supplied by hatcheries). Generally speaking, young striped bass grow rapidly, and reach harvestable size (20 inches) in about 30 months (Reference 16). Estimates of annual mortality range from 35 to 50 percent, depending on the cohort evaluated, with the lower percentage likely more accurate (Reference 16) (Reference 17) (Reference 18). Excellent year classes in 1997, 1998, and 1999 should provide outstanding fishing in 2003 and beyond. All three year classes should be of harvestable size by 2003.

Since the early 1990s, VDGIF has been evaluating late-summer striped bass habitat in the North Anna Reservoir, taking temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles at representative locations in the reservoir. In July-August 2000, temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles revealed that portions of the North Anna Reservoir, in the area between NAPS and the Lake Anna Dam, did not provide acceptable striped bass habitat (water temperature less than 26°C and dissolved oxygen concentration greater than 2.0 milligrams per liter) (Reference 17).

However, the striped bass habitat uplake of the existing units was acceptable, and striped bass were presumed to have moved to these uplake areas seeking cooler, oxygenated water.

This late-summer dispersal of striped bass has been observed in other southeastern reservoirs (Reference 19). No late-summer die-offs of striped bass have been observed in the North Anna Reservoir although they have occurred in reservoirs in North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama (Reference 20) (Reference 21).

c. Black Crappie Based on experimental gill net catches, black crappie abundance in North Anna Reservoir was very high in 1997 and 1998, but has declined in recent years (Reference 16) (Reference 17)

(Reference 18). Growth of black crappie is good, and agrees with other impoundments in the region. There is considerable year-to-year variability in population size structure (i.e., average size of fish captured), but it is unclear if this is an indication of changes in age composition or 3-2-75 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report changes in growth rates. The catch-per-unit-effort of quality black crappie declined by 50 percent between 1997 and 1998, an indication that (fishing) mortality is high. Most crappie (92 percent) caught in gill nets were caught in the upper lake (Reference 16).

d. Catfish Channel catfish ranked fifth in abundance in gill nets in 1997 and fourth in abundance in 1998 (Reference 16). Much higher numbers of channel catfish and white catfish were captured in gill nets in 1998 than in 1997, but this phenomenon was attributed to low reservoir levels (related to drought) rather than an actual increase in numbers of catfish. VDGIF reports provide no information on age and growth, condition, or age/size structure of catfish populations.

e. Shad Because threadfin shad abundance is cyclic, gizzard shad serve in most years as North Anna Reservoirs forage base (Reference 16). Gizzard shad are regarded by fisheries managers as a less-than-ideal forage species, because their rapid growth makes them unavailable to predators in a year or two. Threadfin shad, while the ideal size, are subject to mass die-offs from low temperatures or sudden temperature changes. In 1997 and 1998, gizzard shad numbered second and first, respectively, in North Anna Reservoir gill net catches. Threadfin shad were seventh in 1997 and eighth in 1998. Most shad (71 percent in 1997 and 76 percent in 1998) were caught in the upper reservoir (Reference 16).

2.4.2.2.4 Nuisance Species Virginia Power first collected the non-native Asiatic clam in benthos samples in 1979. Densities increased sharply thereafter, as this species with its high reproductive potential quickly occupied suitable habitat in the reservoir (Reference 2). In response to NRC Generic Letter 89-13, Virginia Power initiated a semi-annual sampling program in the fall of 1990 to monitor Asiatic clam in the North Anna Reservoir, the WHTF, and the emergency SWR. Virginia Power biologists collect replicate samples at two North Anna Reservoir locations (i.e., at the intake and a location in mid lake), two WHTF locations, and a single location in the existing units SWR. They report the total number and density of clams at the various locations and discuss population trends in semi-annual reports.

These monitoring studies indicate that total numbers and densities of Asiatic clam at the various locations in the North Anna Reservoir and the WHTF show sizable fluctuations between years, mostly as a result of spawning activity (Reference 22) (Reference 23) (Reference 24)

(Reference 25) (Reference 26) (Reference 27) (Reference 28) (Reference 29) (Reference 30).

Small sand-sized clams less than 2 millimeters long are sometimes locally abundant immediately after spawning takes place, and inflate numbers and densities at a particular sampling location.

Asiatic clam numbers in the WHTF near the existing units discharge show the most dramatic fluctuations. For example, densities of clams at this location declined from 1,619 clams per square 3-2-76 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report meter in Spring 1992 to 11 clams per square meter in fall 1992 (Reference 31) (Reference 32).

Clams in this area are subject to boom and bust cycles, because under extreme conditions (high plant operating levels, high ambient temperatures, drought), water temperatures can get high enough to cause localized die-offs.

Larger (i.e., greater than 15 millimeters in length), older (i.e., 1 to 3 years old) Asiatic clams are uncommon in North Anna Reservoir samples, generally comprising less than 10 percent of the total collected (Reference 17) (Reference 23) (Reference 24) (Reference 25) (Reference 26)

(Reference 27) (Reference 28) (Reference 29) (Reference 30). Larger Asiatic clams are generally uncommon in WHTF samples as well, but sometimes make up a significant percentage (i.e.,

greater than 50 percent) of the total at WHTF-3 when sample sizes are small (Reference 24)

(Reference 25) (Reference 26) (Reference 29).

Although Asiatic clam shells have been observed in the SWR, Virginia Power biologists have collected no live clams at this location. The SWR is treated with algicides and molluscicides, preventing Asiatic clam from becoming established in this small reservoir.

When Virginia Power compared 1990-2002 Asiatic clam survey results to similar surveys conducted in the 1980s, data indicated a decline in the North Anna Reservoir population. The highest totals recorded in the spring in the 1980s were in 1988 and 1985, when 294 and 194 clams, respectively, were collected in replicate samples from a mid lake location. The highest totals recorded in the fall were in 1987 and 1986, when 1,227 and 237 clams were collected in replicate samples from a mid lake location. The highest number of clams collected over the 1990-2002 period from the mid lake location was 148, in Spring 1994 sampling. Operational experience at the existing units provides further evidence of a stable or declining North Anna Reservoir Asiatic clam population: no condenser tube blockages have been reported since Asiatic clam appeared in the North Anna Reservoir in the late 1970s.

In the course of monitoring Asiatic clam populations, Virginia Power also looks for evidence that the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has invaded Lake Anna. Biologists conducting clam surveys examine all bottom samples for the presence of this nuisance species, which became established in the Great Lakes region in the late 1980s after being inadvertently introduced from Northern Europe. Zebra mussels have clogged pipes in power plants and municipal water systems and disrupted the ecological balance of streams, lakes, and reservoirs into which they have been introduced.

As of the end of 2002, Virginia Power biologists had observed no zebra mussels in the North Anna Reservoir or the WHTF. Dissolved calcium levels in North Anna Reservoir and the WHTF are well below those known to promote shell growth in zebra mussels, which should limit its establishment in those waterbodies (Reference 30). Zebra mussels are known from only one location in the state of Virginia: Millbrook Quarry, in Prince William County, Virginia, approximately 60 miles north of the site. This population, believed to have been unintentionally introduced by SCUBA divers, was 3-2-77 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report discovered in August 2002 by a recreational diver who subsequently notified the VDGIF (Reference 33) (Reference 34).

2.4.2.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna and the North Anna River for more than 25 years. No federally- or state-listed fish species has been collected in any of these monitoring studies, nor has any listed species been observed in creel surveys or occasional special studies conducted by Virginia Power biologists. No state- or federally-listed fish species range includes Lake Anna or the North Anna River, and none is believed to occur in counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River (i.e., Caroline, Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties).

Based on VDGIF and VDCR (Division of Natural Heritage) databases, one federally-listed mussel species, one state-listed mussel species, and one mussel species that is a candidate for federal listing occur in counties that border Lake Anna or the North Anna River. None of the three has been found in Lake Anna or the North Anna River.

The dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) was historically found in Hanover, Louisa, and Spotsylvania Counties (Reference 35). It is listed as endangered by both the Commonwealth of Virginia and the USFWS. The USFWS Recovery Plan for the species, completed in 1993, indicated that one population survived in these counties, in the South Anna River, in Louisa County (Reference 36). The VDGIF Fish and Wildlife Information Service database currently lists a remnant population in the South Anna River in Louisa County, presumably the same population (Reference 37).

The VDCR database lists another mussel species, the slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis), as occurring in Orange County. The slippershell mussel is listed by the Commonwealth of Virginia as endangered, but it has no federal status. Given the known distribution of this species, Virginia Power believes the reported occurrence of the slippershell mussel in Orange County may be in error. The slippershell mussel is widely distributed in the Upper Mississippi River basin and the Ohio River and Tennessee River sub-basins, including three streams in southwestern Virginia, but is not found in Atlantic Slope drainages (Reference 38) (Reference 39) (Reference 40).

A third mussel species reported as occurring in the vicinity of the NAPS site, the fluted kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus subtentum), is a candidate for federal listing. The VDGIFs Fish and Wildlife Information Service database lists this species as occurring in a stream or streams in Louisa County. However, based on the fact that all other confirmed accounts of this species are confined to mountain streams in southwestern Virginia that are tributaries of the Tennessee River, it is unlikely that a disjunct population would occur several hundred miles away in a river system that flows eastward to the Atlantic Ocean. Virginia Power believes the reported occurrence of the fluted kidneyshell mussel in Louisa County may be in error.

3-2-78 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report None of these mussel species were collected in pre-impoundment surveys of the North Anna River, and none have been collected in more recent years during routine monitoring surveys.

2.4.2.3 Biological Communities of North Anna River The North Anna River joins the South Anna River 23 miles downstream of the North Anna Dam, forming the Pamunkey River. Before 1972, when the river was impounded, flows varied considerably (1 to 24,000 cfs) from year to year and water quality was degraded by acid mine drainage from Contrary Creek. After 1972, fluctuations in flow were moderated (40 to 16,000 cfs from 1972 through 1985) and water quality has improved as a result of reclamation activities at the Contrary Creek mine site and the acid-neutralizing effect of Lake Annas waters.

Water quality downstream of the North Anna Dam is strongly influenced by conditions in the reservoir and releases at the dam. Water moving from the North Anna Reservoir to the North Anna River is less turbid and more chemically stable than the pre-impoundment flow. Dissolved oxygen levels are high (averaging 9.6 milligrams per liter over the 1981-1985 period) immediately downstream of the North Anna Dam, and increase further downstream, presumably as a result of turbulent mixing (Reference 2).

Summer water temperatures from 1970 to 1985 were higher near the North Anna Dam than further downstream, reflecting temperatures in the reservoir. The highest water temperature recorded in pre-operational years in the river was 89.4°F in July 1977, at a location 0.6 miles below the dam.

The highest temperature recorded in the river in operational years was slightly higher, 90.9°F, recorded in August 1983 at the same location.

Historically, the North Anna River periphyton community below the North Anna Dam was dominated by diatoms and was similar to that of other Southeastern streams. The benthic macroinvertebrate community in the stretch of the river below the dam was dominated by filter-feeding caddisflies that feed on seston (living and dead plankton, plus particulate matter) from the North Anna Reservoir.

Farther downstream, macroinvertebrate communities showed more diversity and were similar to those of the South Anna River, which served as a control.

In pre-impoundment surveys, the fish community of the North Anna River downstream of the Contrary Creek inflow was dominated by pollution-tolerant species. In the years following impoundment (and reclamation of the Contrary Creek mine site), there was a steady increase in measures of abundance and diversity (species richness) of fish. In 1984-85, 38 species from 10 families were found in the North Anna River, compared to 25 species from 8 families in the control stream, the South Anna River. When species from the North Anna Reservoir were subtracted from the North Anna River totals, the 2 fish communities showed striking similarities, indicating that the operation of the existing units had little or no effect on fish populations downstream from the dam.

3-2-79 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report In 2000, the number of fish collected at 4 stations downstream of the North Anna Dam was low but similar to 1989, 1993, and 1996 collections. High spring flows and cancelled surveys in the fall may have contributed to the low fish numbers. Experience has shown that high flows are associated with low electrofishing catch rates, and vice versa. Although the number of fish collected in 2000 was low, the species composition of the catch was similar to previous years, with 6 species comprising 80 percent of the electrofishing catch by number and 6 species comprising 83 percent of the electrofishing catch by weight. All indications are that the low catch in 2000 was an anomaly, and the North Anna River continues to support a healthy, well-balanced community of aquatic organisms.

2.4.2.3.1 Commercially-Important Fisheries As noted in Section 2.4.2.2, there is no commercial fishing in Lake Anna or the North Anna River.

There are no runs of anadromous fish in the North Anna River. The North Anna River is a tributary of the Pamunkey River, which has an annual run of American shad; but these shad do not move into the North Anna River (Reference 41) (Reference 42). The Pamunkey Tribal Council operates an American shad hatchery on the Pamunkey River approximately 75 miles downstream of the North Anna Dam. Shad reared at this facility are normally stocked in the Pamunkey River and the James River as fry.

Young American eels (Anguilla rostrata) are found in the North Anna River, but are not sought by commercial fishermen. The American eel is a catadromous species, meaning that these fish begin their lives in the open ocean, then migrate into coastal rivers where they spend more of their lives in fresh water. (Reference 43) Upon reaching sexual maturity, at age 5 to 7 years, the eels migrate back to the ocean where they spawn and die. Eels in the North Anna River are juveniles, also known as yellow eels.

2.4.2.3.2 Recreationally-Important Fisheries The lower North Anna River below the North Anna Dam is small, approximately 75 to 150 feet wide, but supports a diverse assemblage of stream fishes. It is a popular fishing spot. Unless stream flow is unusually high, powerboats are impractical: most anglers fish from shore or from canoes and kayaks. Recreational fishermen generally seek one or more of the following fish species:

largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, or redbreast sunfish. Bluegill and redear sunfish are present as well, but receive less attention from anglers.

2.4.2.3.3 Important Species in North Anna River Although the VDGIF periodically surveys the fish of the lower North Anna River and monitors the condition of the recreational fishery, it does not actively manage these populations. VDGIF is most concerned about the largemouth bass and smallmouth bass populations in the lower river, as these are the species most often sought by anglers and the species most likely to attain harvestable size.

Recent VDGIF surveys have indicated that largemouth bass and smallmouth bass populations are healthy, despite the rivers limited supply of forage.

3-2-80 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

a. Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth Bass Since 1987, Virginia Power biologists have gathered data on the abundance and distribution of these bass species in the lower North Anna River via direct (snorkel) observation (Reference 13). Biologists swim established transects at four locations in the lower river, counting and categorizing (by size) all bass that are observed and noting the type of cover being used. Historically, largemouth bass have dominated the fish counts at upstream locations, while smallmouth bass have been more prevalent at downstream locations (Reference 13). In recent years, both species have occupied the entire study area. As a general rule, however, largemouth bass are more abundant at the upstream locations and smallmouth bass are more abundant at the downstream locations. Density estimates for both largemouth and smallmouth bass at all locations were lower in 2000 than average densities for the entire study period, but dense growth of hydrilla adjacent to stream banks limited the ability of observers to accurately count fish (Reference 13).

b. Redbreast Redbreast ranked first in abundance in North Anna River electrofishing samples in 1998, 1999, and 2000, and have ranked in the top four every year since 1981 (Reference 13). The redbreast is found across the coastal plain and Piedmont of Virginia in warm-water creeks and rivers of low-to-moderate gradient (Reference 41). It is an adaptable species, and may also be found in ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and even slightly brackish waters near the coast. The redbreast of the lower North Anna River appear to be a typical stream-dwelling population, with unremarkable growth rates, food habits, and spawning habits.

2.4.2.3.4 Nuisance Species Asiatic clams first appeared in benthos samples from the North Anna River during the operational phase of the NAPS 316(a) study, conducted over the period 1981-1985. By the end of this period, Asiatic clams were firmly established in the lower North Anna River and were a major component of the benthos at several sampling locations (Reference 2).

2.4.2.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species As discussed in Section 2.4.2.2, Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna and the North Anna River for more than 25 years. No federally-listed or state-listed fish species has been collected in any of these monitoring studies, nor has any listed species been observed in creel surveys or occasional special studies conducted by Virginia Power biologists. No state- or federally-listed fish species range includes Lake Anna or the North Anna River, and none is believed to occur in counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River (i.e., Caroline, Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties).

3-2-81 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Section 2.4 References

1. The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online]. National Audubon Society. 2003.

Available at www.audubon.org/bird/cbc, accessed January 13, 2003.

2. North Anna Power Station Section 316(a) Demonstration, Section 4.5 Waterfowl, Water Quality Department, Virginia Power, June 1986.

3. Fish and Wildlife Information Service, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

2003. Geographic Search. vafwis.org/perl/vafwis.pl/vafwis.login. Note: This is a protected website that is accessible only through VDGIF authorization.

4. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) Listings by State and Territory as of 3/19/2003. Virginia, USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2003.

ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageUsaLists?state=VA. accessed March 19, 2003.

5. NUREG-1437, Supplement 7. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Regarding North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, April, 2002.

6. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Continuation of Construction and the Operation of Units 1 & 2 and the Construction of Units 3 & 4, North Anna Power Station, Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Washington, DC, 1973.

7. 9 VAC 25-260-5 et seq., Water Quality Standards, Part VII: Nutrient Enriched Waters, Virginia State Water Control Board. 2003.

8. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 1995, Virginia Power, Richmond, VA, 1996.

9. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 1996, Virginia Power, Richmond, VA, 1997.

10. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 1997, Virginia Power, Richmond, VA, 1998.

11. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 1998, Virginia Power, Richmond, VA, 1999.

12. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 1999, Virginia Power, Richmond, VA, 2000.

13. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River. Annual Report for 2000, including summary for 1998-2000, Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia, 2001.

3-2-82 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

14. Lake Anna Fish Structures, Pamphlet, Virginia Power, (undated).

15. Lake Anna, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), 2002a. Available online at www.dgif.state.va.us/fishing/lakes/lake_anna/index.html. Accessed March 16, 2003.

16. Odenkirk, J., Large Impoundment Management Report: Lake Anna, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, prepared by John Odenkirk, District Fishery Biologist, 1999.

17. Odenkirk, J., Large Impoundment Investigations: Lake Anna, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, prepared by John Odenkirk, District Fishery Biologist, Dingell-Johnson Grant F-111-R-9, Project I, 2001.

18. Odenkirk, J., Large Impoundment Investigations: Lake Anna, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, prepared by John Odenkirk, District Fishery Biologist. Dingell-Johnson Grant F-111-R-10, Project I, 2002.

19. Summer Striped Bass Habitat in Virginia/North Carolina, Reservoir Newsletter, Volume 2, Issue 2, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society (SDAFS). Published by the Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, August 1994.

20. Lake Murray Striped Bass Die-off Linked to Heat, Layering of Lake, News Release, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), August 10, 1998.

21. Moss, J, Cool Striped Bass, Fisheries Section News Article, Alabama Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries Division, 2000. Available online at www.dcnr.state.al.us/agfd/fish/FNACoolStripedBass.html. Accessed on March 19, 2003.

22. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 1998, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental Biology group, April 1998.

23. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 1999a, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental Biology group, October 1998.

24. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 1999b, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental Biology group, April 1999.

25. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 2000a, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental Biology group, October 1999.

26. Willis, W. R. Corbicula Survey Report 2000b, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental Biology group, April 2000.

27. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 2000c, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental Biology group, October 2000.

3-2-83 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

28. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 2001a, Prepared by Dominion Environmental Biology group, April 2001.

29. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 2002a, Prepared by Dominion Environmental Biology group, October 2001.

30. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 2002b, Prepared by Dominion Environmental Biology group, April 2002.

31. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 1992a, Prepared by Virginia Power FBO, April 1992.

32. Willis, W. R., Corbicula Survey Report 1992b, Prepared by Virginia Power FBO, October 1992.

33. Zebra mussels found in Virginia waters for the first time, United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2002. Available at the Non-indigenous Aquatic Species website maintained by Florida Caribbean Science Center, Biological Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey at nas.er.usgs.gov/zebra.mussel/.

34. Exotic zebra mussels threaten native wildlife, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), 2002b. VDGIF news release dated September 6, 2002. Available at www.dgif.state.va.us/newsroom/pr-090602-Zebras.html.

35. Online Information on Virginias Natural Communities, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants, Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation (VDCR). 2002.

Available at www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/nhrinfo.htm. Accessed March 20, 2003.

36. Moser, G. A., Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan, Prepared by Annapolis Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD. February 1993.

37. 060003 wedgemussel, dwarf. The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) 2003. Available at vafwis.org. Accessed March 20, 2003.

38. Kitchel, L., Slippershell mussel, In Virginias Endangered Species (K. Terwilliger, ed.), The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA.

39. Cummings, K. S. and C. A. Mayer, Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest, Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, 1992.

40. North Carolina Atlas of Freshwater Mussels & Endangered Fish, NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission), prepared by staff of the Non-game and Endangered Wildlife Program, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, undated. Available online at www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7b1a1_11.htm.

3-2-84 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

41. Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead, Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 1994.

42. Bilkovic, D. M., C. H. Hershner, and J. E. Olney, Macroscale Assessment of American Shad Spawning and Nursery Habitat in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, Virginia; North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1176-1192; 2002.

43. Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. F. Parnell, Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1994.

3-2-85 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

T Manassas W EE Warrenton VIRGINIA S

(522 Morrisville 17 Culpeper NORTH ANNA POWER STATION 29 Fredericksburg Fredericksburg uss (522 Line 57 iillee RRaaddiiu 3

-M 51100-M 208 South Anna NUG Mineral Line 575 95 Lin Louisa 95 e2 NoLadysmith 55 rth Charlottesville Sou 652 Ann 208 tSh a Au nt Line 576 o

Ri Ma 250 R ver ttapo hnaA nn 301 n

a r (15 Rr i ver iR i ve ive 33

/( 1 P am unke yR 360 r

64 4 ive 95 Richmond Richmond 60 Midlothian Midlothian 64 95 5

LEGEND 360 Transmission Lines 10 0 10 20 Kilomet ers Substations 10 0 10 20 Mil es Railroad Lines Utility\Vir Power\North Anna\Grfx\2-2 N Anna 50 Mile.ai Figure 2.4-1 Lake Anna and the North Anna River 3-2-86 Revision 0 September 2003

Figure 2.4-2 North Anna River; Northeast Creek; Contrary Creek North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-87 September 2003

From Condensers Dike #3 WHTF Submerged Wall EL. 251.5 Ft. EL. 250.0 Ft.

Stop-Log Gate Water flow EL. 227.0 Ft. Lake Anna flow fl o w EL. 212.0 Ft.

Dike 3 Discharge Canal Waste Heat Discharge Treatment Facility Structure 3600 Ft Figure 2.4-3 Schematic Cross-Sectional Diagram of Water-Discharge System at Dike 3 WHTF North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-88 September 2003

ORANGE 5

NAL719S 6 NAL208 4

NALINT 2 NALTHIS 1 7 NADISC1 NALBRPT 3 NARTV601 11 NALST10 10 NAWHTP2 8 NAWHTP3 9 Waste Reser oads show CHART 1 APPROXIMATE LOC Figure 2.4-4 Location of Temperature Sensors - Lake Anna North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-89 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.5 Socioeconomics This section presents the socioeconomic resources that have the potential to be impacted by the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the new units. The section is divided into four subsections: 1) demographics, 2) community characteristics, 3) historic properties, and

4) environmental justice. These subsections include spatial (e.g., regional, vicinity, and site) and temporal (e.g., 10-year increments of population growth) considerations, where appropriate, as referenced.

2.5.1 Demography The population distribution surrounding the ESP site, up to an 80-km (50-mi.) radius, has been estimated, based on the most recent U.S. Census Bureau decennial census data (Reference 1).

The population distribution encompasses nine concentric rings at 2 km (1.2 mi.), 4 km (2.5 mi.),

6 km (3.7 .), 8 km (5.0 mi.), 10 km (6.2 mi.), 16 km (10 mi.), 40 km (24.9 mi.), 60 km (37.3 mi.), and 80 km (50 mi.), and 16 directional sectors. The projected population estimates for Years 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040 have been calculated with a formula adopted from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service (Reference 2) using the 1990 Census and 2000 Census data as the base.

2.5.1.1 Resident Population Within 16 km (10 miles)

Figure 2.5-1 shows the general locations of the municipalities and other features within 10 miles (16 km) of the ESP site. According to the 2000 Census survey, Mineral, which has a population of 424 located within about 1 square mile (incorporated), is the largest community within 10 miles of the site (Reference 3). As reported in NAPS UFSAR (Reference 4, Section 2.1.3.1), the population in 1990 was 452. Therefore, the population of Mineral has remained constant during the past decade.

The population distribution within 10 miles of the site has been computed by overlaying the 2000 Census block points data (the smallest unit of census data) (Reference 5) on the grid shown on Figure 2.5-1, and summing the population of the census block points falling in each of the polar sectors comprising the grid. The census block-point summation and allocation has been accomplished using the Landview 5 (LV5) software, operating directly on census data, and the MARPLOT mapping software (Reference 1). The system can display Census 2000 demographic data, jurisdictional entities and many statistical entities of the U.S. Census Bureau. It can also calculate Census 2000 population, racial distribution, census block count and housing unit count within a user-defined radius. Using MARPLOT, the grid system was created as shown on Figure 2.5-1. LV5 was designed to summarize the population distribution and other information, once the user selected an area of interest within the grid system. The entire grid system is evenly divided into 16 directions, each direction consisting of 22.5 degrees.

The population distributions and related information have been recorded on a spreadsheet to tabulate the results at the distances of interest for all sixteen directions. The 10-mile population 3-2-90 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report distribution for Year 2000 is shown on Figure 2.5-3. In order to generate more accurate counts, census block points were used in LV5 to calculate population distributions.

Population projections for the area within 10 miles of the ESP site for 10-year increments up to 40 years from the 2000 census are provided. Population projections for the year 2010, 2020, 2030 and 2040 are given in Figure 2.5-4 through Figure 2.5-7. The formula used for average annual growth (percentage of growth) is adopted from (Reference 2). The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service group has performed the 2001 provisional population estimates for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Log10 ( Population 2000 Population 1990 )

Annual Average Growth = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( 2000 - 1990 ) x 0.4342945 The 1990 population distributions within each county and city considered in Virginia and Maryland were also obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (Reference 5).

In 2000, the total population within 16 km (10 mi.) of the ESP site was 15,511. Based on the average annual growth, the estimated population for 2010 is 20,996. This is a projected increase of 35.4 percent. In 2020, an estimated 26,480 people will live within the 16-km (10-mi) radius of the site. This constitutes a 26.1 percent increase from 2010. For each decade, there is a slight downward trend in the percent increase of the population. The growth between 2020 and 2030 is projected to be 20.7 percent and between 2030 and 2040 to be 17.2 percent. Table 2.5-1 presents the population distribution within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the ESP site for four decades (2000 to 2040).

Table 2.5-2 presents the estimated sex distribution of the population within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the ESP site. The ratio of men to women is fairly consistent throughout the different concentric rings. The ratio of men to women in Virginia is slightly over 96 men to every 100 women (see Table 2.5-3). The ratio of men to women living within the 16-km (10-mi) radius of the ESP site is about the same: 97 men to every 100 women.

Table 2.5-4 presents the estimated age distribution of the population within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the ESP site. The number of individuals in the 20-to-24 age group and the 65 and over age group is significantly lower than the rest of the age groups. However, this is typical of the Commonwealth of Virginia as a whole (see Table 2.5-5). The percentage of each age group tends to be very similar across each concentric ring. There appear to be no large groupings of any specific age group.

Table 2.5-6 presents the racial and ethnic distribution of the population within a 16-km (10-mi) radius of the ESP site. The white population is by far the majority within the 0- to 16-km (0- to 10-mi.) radius, with 12,805 people (82.6 percent of the population). However, the percentage of white people living within a given radius changes throughout the entire 16-km (10-mi.) radius from 94.3 percent in the 2-km (1.2-mi.) radius to 76.4 percent in the 8-km (5-mi.) radius to 83.6 percent in the 16-km (10-mi.) radius.

3-2-91 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report The percentage of black people living within a given radius also changes greatly throughout the entire 16-km (10-mi) radius from 4.8 percent in the 2-km (1.2-mi.) radius to 21.5 percent in the 8-km (5-mi.) radius to 13.5 percent in the 16-km (10-mi.) radius. The overall percentage of black people within the 0- to 16-km (0- to 10-mi.) radius from the site is 14.9 percent (2309 people).

Table 2.5-7 presents the estimated income distribution of the population within a 16-km (10-mi.)

radius of the ESP site. Income distribution provided in the 2000 census data set has been recorded only up to Year 1999. Most of the individuals 15 years of age and older earn below $25,000 per year. Within the 0- to 16-km (0- to 10-mi.) radius, an estimated 5404 individuals (approximately 45.7 percent) earn less than $25,000. This is consistent with the overall Virginia numbers within one percent (see Table 2.5-7). The percentage of individuals earning between $50,000 and $75,000, between $75,000 and $100,000, and over $100,000 increases almost consistently throughout the different concentric rings.

Overall, the characteristics of the population within each concentric ring are basically the same.

2.5.1.2 Resident Population Between 16 km (10 miles) and 80 km (50 miles)

The 80-km (50-mi.) radius around the ESP site covers thirty counties and four cities in Virginia and one county in Maryland (See Figure 2.5-2). The Town of Louisa is located approximately 12 miles to the west of the site. The population of the town has increased from 1088 (Reference 4) to 1400

((Reference 9), Section 2.2.8.5) between 1990 and 2002. About 40 miles south-southwest of the site is Richmond, Virginia, with a population of 197,790 in the Year 2000. About 36 miles west of the ESP site is Charlottesville, Virginia, which has a population of 45,049 according to the 2000 Census. About 22 miles northeast of the ESP site is Fredericksburg, Virginia, with a population of 19,279. The nearest population center with more than 25,000 residents is the City of Charlottesville.

The closest point of Fredericksburg is 22 miles to the northeast with a projected 2040 population of about 20,300.

In addition to the thirty counties within Virginia, the 80-km (50-mi.) radius from the ESP site also encompasses Charles County, Maryland. The population distribution within that 80-km (50-mi.)

radius for Charles County, which at its closest point is 37 miles northeast from the site, is 9270 based on the 2000 census data.

The 80-km (50-mi.) Year 2000 population distribution throughout the four concentric distance rings and the 16 directional sectors is shown on Figure 2.5-8. Population projections for the area between 16 and 80 km (10 and 50 mi.) for years 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040 are based on the same methodology as the 16-km (10-mi.) projections. These population projections throughout the four concentric rings and the 16 directional sectors are given in Figure 2.5-9 through Figure 2.5-12.

The total population within 80 km (50 mi.) of the ESP site is 1,538,156, according to the 2000 Census. Based on the average annual growth, the estimated 2010 population is 1,849,539, which 3-2-92 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report is a projected increase of 16.8 percent. Table 2.5-8 presents the population distribution within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the site for four decades (2000 to 2040).

In 2020, an estimated 2,160,921 people will live within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. This constitutes a 14.4 percent increase from 2010. For each decade, there is a slight downward trend in the percent increase of the population. The growth between 2020 and 2030 is projected to be 12.6 percent and between 2030 and 2040 to be 11.2 percent.

Table 2.5-9 presents the estimated sex distribution of the population within an 80-km (50-mi.) radius of the ESP site. The population within this 80-km (50-mi.) radius contains about 94 males for every 100 females. This is a bit lower than the overall state of Virginia, which averages slightly over 96 men to every 100 women (See Table 2.5-3).

The estimated sex distribution throughout the 80-km (50-mi.) radius is fairly consistent. The distribution within each concentric ring is basically the same and is very close to the ratio for Virginia as a whole (see Table 2.5-3).

Table 2.5-10 presents the estimated age distribution of the population within an 80-km (50-mi.)

radius of the ESP site. The age group with the largest percentage of people is the 25- to 44-year-old age group. The next largest age group is the 0- to 19-year-old age group. This could be based on the fact that most parents are between the ages of 25 and 44, and their children, would be 19 years old and younger.

For each age group, the percentages are fairly consistent, regardless of the size of the population within the specific radius; although, there are a couple of inconsistencies. These inconsistencies include the 0-to-16-km (0-to-10-mi.) radiuss 25-to-44 age group (which is lower than the same group in the other concentric circles) and the 0-to-16 km (0-to-10 mi.) radiuss 0-to-19 age group (which is higher than the same group in the other concentric circles).

Table 2.5-11 presents the racial and ethnic distribution of the population within an 80-km (50-mi.)

radius of the ESP site. The ratio of the white population to the black population within 80-km (50-mile) radius is 3 to 1 (see Table 2.5-12) which is consistent with the ratio of 3.7 to 1 for the Commonwealth of Virginia in its entirety.

The black population increases significantly between the 60-km (37.3-mi.) radius and the 80-km (50-mi.) radius. This increase is due to the population of the City of Richmond. In Richmond, the ratio of white individuals to black individuals is 67 to 100 (see Table 2.5-12).

Table 2.5-13 presents the estimated income distribution of the population within an 80-km (50-mi.)

radius of the ESP site. The largest percentage of the population earned less than $25,000 in 1999.

This was consistent with the rest of the state. The distribution of earnings within each concentric ring is fairly consistent throughout the entire 80-km (50-mi.) radius from the ESP site.

The majority of current NAPS employees reside in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania counties. Spotsylvania and Louisa counties are two of the fastest growing counties in Virginia.

3-2-93 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report While Virginia as a whole has increased in population by 13.4 percent between 1990 and 2000, Spotsylvania and Louisa counties have increased in population by 45.4 percent and 23.3 percent, respectively. Henrico and Orange counties have also surpassed the Virginia average by increasing in population by 18.6 and 18.9 percent, respectively. However, the City of Richmond decreased in population by 2.5 percent in the same time period.

Table 2.5-3 presents the sex distribution of the population in the counties that contribute most of the current NAPS employees, in comparison to the entire state of Virginia. The counties sex-distributed populations closely track within one percent. The exceptions are Henrico County and the City of Richmond in which both locations have a larger female population.

Table 2.5-14 presents the age distribution of the population in the counties that contribute most of the current NAPS employees in comparison with the entire state of Virginia. The counties age-distributed populations closely track within 3 percent. The exceptions are Spotsylvania Countys 0-to-19 age group (which is 4.8 percentage points higher than the Virginia average),

Orange Countys 25-to-44 age group (which is 3.8 percentage points lower than the Virginia average), and Orange Countys 65-and-older age group (which is 6 percentage points higher than the Virginia average).

Table 2.5-12 presents the racial and ethnic distribution of the population in the counties that contribute most of the current NAPS employees in comparison with the entire state of Virginia. The counties racial and ethnic-distributed populations closely track within 5 percent. The exceptions are Orange Countys white population group (which is 12.1 percentage points higher than the Virginia average), the City of Richmonds white population group (which is 34 percentage points lower than the Virginia average), Spotsylvania Countys white population group (which is 10.6 percentage points higher than the Virginia average), Orange Countys black population group (which is 5.8 percentage points lower than the Virginia average), the City of Richmonds black population group (which is 37.6 percentage points higher than the Virginia average), and Spotsylvania Countys black population group (which is 7.1 percentage points lower than the Virginia average).

Table 2.5-7 presents the income distribution of the population in the counties that contribute most of the current NAPS employees in comparison with the entire state of Virginia. The counties income-distributed populations closely track within 4 percent. The exceptions are Henrico Countys less-than-$25,000 income group (which is 5.3 percentage points lower than the Virginia average),

Louisa Countys less-than-$25,000 income group (which is 5.5 percentage points higher than the Virginia average), the City of Richmonds less-than-$25,000 income group (which is 9.8 percentage points higher than the Virginia average), Spotsylvania Countys less-than-$25,000 income group (which is 6.3 percentage points lower than the Virginia average), and Henrico Countys

$25,000-to-$50,000 income group (which is 6.6 percentage points higher than the Virginia average).

3-2-94 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report The population distributions throughout the 9 concentric rings and the 16 directional sectors extending to a 50-mile radius for the Present Date, Startup Date, and 40-year Date are summarized in Table 2.5-15. The startup date was conservatively assumed to be around Year 2025, based on the assumption that the period of ESP approval is between 2005 and 2025.

2.5.1.3 Transient Population 2.5.1.3.1 Transient Population Within 16 km (10 miles)

Information concerning transient population for the area has been collected from several sources, because the information is not available from the 2000 census data. The area within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of the ESP site is predominantly rural and is characterized by farmland and wooded tracts of land. Since there are no significant industrial or commercial facilities in the area, and none are anticipated (Reference 4, Section 2.1.3.3), the transient employment population is likely to move out of, rather than into, the area.

Recreational use of Lake Anna, including Lake Anna State Park, is the greatest contributor to transient population in the area. The usage of the lake was estimated from a number of contributing factors including the number of boat ramps, wet slips, campsites, picnic areas, etc. These contributing factors are listed in Table 2.5-16.

An estimate of lake usage on a peak weekend day in the peak summer season has been developed based on representative usage of recreational facilities (e.g., boating, picnicking, camping) provided by the VDCR (Reference 4, Section 2.1.3.3) and the Lake Anna recreational facilities listed in Table 2.5-16. However, residents should have been included in the census data.

This estimate does not include use by local residents with their own docks. In addition, many residents without docks keep their boats in marina wet slips or use the boat ramps and are, therefore, included in the lake usage.

There are six marinas in the vicinity of the ESP site. The closest is 1.4 miles north-northeast of the site. The remaining marinas are from 2 to 2.3 miles distant. A survey of several of the marinas indicate that their actual boat launches, per ramp, ranged from 15 to 40 per peak day, which is significantly lower than the number of 80 per day provided by the VDCR as an upper limit, and that the usage per ramp has dropped as new ramps are added. This was attributed to parking space limitations and the fact that the lake usage by recreational boaters may be approaching saturation.

A rate of 50 launches per ramp per day was selected as being more representative of Lake Anna conditions.

Based on 50 launches per ramp per day, these marinas and other boat ramps, including those at Lake Anna State Park, could provide access for up to 1450 pleasure craft on Lake Anna. Peak day usage estimates for boats moored in wet slips ranged from 30 to 50 percent. Assuming that all slips are rented, 150 additional boats would be added, bringing the total, excluding boats from private 3-2-95 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report docks, to 1600. The resulting transient population at three persons per boat would be 4800 (Reference 4, Section 2.1.3.3).

The two commercial campgrounds, with a combined total of more than 200 campsites, has been estimated by the Virginia State Department of Conservation and Recreation to contribute about 650 persons to the transient population assuming three persons per campsites. The number of picnickers has been estimated at 450. Since both campsites have boat ramps, significant double counting is likely (Reference 4, Section 2.1.3.3)

Lake Anna State Park provides facilities for picnicking, fishing, boat launching, swimming and biking. The Lake Anna State Park Manager estimated a peak daily attendance of 4372 from June 2002 through August 2002, and an annual attendance of 187,302 between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002, based on traffic counts. Double counting is likely as boaters are included in the traffic count.

The resulting estimated total peak daily transient population on Lake Anna (including the WHTF and Lake Anna State Park) is less than 11,270 (see Table 2.5-17). Since use of the WHTF is limited to residents and their guests, there are no public boat ramps. The WHTF transient population, estimated at less than 1,000, is based on one guest for each resident in the polar sectors encompassing the WHTF.

Annual transient population is uncertain because of the dramatic drop in boating on weekdays and during non-summer months. Based on the Lake Anna State Park data, assuming 180 days of operation, the average daily attendance is less than one quarter of the peak daily attendance.

Conservatively assuming that the average attendance, excluding the park, is one half the peak daily figure, the total annual attendance would be about 807,300, based on a 180-day season.

Transient population within 16 km of the ESP site combined with the resident population in that area for year 2000 and for projected years 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040 are presented in Figure 2.5-3 through Figure 2.5-7.

2.5.1.3.2 Transient Population Between 16 km (10 miles) and 80 km (50 miles)

It is difficult to provide an accurate count of the transient population between 10-mile (16-km) and 50-mile (80-km) concentric circles from the ESP site. There are colleges, schools and hospitals within 50 miles. However, compared to the resident population within the same area, use of these facilities by transient population is expected to be insignificant.

Between 16 km and 80 km of the ESP site, the only major recreational facility that induces a significant amount of transient population is Paramounts Kings Dominion Amusement Park.

Paramounts Kings Dominion is 35 miles southeast from the site. The park opens from March to November and hosts about 2 to 2.5 million visitors annually. According to the parks public relations manager, the park could experience slow growth in the future, until it reaches its current maximum capacity of 2.875 million visitors per year (i.e., an additional 15 percent above the current 3-2-96 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report attendance). On average, the park opens to the public about 138 days per year (Reference 6).

Using the maximum capacity of the park and the average number of days open, the average daily park visitor count is conservatively estimated to be 20,830.

There is no official count of visitors that come from areas outside the 50-mile radius from the ESP site. However, the majority of the park visitors are expected to come from Richmond and Fredericksburg areas due to their proximity to the park. It is conservatively assumed that 40 percent of the daily park visitors come from areas outside the 50-mile radius. The 8350 park visitors from further than 50 miles are considered transient population and the number is included in the population distribution estimates (See Table 2.5-15).

Transient population between 16 km and 80 km of the ESP site combined with the resident population in that area for year 2000 and for projected years 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040 are presented in Figure 2.5-8 through Figure 2.5-12.

2.5.1.4 Migrant Labor Migrant laborers are typically members of minority or low-income populations. Because migrant workers travel and can temporarily spend a significant amount of time in an area without being actual residents, they may be unavailable for census counts. Therefore, migrant workers could be under-represented in U.S. Census Bureau minority and low-income population counts.

Migrant workers do not harvest agricultural crops in Louisa County; however, they do re-plant forest land that has been harvested. Over the past 5 years, most completely harvested forestland in Louisa County has been reforested (replanted) or allowed to regenerate naturally. Planting takes place from late January through March and is often done under Virginia Department of Forest contract. Data on the number of migrant workers participating in the planting are not available, but the number is considered to be small. Given the expected small number of migrant workers, and the probability of the population being concentrated in a single location, their temporary domicile would not be long in duration. Therefore, migrant workers would not materially change the population characteristics of any particular census tract within Louisa County.

2.5.1.5 Population Density Given an approved ESP period of 20 years and an assumed ESP approval date of 2005, the startup date of new units is conservatively assumed to be 2025. Assuming an operational period of 40 years for new units, new unit operations could extend until 2065.

Figure 2.5-13 shows the actual cumulative populations in Year 2000 and projected cumulative population in Year 2040 as a function of 10-mile to 50-mile radial distances from the site. On the same figure, population density curves, spanning the same radial distances, are shown for 500 persons per square mile, and of 1000 persons per square mile.

3-2-97 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report By inspection of the curves for actual population densities of Year 2000 and Year 2040 projections, it is concluded that at the time of initial site approval and within about 5 years thereafter, the population densities, including weighted transient population, averaged over any radial distance out to 20 miles (cumulative population at a distance divided by the circular area at that distance), would not exceed 500 persons per square mile. The results conform to the guidance in RG 4.7, Regulatory Position C.4 (Reference 7).

Similarly, by inspection and projection of the same curves to account for trends over the lifetime of the new units, it is concluded that the expected population densities, including weighted transient population, averaged over any radial distance out to 30 miles (cumulative population at a distance divided by the area at that distance), would not exceed: 1) 500 persons per square mile at the time of initial operation, and 2) 1000 persons per square mile over the lifetime of new units (Reference 8).

2.5.2 Community Characteristics The region around the ESP site has a medium density population (Reference 9). The permanent workforce at the existing units consists of approximately 850 employees. During planned outages of an existing unit (every 18 months/unit), an additional 700 workers are onsite for a period of 30 to 40 days. During construction of the new units, a peak workforce of approximately 5000 would be expected. Depending on the reactor design selected and the scheduling of the installation of the new units, this peak workforce could be onsite for 5 to 7 years. Approximately 720 new employees would be required for the operation of the new units.

The communities with the greatest potential to be impacted socio-economically by the installation and operation of new units at the ESP site are in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, Hanover, and Spotsylvania Counties, and the City of Richmond because most employees reside in one of these counties. These counties are in central Virginia, which has experienced a steady growth in population and economic activity in the last decade. As presented in Section 2.5.1, the population growth over the last decade has been greatest in Louisa and Spotsylvania Counties. Conversely, the City of Richmond population during this period has declined.

The existing socio-economic situation of the area around the NAPS site has been addressed in detail by the Environmental Report (ER) prepared by Virginia Power as part of its Application for Renewed Operating Licenses for NAPS Units 1 and 2 (Reference 10), and by the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) prepared by the NRC for the license renewal of NAPS Units 1 and 2 (Reference 11). Although both documents have been prepared within the last two years, the information provided in these documents has been updated when more recent information was available and pertinent to the installation of new units at the ESP site. The following discussion is based primarily on these sources.

3-2-98 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.5.2.1 Economy Information on the population distribution (by county and by distance from the ESP site), including breakdowns by age, sex, race and ethnic background, are presented in Section 2.5.1. Tables on estimated income distribution are also provided, identifying income group by distance from the ESP site and county. These tables include similar information for the Commonwealth of Virginia as a point of comparison in assessing whether the area around the ESP site is similar to the rest of the state. The conclusion is that, in general, there are no great differences in the income distributions between the area around the ESP site and throughout the state as a whole.

Percent unemployment, individual poverty rates, and median household incomes for the five counties of interest and the City of Richmond have been obtained from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) website (Reference 12) and include data generated by the U.S. Census Bureau from the 2000 Census (Reference 13). The information is presented in Table 2.5-18.

Similar data for Virginia as a whole are also presented to provide a point of comparison for the local data. The unemployment rates, individual poverty rates, and median household incomes for Charles County in Maryland and for the State of Maryland are also presented in this table, because the 80 km (50 mile) radius that defines the potential area of impact for the new units includes part of Charles County. Furthermore, the history of major construction at NAPS shows that part of the construction work force has originated from Maryland. (Reference 10) The data have been obtained from the Maryland website for the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (Reference 14), and includes data generated by the U.S. Census Bureau from the 2000 Census.

Based on Table 2.5-18, the total civilian labor force in the region (November 2002) was 434,366, of which 65,349 were in Charles County, Maryland.

2.5.2.1.1 Hanover County, Henrico County, and the City of Richmond Henrico County, Hanover County, and the City of Richmond are part of the Richmond-Petersburg metropolitan statistical area (MSA), which is home to approximately 1 million people (Reference 15). Of this number, 262,300 people live in Henrico County, 86,320 in Hanover County, and 197,790 in the City of Richmond. The MSA is located approximately 161 km (100 miles) from Washington, D.C. and is the primary economic driving force within an 80-km (50-mile) radius of the ESP site. This MSA has a transportation network of trucking and railroad terminals, interstate highway access to main east-west and north-south corridors, and an international airport. The CSX Corporation headquarters is located in Richmond. The Port of Richmond, the westernmost inland port, has direct access to the Atlantic Ocean, serving both domestic and international markets. A map of the area, taken from the North Anna License Renewal Application (Reference 10), is presented as Figure 2.5-16. Paramounts Kings Dominion, located in Hanover County, is a major tourist attraction for the area.

The Richmond area is headquarters for more than 35 major corporations, including 12 Fortune 1000 companies, of which 6 are Fortune 500 companies, and 3 are Forbes 500 largest companies.

3-2-99 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Capital One Financial Corporation is the largest private employer in the area. Service is the largest employment sector in the MSA, followed by retail and wholesale trades, manufacturing, finance, and construction. (Reference 15)

Approximately 45 percent of resident workers in Henrico County commute to jobs outside the county, as compared to almost 64 percent of resident workers in Hanover County and about 40 percent of resident workers in the City of Richmond. The unemployment rate for Henrico County is 3.3 percent, as of November 2002, which is higher than the 2.4 percent for Hanover County and lower than the corresponding rate of 5.8 percent for the City of Richmond. (Reference 12) 2.5.2.1.2 Louisa County Louisa County is in the triangle between Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Charlottesville.

Interstate 64 runs east-west through the county, as does a CSX rail line. Louisa County, with a population of 25,627, continues to be a rural community with most of the land forested or under cultivation. There are two incorporated towns in the county, Louisa and Mineral, both of which are within 15 miles of the ESP site. Because the ESP site is located there, Louisa County has benefited economically more from the plant than the other counties that could be impacted by the installation of the new units. Table 2.5-19 lists the top five employers in the county, their product, and the number of employees. The remaining 14 employers have less than 100 employees, with most generally having fewer than 25 employees. (Reference 16)

There has been relatively little growth in industry in the last ten years although there has been significant growth in population. The county is actively pursuing additional industries in an effort to diversify and expand its industrial base. Almost 62 percent of the resident workers in Louisa County commute to jobs outside the county. (Reference 12)

The existing units operations have contributed more than 50 percent of the property taxes paid to Louisa County over the past decade, and, therefore, have allowed the property tax assessment rates to remain below those of neighboring counties. While recognizing the benefits of the existing units, the county is still looking to expand its industrial base so as to become less dependent on one facility.

2.5.2.1.3 Orange County Orange County, with a population of 25,881, has two incorporated towns, Orange and Gordonsville, and one planned, gated residential community, Lake of the Woods. It borders the northwestern extent of Lake Anna and is about 72 miles from Richmond, 75 miles from Washington, D.C., and 25 miles from Charlottesville, the home of the University of Virginia. Agribusiness is the main business sector in Orange County; although, manufacturing has played a significant role for over 80 years. Approximately 97 percent of the land in Orange County is forested, under cultivation, or pasture land. (Reference 17) 3-2-100 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Of the 11,925 resident workers in the county, approximately 53 percent commute to jobs outside the county (Reference 12). According to the Chamber of Commerce, there are over 535 businesses and industries in the county, most of which employ fewer than 25 workers, many employing fewer than 10 workers. Major private employers in the county, defined by Orange County as having 25 or more employees, are listed in Table 2.5-20 (Reference 17).

2.5.2.1.4 Spotsylvania County Spotsylvania County, with a population of 90,395, is midway between Washington, D.C. and Richmond. Its southwestern border is the North Anna River, most of which was flooded when Lake Anna was formed as a source of cooling water for the power station.

Economically, the county is more associated with the Washington, D.C. area through commuting patterns of its residents and federal procurement opportunities. Almost 60 percent of the resident workers commute to jobs outside the county. (Reference 12)

Although agriculture and forestry have been important components of the countys economy, the relative economic importance of these industries has declined over the years as the commercial and industrial base of the county has grown. Additionally, the number of employees in the state, local, or federal government sectors has increased significantly over the last ten years. Major private employers in Spotsylvania (defined by Spotsylvania County to be those with 100 or more employees) are listed in Table 2.5-21 (Reference 18).

In addition to the private employers, the Spotsylvania County Government employs about 600 workers; that is, the county is the second largest employer in the county, second only to Capital One.

2.5.2.2 Taxes In Virginia, counties and towns collect most of their taxes through property taxes and sales taxes.

Property taxes include business personal property and individual tangible personal property as well as real estate. business personal property includes such items as office furniture, fixtures, equipment, machinery and tools. (Reference 19)

Annual power station property taxes are paid to Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties.

Table 2-15 of the SEIS (Reference 11) presents the breakdown of property taxes collected by each county, the amount paid, and the percent of total property taxes that the payment represents. The total budget for each county is also presented for comparison purposes. Data are presented for the period of 1995 to 2000. The preponderance of the property taxes paid for the power station goes to Louisa County, and represents about 46 percent of the total property taxes collected by the county.

The other two counties are paid taxes that represent about 1.5 percent of the total property taxes collected by each. Overall, the property taxes paid to Louisa County amounted to about 22.5 percent of the total budget for the county during the 1995-2000 time period. The SEIS points out that the property tax payments would be expected to decline as the existing facility depreciates.

3-2-101 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report The SEIS also points out that the potential effects of electric utility deregulation within Virginia are not known. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the installation of new units should result in a relative increase in property tax payments even with the depreciation of the existing units.

The SEIS discusses the relatively large increases in the economy of Henrico County over the past two decades due to the increased business investments in the Richmond area, as well as in the economy of Spotsylvania due partly to the large increase in government and other white collar workers who have chosen to live in Spotsylvania. To a lesser extent, Orange and Louisa Counties have benefited from this growth in the economies of Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties. Louisa County has benefited from the growth in second and retirement homes that have been constructed around Lake Anna. Since these homes have generally been upscale, the land values around the lake have increased significantly. Property tax revenues have also risen as a result of this construction as well as with construction of moderately priced houses around the county.

Many of these moderately-priced houses are intended to accommodate workers who commute to the Richmond-Petersburg MSA or to Washington, D.C., or to companies around the Dulles Airport and the Capital Beltway. The Louisa County land use planning document anticipates that such construction would continue at a rate of about 300 new homes per year for the foreseeable future.

However, such increases in home building also require to some extent increased expenditures for infrastructure, which would tend to offset the increased property taxes paid to the county. If the current efforts by Louisa County to attract industry are successful and if the numbers of new homes continue to increase, increased property tax revenues as well as increases in sales tax revenues may be sufficient to offset the depreciation of the existing units. However, as is discussed in more detail in Section 5.8.2, new units would result in an increase in property tax revenues that would more than offset any decreases due to the depreciation of the existing units. (Reference 16) 2.5.2.3 Schools and Recreational Areas Each county and the City of Richmond have a public school system for kindergarten through high school (Reference 13). The numbers at each level of school is dependent on the size of the local population, being greatest in the Richmond-Petersburg MSA. The Richmond-Petersburg MSA also has a number of private schools for grammar through high school education. Higher educational facilities, both public and private, are located in the Richmond-Petersburg MSA and in Spotsylvania, with none located in either Louisa or Orange Counties. However, both Louisa and Orange Counties are in close proximity to such facilities in the areas mentioned and to the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. During previous major construction activities at the NAPS site, the construction workforce did not require relocation of large numbers of workers into the area. Therefore, unless there is a need for relocation of a large number of construction workers into either or both of these counties, the SEIS (Reference 11) conclusion that any impacts on the school systems would be small, also applies to the construction of the new units. This construction-related information is addressed in more detail in Section 4.4.2.

3-2-102 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report All of the surrounding counties and the City of Richmond have established parks and other recreational areas for their residents. In Louisa and Orange Counties, these areas typically consist of one or two parks plus playing fields at the local schools. However, as is discussed in Section 2.5.1.3, the Lake Anna area has become established as a recreational center not only for the local residents of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, but also for other in-state and out-of-state visitors. The SEIS (Reference 11) conclusion that any impacts on these parks and other recreational areas would be small, generally applies to the construction of new nuclear generating unit(s), so long as there is no relocation of a large number of construction workers into the counties that border the lake.

A potential exists for negative transportation impacts on the number of people from outside the bordering counties who use the lake recreationally. The potential for negative impacts on the numbers of people using Lake Anna during construction of the new facility and suggested mitigation measures to avoid or reduce these impacts is addressed in more detail in Section 4.4.2.

2.5.2.4 Housing Approximately 80 percent of the permanent employees at the NAPS site live in Hanover, Henrico (including the City of Richmond), Louisa, Orange, or Spotsylvania Counties, with the greatest number living in Louisa County. A detailed breakdown, by county and city (Reference 11, Table 2-5) shows that the number of permanent employees living in Louisa, Spotsylvania, and Orange Counties are 237, 186, and 120, respectively.

A breakdown, by county, of housing units by number occupied and vacant in 1990 and 2000, is presented in Table 2-6 of the SEIS (Reference 11). Vacant housing is equated to available housing. However, a review of the U.S. Census Bureaus 2000 Census data reveals that there is a further breakdown of the category vacant housing, pertinent sections of which are presented in Table 2.5-22.

This detailed breakdown of vacant units is not of concern when renewing operating licenses, nor for planned outages of each existing unit. However, the number of vacant housing units that are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use is important in relation to construction. In this case, vacant units should not automatically be considered to be available to those members of the large construction workforce who decide to relocate to the area during the installation of the new units.

This category of vacant housing units would not be available for use by the longer-term workforce and could represent an issue associated with the new units, especially if a larger percentage of the workforce decides to relocate to the area around the ESP site for the duration of their work.

However, the for rent and for sale vacant housing units should be considered as available for their use, if needed. Such use would be in competition with the housing demands from the projected population growth in each county and the City of Richmond. This situation is addressed further in Section 4.4.2.

3-2-103 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.5.2.5 Public Services Public services addressed here include water supply, education, and transportation. These services provide a baseline from which construction period impacts and operational impacts can be estimated.

2.5.2.5.1 Water Supply As described in the SEIS, Henrico County buys its water from the City of Richmond whose source of water supply is the James River. Spotsylvania County supplies most residential, commercial, and industrial areas via a public water system that draws from the Ni River. Additional water capacity is being constructed in both Richmond City and Spotsylvania County.

In Louisa and Orange Counties, groundwater is the primary source of water for the residents, excluding the towns of Louisa and Orange. About 80 percent of Louisa County residents and about 90 percent of Orange County residents rely on groundwater.

The residents of these more rural counties normally have individual septic systems rather than access to a sewer system with a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

The SEIS identifies a concern regarding access to the public water supplies in the towns surrounding the NAPS site, if new employees associated with the new units were to settle in these towns. The SEIS states that there are plans to construct new treatment plants or expand existing facilities in the towns, which would alleviate these concerns.

Table 1-7 of the SEIS presents the projected population growth in 2010 for the surrounding counties and the City of Richmond. For Louisa County and Orange County, the projected growth in population between Years 2000 and 2010 is 4,380 and 3,920, respectively - values that are similar to the numbers being projected for a peak construction workforce brought in to add new units.

These projected population growths and their possible impacts on the local infrastructure, including water and sewer services, have been incorporated into the comprehensive land use plans for both counties. The potential impact of construction and operation on the infrastructure of the area, including the water and sewer systems, is considered further in Section 4.4.2 and Section 5.8.2, respectively.

2.5.2.5.2 Education The SEIS provides information on the number of high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools in each surrounding county and incorporated municipality. A review of this information reveals that Louisa and Orange Counties have school systems that could potentially limit the number of students that could be assimilated by their educational systems if a sudden large influx of families were to relocate into these areas. For Louisa County, with one high school, one middle school, and three elementary schools, a large influx of families with children at these levels of education could tax the capacity of these schools. For Orange County, with one high school, one middle school, and five elementary schools, a large influx of families with children in middle or high 3-2-104 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report school could similarly tax the capacity of the school system. This issue is addressed in Section 4.4.2.

2.5.2.5.3 Transportation The area within the 80-km (50-mile) radius of the ESP site is serviced by Interstate 95, running in a north-south direction between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, and Interstate 64, running between Richmond and Charlottesville; as well as numerous Virginia highways and local roads Figure 2.5-16. According to the SEIS, all local roads in the NAPS area carry a level-of-service designation B. Designation B means that there is stable traffic flow, such that the freedom to select speed is unaffected, but the freedom to maneuver is slightly diminished. The potential impacts during construction and operation, including likely measures that can be implemented to reduce these impacts during each phase, are addressed in Section 4.4.2 and Section 5.8. Of primary concern is the seasonal use of Lake Anna and the resulting traffic on local roads in the vicinity of NAPS.

2.5.2.5.4 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities The police force of each of the counties within the 80-km (50-mile) radius about the ESP site consists of a County Sheriff who is typically headquartered in the County Seat and who is assisted by Sheriffs Deputies who patrol the entire area of the county. The Sheriffs Department also normally dispatches emergency services through the 911 system in each county. The incorporated towns and cities within the counties have their own police force. The more heavily populated areas of Henrico County and the City of Richmond also have a Division of Police.

Volunteer fire departments protect Hanover, Orange, Louisa, and Henrico counties and the City of Richmond as shown in Table 2.5-23. Emergency medical protection is provided in each county by volunteer rescue squads. The County Sheriffs Department in each county dispatches these volunteer rescue squads. The independent towns in these counties each have their own volunteer fire departments. Both Henrico County and the City of Richmond have more extensive fire departments and EMS units.

Contacts and arrangements made by Virginia Power with local, state, and federal governmental agencies with emergency planning responsibilities are identified in Part 2: Section 13.3.3.

Medical facilities generally consist of local physicians offices in the counties. However, there are major medical facilities in Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, Mechanicsville, and the City of Richmond that are readily accessible to the populations of the counties.

2.5.3 Historic Properties The region surrounding the ESP site has been identified as having prehistoric and historic Native American and historic Euro-American resources. To assess known and potential cultural resource sites surrounding the site, surveys have been conducted for items of historic, archaeologic, and geologic interest. The results are included in the application for license renewal (Reference 10).

3-2-105 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Reconnaissance-level archaeological and historical investigations were completed for both the site and the lakebed, with few results. A few artifacts were noted in the area, but the investigator identified them as insignificant and determined that no further evaluations were necessary. In addition, records in the Louisa County Historical Society files identified 33 historic-period cemeteries along the river. Many of the cemeteries were avoided by adjusting project boundaries although, some were removed prior to inundation. Five cemeteries are recorded as on or near NAPS site.

The above referenced environmental report concludes that there are no sites or items of historic, archaeologic, or geologic significance within the vicinity of NAPS. The report conclusions are based on the review of available literature and several database sources. In addition to the work that was completed in 1973 (Discussed in Section 2.5.3.2) (Reference 20), a cultural resource assessment for the area within 1-mile of the NAPS fence line and the site itself was commissioned by Dominion and completed in 2001. The results are documented in a report prepared by Louis Berger Group, Inc., (Reference 21) the conclusions of which are summarized in Section 2.5.3.2.

Virginia Power consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding NAPS license renewal. No issues were identified as a result of that consultation. Dominion has initiated informal discussions with the SHPO regarding evaluation for an ESP and those discussions would continue throughout the review process.

Should archaeological resources or artifacts be discovered during pre-construction activities, personnel would be instructed to stop work. Dominion would contact the appropriate organization and/or regulatory agency for proper evaluation and designation, in accordance with the existing procedures.

2.5.3.1 Description of Historic Properties near the ESP site There are three counties in the vicinity of the ESP site. Table 2.5-24 lists each county and the number of known historic places listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

(Reference 22) within these respective counties.

Of the 60 national historical sites identified in Table 2.5-24, four sites exist within 10 miles of the ESP site. These sites are listed and described in Table 2.5-25.

Figure 2.5-19 locates the NRHP sites near the ESP site.

2.5.3.2 Description of Historic Properties Within the NAPS Site The Louis Berger Group, Inc. completed a cultural resource assessment (Reference 21) of the NAPS site and a 1-mile-radius surrounding the existing units (study area) during the license renewal project time period, and the assessment included the following activities:

• A background investigation of related information to compile known information about the NAPS study area; and 3-2-106 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

• The delineation of areas within the study area containing potential archaeological resources.

The investigations were conducted in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974, Executive Order 11593, and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 660-66 and 800 (as appropriate). The field investigations and technical report met the qualifications specified in the Secretary of the Interiors Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (FR 48:190:44716-44742).

The qualifications of the Project Manager and Project Archaeologist who performed the investigations met or exceeded the requirements described in the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards (FR 48:190:44716-44743).

Examination of archaeological and historical site files at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources archives has indicated that no recorded cultural resource sites are known to exist at the NAPS site. Similarly, review of historical documentation at the Louisa County Historical Museum, including historic maps dating between 1751 and 1863, have indicated few historic resources in the study area, other than an early road paralleling the south side of the North Anna River, which appears to be near the western boundary of the NAPS site. An unpublished map, based on county deeds from 1765 to 1815, shows the presence of the Jerdones Mill on the North Anna River bank, just upriver from the NAPS site, along with the associated Jerdones Mill Road. The same map shows an Old Mine Road within the North Anna site area.

No extant historic architectural resources have been identified within the study area and no historic architectural resources are present within the NAPS site. There are five architectural resources within a 1.5-mile radius of the NAPS site; however, the reports conclusions state that none of these resources are affected by current or planned activities. As a follow-up to the initial assessment, five known historic-period cemeteries have been recorded, three of which lie within the administrative boundary of the NAPS site (see Figure 2.5-18) and two that are located south of the North Anna Dam where no activities are planned.

Conclusions made in the report include that previously undisturbed lands within the NAPS site boundary have the potential to contain both unrecorded prehistoric and historic archaeological properties. On the basis of this conclusion, the NAPS site has been classified with respect to the potential for discovering archaeological resources. The three classifications are areas with the following:

• No Potential for Archaeological Resources

• Low Potential for Archaeological Resources

• Moderate-to-High Potential for Archaeological Resources For areas with low and moderate to high potential for containing archaeological resources (see Figure 2.5-17), subsurface testing would be performed, dependent on existing ground conditions, prior to any ground disturbing activities.

3-2-107 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.5.3.3 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way The NAPS site transmission line rights-of-way (ROW) have been categorized and inventoried and do not cross over any known archaeological or historic sites of significance (Reference 20).

2.5.3.4 Native American Sites Among the six state-recognized Indian tribes in Virginia, the closest tribal reservations belong to the Pamunkey and Mattaponi Tribes. The Pamunkey Tribe Reservation is approximately 53 miles southeast of the ESP site and was confirmed to the Tribe in 1658 by the Governor, the Council, and the General Assembly of Virginia. The Mattaponi Indian Reservation, also established in 1658, is approximately 62 miles southeast of the ESP site. There are no known Native American cultural or religious tribal resources that exist within the NAPS site.

2.5.4 Environmental Justice Federal agencies must identify and address, as applicable to their actions, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts of its activities on minority or low-income populations. The NRC has committed to undertake environmental justice reviews in consideration of the NEPA of 1969 and the 1997 Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance.

For the purpose of the ESP environmental justice review, the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within 80 km (50 miles) of the ESP site have been determined, employing data from the 2000 Census and applying the following definitions from Appendix D of LIC-203 (Reference 23):

A minority population or low-income population exists if either of the following criteria are met:

1. A minority population is considered to be present if: 1) The minority population in the census block group or environmental impact site exceeds 50 percent, or 2) the minority population percentage of the environmental impact area is significantly greater (typically at least 20 percentage points) than the minority population percentage in the geographic area chosen for the comparative analysis, for example, the county or State, or

2. A low-income population is considered to be present if: 1) the low-income population in the census block group or environmental impact area exceeds 50 percent, or 2) the percentage of households below the poverty level in an environmental impact area is significantly greater (typically at least 20 percentage points) than the low-income population percentage in the geographic area chosen for the comparative analysis.

For this review, the percentage of any minority or low-income population within census tracts that could potentially be affected by the installation of new units has been calculated and compared to the corresponding percentage of minority or low-income populations within the entire Commonwealth of Virginia or State of Maryland (for Charles County, MD) as appropriate, to 3-2-108 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report determine if they exceed the State values for each category by at least 20 percent. All census tracts with at least 50 percent of their area within the 80-km (50-mile) radius around the ESP site are included in the analysis.

Using the Census Bureaus LandView 5 software and 2000 Census data for the region of interest (ROI) (Reference 24), the distributions of minority populations and low-income populations were developed. The results are shown on Figure 2.5-14 and Figure 2.5-15, respectively.

Generally, the minority populations are found in the sectors to the east through the southwest about the ESP site. There is a black minority population within Louisa County about 20 km southwest, and a similar size black minority population in the southeastern part of Caroline County, where it borders Hanover and King William Counties. About 60 to 80 km to the east and southeast of the site, there are large black minority populations in King and Queen, Essex, and Westmoreland Counties.

These three counties are only partially within the area defined by the 80-km radius.

A large, black minority population exists in the City of Richmond and adjoining parts of Henrico County (60 to 80 km southeast of the site). To the south-southwest about 44 km distant, there is a small, black minority population in the northern part of Powhatan County. Another large, black minority population exists in the northern part of Buckingham County, about 60 to 80 km south-southwest of the site.

Charlottesville, approximately 58 km west of the site, contains small populations of minority Asians and blacks. Small, black minority populations also exist to the northeast in Fredericksburg and Stafford County, and a small Hispanic minority population is in Prince William County about 80 km northeast.

A small, low-income population exists, about 60 to 80 km south-southeast of the site, in the City of Richmond. Another, small, low-income population exists in Charlottesville.

The potential for disproportionate human health or environmental impacts on minority or low-income populations associated with the construction and operation of new units is evaluated and presented in Section 4.4.3 and Section 5.8.3, respectively. The potential impacts on minority and low-income populations at alternative sites are part of the more global evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with locating a new nuclear generating station that is presented in Section 9.3.

Section 2.5 References

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population, Custom CDs (Virginia, Maryland), Land View 5, A1-T00-LV05-22-001, September 2002.

2. Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, www.ccps.virginia.edu:/demographics/estimates/city-co/2001estimates.pdf, accessed September 22, 2003.

3-2-109 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

3. Town of Mineral, www.louisa.net/mineral/, accessed October 14, 2002.

4. North Anna Updated Final Safety Report, Rev. 38, Dominion Virginia Power.

5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census of Population, www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, accessed October 1, 2002.

6. Paramounts Kings Dominion website, www.kingsdominion.com/visit_calendar.jsp, accessed August 15, 2003.

7. Regulatory Guide 4.7, Rev. 2, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1998.

8. NRR Review Standard RS-002, Processing Applications of Early Site Permits: Draft for Interim Use and Public Comment, December 23, 2002, as supplemented.

9. NUREG 1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (GEIS), 1996 and 1999.

10. Environmental Report (ER) prepared by Dominion as Appendix E of the North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 Application for Renewed Operating Licenses, Dominion Virginia Power, May 2001.

11. NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (SEIS), Supplement 7, Regarding North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2002.

12. Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) Website, www.vec.state.va.us, 1/2/03-1/31/03.

13. U.S. Census Bureau Website, www.census.gov, 1/2/03-1/31/03.

14. Maryland Department of Labor and Licensing (MLL) Website, www.dllr.state.md.us, 1/2/03-1/31/03.

15. Greater Richmond Partnership, Inc., Website, www.grpva.com/new_pages/home.html, 1/2/03-1/31/03.

16. Louisa County, VA, Website, www.yeslouisa.com, 1/2/03-1/31/03.

17. Orange County, VA, Website, www.orangecova.com, 1/2/03-1/31/03.

18. Spotsylvania County, VA, Website, www.spotsylvania.va.us, 1/2/03-1/31/03.

19. Hanover County, VA, Website, www.co.hanover.va.us/econdev/index2.htm, 1/2/03-1/31/03.

3-2-110 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

20. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, Federal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Section 2.3, Historic and Natural Landmarks, Virginia Electric and Power Company, 1973.

21. Cultural Resource Assessment, North Anna Power Station. Louisa County Virginia, Louis Berger Group, Inc. and Dominion Resources, Inc. March 2001.

22. Virginia Landmarks Register, National Register of Historic Places, June 15, 2001, http://www.dhr.state.va.us/home.htm (accessed 07/14/03).

23. LIC-203, Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues, NRR Office Instruction, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 21, 2001.

24. LandView 5, U.S. Census Bureau Viewer for the U.S. EPA, U.S. Census Bureau, and U.S.

Geological Survey Data and Maps (2002) Custom CD-ROM for NAPS Region.

3-2-111 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-1 Population Distribution from 2000 to 2040 Within 16-km (10-mi) of the ESP Site 2 to 4 km 0 to 2 km (1.2-2.5 4 to 6 km 6 to 8 km 8 to 10 km 10 to 16 km Year (0-1.2 mi.) mi.) (2.5-3.7 mi.) (3.7-5.0 mi.) (5.0-6.2 mi.) (6.2-10 mi.) Total 2000 210 717 1394 1351 2218 9621 15,511 2010* 263 943 1884 1837 2986 13,083 20,996 2020* 316 1169 2375 2322 3753 16,545 26,480 2030* 369 1395 2865 2808 4521 20,007 31,965 2040* 422 1621 3355 3293 5288 23,469 37,449

• All populations in this year are estimates.

Table 2.5-2 Estimated Sex Distribution of Population in 2000 Within 16-km (10-mi.)

of the ESP Site 0 to 2 km 2 to 4 km 4 to 6 km 6 to 8 km 8 to 10 km 10 to 16 km (0-1.2 mi.) (1.2-2.5 mi.) (2.5-3.7 mi.) (3.7-5.0 mi.) (5.0-6.2 mi.) (6.2-10 mi.)

Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

Male 104 49.5 350 48.8 687 49.3 665 49.2 1,092 49.2 4,738 49.2 Female 106 50.5 367 51.2 707 50.7 686 50.8 1,126 50.8 4,883 50.8 Total 210 717 1394 1351 2218 9621 Table 2.5-3 Sex Distribution of Population in the Major Employee-Contributing Counties and Virginia City of Henrico Louisa Orange Richmond Spotsylvania Virginia Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

Male 122,922 46.9 12,611 49.2 12,524 48.4 92,068 46.5 44,532 49.3 3,471,895 49.0 Female 139,378 53.1 13,016 50.8 13,357 51.6 105,722 53.5 45,863 50.7 3,606,620 51.0 Total 262,300 25,627 25,881 197,790 90,395 7,078,515 --

3-2-112 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-4 Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000 Within 16-km (10-mi.)

of the ESP Site 0 to 2 km 2 to 4 km 4 to 6 km 6 to 8 km 8 to 10 km 10 to 16 km (0-1.2 mi.) (1.2-2.5 mi.) (2.5-3.7 mi.) (3.7-5.0 mi.) (5.0-6.2 mi.) (6.2-10 mi.)

Age Group Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

0-19 53 27.6 200 28.8 412 29.8 394 29.8 656 29.5 2885 29.9 20-24 8 4.2 36 5.2 64 4.6 66 5.0 110 4.9 471 4.9 25-44 62 32.3 220 31.7 434 31.4 420 31.8 694 31.2 3,000 31.1 45-64 46 24.0 171 24.6 333 24.1 318 24.1 536 24.1 2,294 23.8 65+ 23 12.0 68 9.8 140 10.1 124 9.4 229 10.3 991 10.3 Table 2.5-5 Estimated Income Distribution of Population Within 16-km (10-mi) of the ESP Site (for ages greater than 15) 0 to 2 km 2 to 4 km 4 to 6 km 6 to 8 km 8 to 10 km 10 to 16 km (0-1.2 mi.) (1.2-2.5 mi.) (2.5-3.7 mi.) (3.7-5.0 mi.) (5.0-6.2 mi.) (6.2-10 mi.)

Income Group* Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

$0 18 12.3 65 12.6 119 11.4 114 11.2 189 11.1 822 11.1

< $25 75 51.4 249 48.3 482 46.0 465 45.6 789 46.5 3,344 45.2

$25 - $50 40 27.4 143 27.7 297 28.3 297 29.1 480 28.3 2,127 28.7

$50 - $75 9 6.2 43 8.3 103 9.8 98 9.6 166 9.8 742 10.0

$75-$100 2 1.4 9 1.7 26 2.5 27 2.6 42 2.5 197 2.7

$100+ 2 1.4 7 1.4 21 2.0 18 1.8 32 1.9 168 2.3 Total 146 516 1,048 1,019 1,698 7,400

• All incomes are in thousands of dollars.

3-2-113 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-6 Racial & Ethnic Distribution of Population in 2000 Within 16-km (10-mi.)

of the ESP Site 0 to 2 km 2 to 4 km 4 to 6 km 6 to 8 km 8 to 10 km 10 to 16 km (0-1.2 mi.) (1.2-2.5 mi.) (2.5-3.7 mi.) (3.7-5.0 mi.) (5.0-6.2 mi.) (6.2-10 mi.)

Race Group Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

White 198 94.3 615 85.8 1,171 84.0 1,032 76.4 1,748 78.8 8,041 83.6 Black 10 4.8 83 11.6 187 13.4 290 21.5 437 19.7 1,302 13.5 Indian 2 1.0 1 0.1 7 0.5 5 0.4 2 0.1 41 0.4 Asian 0 0.0 2 0.3 15 1.1 1 0.1 9 0.4 57 0.6 Hawaiian 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 4 0.0 Other 0 0.0 1 0.1 1 0.1 4 0.3 0 0.0 24 0.2 Multi 0 0.0 15 2.1 13 0.9 19 1.4 21 0.9 152 1.6 Hispanic 2 1.0 10 1.4 12 0.9 5 0.4 14 0.6 92 1.0 Total* 210 717 1,394 1,351 2,218 9,621

• Total does not include Hispanic category.

Table 2.5-7 Income Distribution of Population in the Major Employee-Contributing Counties and Virginia (For Ages Greater Than 15)

City of Henrico Louisa Orange Richmond Spotsylvania Virginia Race Group Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

$0 17,410 8.4 2,319 11.3 2,364 11.3 15,444 9.6 7,468 11.0 594,604 10.6

< $25 85,966 41.4 10,678 52.2 10,312 49.1 90,896 56.5 27,350 40.4 2,627,798 46.7

$25 - $50 67,249 32.4 5,360 26.2 5,762 27.5 37,779 23.5 20,517 30.3 1,449,617 25.8

$50 - $75 21,065 10.1 1,429 7.0 1,693 8.1 9,216 5.7 8,299 12.3 521,861 9.3

$75- $100 7,515 3.6 360 1.8 373 1.8 3,128 1.9 2,189 3.2 208,019 3.7

$100+ 8,502 4.1 314 1.5 484 2.3 4,346 2.7 1,843 2.7 221,729 3.9 Total 207,707 20,460 20,988 160,809 67,666 5,623,628

• All incomes are in thousands of dollars.

3-2-114 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-8 Population Distribution from 2000 to 2040 Within 80-km (50-mi) of the ESP Site 0 to 16 km 16 to 40 km 40 to 60 km 60 to 80 km Year (0 - 10 mi.) (10-24.9 mi.) (24.9-37.3 mi.) (37.3- 50 mi.) Total 2000 15,511 185,456 487,482 849,347 1,538,156 2010* 20,996 239,444 604,455 984,645 1,849,539 2020* 26,480 293,431 721,067 1,119,943 2,160,921 2030* 31,965 347,419 837,680 1,255,241 2,472,304 2040* 37,449 401,406 954,292 1,390,539 2,783,687

• All populations in this year are estimates.

Table 2.5-9 Estimated Sex Distribution of Population in 2000 Within 80-km (50-mi.)

of the ESP Site 0 to 16 km 16 to 40 km 40 to 60 km 60 to 80 km (0 - 10 mi.) (10 - 24.9 mi.) (24.9-37.3 mi.) (37.3 - 50 mi.) Total Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

Male 7,636 49.2 90,484 48.8 236,507 48.5 411,186 48.4 745,813 48.5 Female 7,875 50.8 94,972 51.2 251,335 51.5 438,168 51.6 792,350 51.2 Total 15,511 185,456 487,842 849,354 1,538,163 Table 2.5-10 Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000 Within 80-km (50-mi) of the ESP Site 0 to 16 km 16 to 40 km 40 to 60 km 60 to 80 km (0 - 10 mi.) (10 - 24.9 mi.) (24.9-37.3 mi.) (37.3 - 50 mi.) Total Age Group Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

0 to 19 4600 29.8 53,939 27.1 138,057 26.3 246,080 26.9 442,676 26.8 20 to 24 755 4.9 11,006 5.5 27,944 5.3 59,135 6.5 98,840 6.0 25 to 44 4830 31.2 70,378 35.3 194,612 37.0 335,291 36.7 605,111 36.6 45 to 64 3698 23.9 43,210 21.7 11,462 21.2 190,145 20.8 348,515 21.1 65+ 1575 10.2 20,640 10.4 53,355 10.2 83,352 9.1 158,922 9.6 3-2-115 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-11 Racial & Ethnic Distribution of Population in 2000 Within 80-km (50-mi) of the Site 0 to 16 km 16 to 40 km 40 to 60 km 60 to 80 km (0 - 10 mi.) (10 - 24.9 mi.) (24.9-37.3 mi.) (37.3 - 50 mi.) Total Race Group Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

White 12,805 82.6 146,841 79.2 392,074 80.4 543,709 64.0 1,095,429 71.2 Black 2309 14.9 31,687 17.1 69,776 14.3 253,248 29.8 357,020 23.2 Indian 58 0.4 607 0.3 1452 0.3 2972 0.3 5,089 0.3 Asian 84 0.5 1,767 1.0 12,632 2.6 18,690 2.2 33,173 2.2 Hawaiian 5 0.0 66 0.0 202 0.0 555 0.1 828 0.1 Other 30 0.2 1,744 0.9 4,257 0.9 14,282 1.7 20,313 1.3 Multi 220 1.4 2,744 1.5 7,449 1.5 15,891 1.9 26,304 1.7 Hispanic 135 0.9 4,276 2.3 11,285 2.3 31,374 3.7 47,070 3.1 Total* 15,511 185,456 487,842 849,347 1,538,156

• Total does not include Hispanic category.

Table 2.5-12 Racial and Ethnic Distribution of Population in the Major Employee-Contributing Counties and Virginia City of Henrico Louisa Orange Richmond Spotsylvania Virginia Race Group Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

White 180,761 68.9 19,617 76.5 21,833 84.4 75,744 38.3 74,924 82.9 5,120,110 72.3 Black 64,805 24.7 5530 21.6 3566 13.8 113,108 57.2 11,255 12.5 1,390,293 19.6 Indian 920 0.4 108 0.4 53 0.2 479 0.2 288 0.3 21,172 0.3 Asian 9451 3.6 64 0.3 88 0.3 2471 1.2 1243 1.4 261,025 3.7 Hawaiian 82 0.0 3 0.0 5 0.0 157 0.1 45 0.1 3946 0.1 Other 2562 1.0 46 0.2 102 0.4 2948 1.5 941 1.0 138,900 2.0 Multi 3719 1.4 259 1.0 234 0.9 2883 1.5 1699 1.9 143,069 2.0 Hispanic 5946 2.3 182 0.7 330 1.3 5074 2.6 2536 2.8 329,540 4.7 Total 262,300 25,627 25,881 197,790 90,395 7,078,515 3-2-116 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-13 Estimated Income Distribution of Population Within 80-km (50-mi) of the ESP Site (For Ages Greater Than 15) 0 to 16 km 16 to 40 km 40 to 60 km 60 to 80 km (0 - 10 mi.) (10 - 24.9 mi.) (24.9-37.3 mi.) (37.3 - 50 mi.) Total Income Group a Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

$0 1327 11.2 15,406 10.6 36,982 9.7 67,138 10.1 120,853 10.0

< $25 5404 45.7 66,395 45.9 163,203 42.8 297,535 44.7 532,537 44.2

$25 - $50 3384 28.6 40,735 28.1 113,734 29.8 186,066 28.0 343,919 28.6

$50 - $75 1161 9.8 14,365 9.9 39,156 10.3 66,472 10.0 121,154 10.1

$75-$100 303 2.6 4,013 2.8 14,533 3.8 23,955 3.6 42,804 3.6

$100+ 248 2.1 3,874 2.7 14,151 3.7 24,112 3.6 42,385 3.5 Total 11,827 144,788 381,759 665,278 1,203,652 a.All incomes are in thousands of dollars.

Table 2.5-14 Age Distribution of Population in the Major Employee-Contributing Counties and Virginia City of Henrico Louisa Orange Richmond Spotsylvania Virginia Age Group Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  % Number  %

0 to 19 69,875 26.6 6,787 26.5 6,499 25.1 50,724 25.6 29,131 32.2 1,937,086 27.4 20 to 24 15,380 5.9 1,159 4.5 1,134 4.4 18,386 9.3 4,603 5.1 480,574 6.8 25 to 44 86,166 32.9 7,656 29.9 7,184 27.8 62,712 31.7 29,062 32.2 2,237,655 31.6 45 to 64 58,278 22.2 6,710 26.2 6,620 25.6 39,839 20.1 20,073 22.2 1,630,867 23.0 65+ 32,601 12.4 3,315 12.9 4,444 17.2 26,129 13.2 7,526 8.3 792,333 11.2 Total 262,300 25,627 25,881 197,790 90,395 7,078,515 3-2-117 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-15 Population Distribution Table Distances (km)

Sectors 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8 - 10 10 - 16 16 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 North Present Date (2002) 0 25 125 149 254 262 9688 11,808 32,461 Startup Date (2025) 0 49 246 293 498 512 14,710 15,276 41,822 40-year Date (2040) 0 65 324 386 656 676 17,985 17,537 47,926 North-Northeast Present Date (2002) 20 93 19 131 170 856 14,588 34,780 133,414 Startup Date (2025) 38 181 36 256 333 1676 27,686 63,124 209,729 40-year Date (2040) 51 239 48 338 439 2211 36,228 81,610 259,500 Northeast Present Date (2002) 2 10 262 187 142 784 81,323 63,006 60,243 Startup Date (2025) 4 19 512 365 278 1535 137,973 117,941 93,921 40-year Date (2040) 6 25 676 482 366 2025 174,918 153,768 115,885 East-Northeast Present Date (2002) 0 37 80 25 0 1432 13,493 8,733 18,066 Startup Date (2025) 0 73 156 49 0 2804 25,376 12,790 24,452 40-year Date (2040) 0 96 206 65 0 3698 33,126 15,436 28,616 East Present Date (2002) 0 87 49 50 158 741 8123 2193 4565 Startup Date (2025) 0 171 96 98 310 1450 11,234 2872 5824 40-year Date (2040) 0 225 127 130 408 1912 13,262 3315 6644 East-Southeast Present Date (2002) 0 16 187 206 77 724 7305 4783 9717 Startup Date (2025) 0 29 326 361 135 1231 9108 6069 12,130 40-year Date (2040) 0 42 482 532 200 1794 11,111 7498 14,811 Southeast Present Date (2002) 0 136 15 40 42 485 5,537 48,768 68,717 Startup Date (2025) 0 205 22 60 63 782 9,249 74,801 106,438 40-year Date (2040) 0 251 27 73 77 976 11,669 91,779 131,038 3-2-118 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-15 Population Distribution Table Distances (km)

Sectors 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8 - 10 10 - 16 16 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 South-Southeast Present Date (2002) 39 12 52 71 125 717 8239 220,811 374,800 Startup Date (2025) 58 17 79 107 188 1089 13,731 304,881 447,880 40-year Date (2040) 71 21 96 131 229 1332 17,312 359,710 495,541 South Present Date (2002) 61 2 128 13 119 487 6648 17,891 48,351 Startup Date (2025) 92 3 193 19 180 734 10,192 29,482 73,642 40-year Date (2040) 112 4 235 23 220 896 12,503 37,042 90,136 South-Southwest Present Date (2002) 0 37 0 243 25 314 6366 6531 7437 Startup Date (2025) 0 55 0 366 38 474 9173 10,313 11,488 40-year Date (2040) 0 67 0 447 46 578 11,003 12,780 14,130 Southwest Present Date (2002) 10 30 13 0 140 963 3280 3852 6072 Startup Date (2025) 16 46 19 0 212 1453 4955 6814 8750 40-year Date (2040) 19 56 23 0 258 1773 6047 8746 10,496 West-Southwest Present Date (2002) 0 14 65 121 322 866 6142 16,351 8600 Startup Date (2025) 0 21 98 183 486 1308 9814 31,685 13,010 40-year Date (2040) 0 25 119 224 594 1596 12,208 41,685 15,886 West Present Date (2002) 85 117 2 46 141 271 4655 33,491 78,028 Startup Date (2025) 128 177 3 69 213 409 7021 44,190 100,553 40-year Date (2040) 156 216 4 85 260 499 8565 51,167 115,244 West-Northwest Present Date (2002) 0 95 168 50 213 276 6980 14,230 12,016 Startup Date (2025) 0 144 254 76 322 476 10,028 22,879 19,679 40-year Date (2040) 0 175 310 93 393 607 12,017 28,519 24,676 3-2-119 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-15 Population Distribution Table Distances (km)

Sectors 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8 - 10 10 - 16 16 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 Northwest Present Date (2002) 0 26 229 53 423 475 7582 9939 3231 Startup Date (2025) 0 39 346 95 828 909 10,658 11,573 3675 40-year Date (2040) 0 48 422 123 1093 1192 12,665 12,638 3965 North-Northwest Present Date (2002) 4 25 99 63 19 660 6304 22,349 10,688 Startup Date (2025) 6 49 194 124 36 1292 9,018 32,677 13,930 40-year Date (2040) 65 256 163 48 1704 10,787 39,412 16,044 Annual Total Present Date (2002) 221 762 1492 1448 2372 10,313 196,254 519,515 876,407 Startup Date (2025) 343 1279 2581 2522 4121 18,135 319,924 787,366 1,186,922 40-year Date (2040) 422 1621 3355 3293 5288 23,469 401,406 662,642 1,390,539 Cumulative Total 0 - 80 km Present Date (2002) 1,608,783 Startup Date (2025) 2,323,192 40-year Date (2040) 2,792,037 3-2-120 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-16 Lake Anna Recreational Facilities Number of Number Camp Facility Distance Wet Slips of Ramps Sites Marinas Anna Point 2.3 miles NNW 25 1 Dukes Creek 2.2 miles E 55 5 High Point 2.3 miles NNW 50 4 Lake Anna 1.4 miles NNE 160 2 Rocky Branch 2.3 miles NNE None 4 Sturgeon Creek 2 miles N 36 5 Public Landings Christopher Run Campground 6 miles WNW 1 152 Hunters Landing 6.6 miles NW 1 Lake Anna Campground 2.5 miles NW 1 61 Lake Anna Landing 9 miles NW 1 Lake Anna State Park 4.3 miles NNW 2 Pleasants Landing 5.6 miles SE 1 Sullivans Landing 8 miles NW 1 Total 326 29 213 Source: Reference 4, Table 2.1-1.

Note: means no data was reported in source.

3-2-121 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-17 Tourist Attractions, Parks and Recreational Areas Annual Peak Daily Facility Location Usage Usage

• Comments Lake Anna 1.4 Mi, NNE 530,000 5900 ** Annual usage based on 180 days at 2,950 Recreational Usage people per day.

Waste Heat 90,000 <1,000 Peak daily usage based on doubling the Treatment Facility resident population in cooling lagoon sectors (one guest per resident). Annual usage based on 180 days at 500 people per day.

Lake Anna State 2.8 Mi, NNW 187,300 4370 Annual use was 187,300 between Park July 1, 2001 and June 2002. Park closed in winter. Use includes occupants of boats launched at the park.

Paramounts Kings 35 Mi, SE 2,875,000 20,835 Annual use was 2 to 2.5 million between Dominion March and November. Add 15% to Amusement Park calculate maximum capacity. Park closed in winter.

• Peak daily usage is based on a peak weekend day during the summer.

• • This number is based on an average of 3 persons per boat, campsite and picnic area.

3-2-122 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-18 Employment and Income Statistics by State, County, and City Work Force Unemployment Poverty Median (November (% November (% Estimated Household 2002)a 2002)a 1999)b Income (1999)b Hanover County 50,114 2.4 4.2 $58,082 Henrico 147,138 3.3 6.7 $47,903 Louisa 10,577 5.3 9.0 $38,177 Orange 12,364 3.9 8.9 $41,285 City of Richmond 100,290 5.8 17.9 $30,169 Spotsylvania 48,534 2.2 5.5 $55,534 Commonwealth of 3,773,075 3.6 9.0 $44,848 Virginia State of Maryland 2,908,759 3.9 8.0 $49,781 Charles County, MD 65,349 2.8 6.5 $57,408

a. Virginia Employment Commission; Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

b. 2000 Census Data.

Table 2.5-19 Major Employers in Louisa County, Virginia Number of Employer Product Employees Dominion Energy Power Generation 1500 Kloeckner-Pentaplast Rigid PVC 630 Klearfold, Inc. Plastic Packing 176 Tradewinds of Virginia Wood Products 130 Tri-Dim Filters 100 Table 2.5-20 Major Private Employers in Orange County, Virginia Employer Product Employees Von Holtzbrinck Publishing Svcs. Book Distribution Center 305 American Woodmark Corp. Cabinet Components 300 American Press, Inc. Printer of Periodicals and Catalogs 250 RIDGID Products Plumbing/Drain Equipment 211 3-2-123 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-20 Major Private Employers in Orange County, Virginia Employer Product Employees A, B, &C Group Direct Marketing 138 Battlefield Farms, Inc. Bedding and Holiday Plants 80 General Shale Brick 80 Klockner/Intertrans Carrier Co. Motor Carrier/Distribution Center 72 Elcotel/Technology Service Group Telephones and Parts 70 Zamma Corp. Molding and Furniture Components 45 Central Virginia Newspapers, Inc. Newspaper Publishing and Printing 34 MSAG Data Consultants, Inc. Computer Mapping/Data 26 Atlantic Research Corp. Rocket Propulsion Systems 25 Table 2.5-21 Major Private Employers in Spotsylvania County, Virginia Employer Product Employees Capital One Call Center 1200 CVS Pharmacy Distribution Center 450 General Products Company Manufacturing 375 Diversified Mailing Services Commercial Mailing Service 300 General Motors Manufacturing 300 Sheridan Books Printing 250 Rappahannock Electric Cooperative Electric Service 250 Printpack Inc. Flexible 180 Kaeser Compressors, Inc. Air Compressors 175 Simmons USA Bedding 130 E-OIR Measurements, Inc. Sensor Technology Firm 125 Walter Grinders Tool Grinding Machines 120 National Coach Works Charter Motor Coach Services 115 United Parcel Service Package Delivery/Pickup Service 110 A. Smith Bowman Distillery Manufacturer of Distilled Spirits 100 Carlisle Motion Control Manufacturer of Brake Lining 100 The Shockey Precast Group Manufacturer of Precast Concrete 100 3-2-124 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-22 Vacant Housing Units by County During 2000 For Seasonal, Recreational, Remainder Total For For Sale or Occasional of Vacant County Vacant Rent Only Use Units Henrico 4449 1970 806 454 1219 Louisa 1910 73 124 1226 487 Orange 1204 116 170 484 434 Spotsylvania 2021 359 449 564 649 Richmond City 7733 3113 849 249 3522 Table 2.5-23 Regional Fire Stations and Emergency Service Centers Hanover County Orange County Louisa County Henry Vol. Fire Barboursville Fire Department Louisa Vol. Fire Mechanicsville Vol. Fire Gordonsville Fire Department Mineral Vol. Fire Eastern Hanover Vol. Fire Orange Fire Department Bumpass Vol. Fire Black Creek Vol. Fire Lake of the Woods Fire Department Holly Grove Vol. Fire Farrington Vol. Fire Mine Run Fire Department Locust Creek Vol. Fire Hanover County Vol. Fire Rapidan Fire Department Trevillians Vol. Fire Beaverdam Vol. Fire Lake of the Woods Rescue Squad Zion Crossroad Vol. Fire Hanover Industrial Airpark Fire Orange County Rescue Squad Louisa Rescue Montpelier Vol. Fire Mineral Rescue Rockville Vol. Fire Henrico County Holly Grove Rescue Ashland Vol. Fire & Rescue 5 Fire Stations & Fire Medic Units Lake Anna Rescue West Hanover Vol. Fire & Rescue 15 Fire Stations East Hanover Rescue Fire Rescue 33 (Tuckahoe #1 VRS) City of Richmond Ashcake Rescue Fire Rescue 34 (Tuckahoe #2 VRS) 21 Fire Companies Emergency Operations Center Fire Rescue 32 (Lakeside VRS) EMS Headquarters Fire Rescue 31 (Henrico VRS) 3-2-125 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-24 Historic Sites in Counties Near the ESP Site Number of Listed County Historic Sites Louisa 13 Spotsylvania 15 Hanover 32 Total 60 3-2-126 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.5-25 Historic Sites within the Vicinity Approximate Distance from ESP National Register of Historic Historic Site County site Places (NRHP) Number Andrews Tavern Spotsylvania 4 miles88-136 DESCRIPTION: Samuel Andrews built Andrews Tavern in 1815. The site is currently a private residence.

The buildings craftsmanship, combined with its hall and parlor plan, make it a model of the Federal provincial architecture of Piedmont Virginia. The property retains a high degree of integrity, in both its buildings and setting. During its 186 years, Andrews Tavern has served as a post office, tavern, polling place, school, store, militia site, and residence.

SIGNIFICANCE: Event, Architecture/Engineering NOTE: Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors removed Andrews Tavern from the historic properties register at the request of the property owner in mid-2001. It remains on the Virginia and National listings.

Cuckoo House Louisa 9 miles 54-16 DESCRIPTION: Captain Henry Pendleton erected the present building in 1781 on the site of an old tavern.

Some are of the opinion that part of the present structure is a portion of the old Cuckoo Tavern. The home is built of brick laid in the common bond, the plan of architecture being the shape of the letter T.

Cuckoo was originally the site of an old tavern, known at one time as Kings Ordinary and afterwards known as Cuckoo Tavern. Jack Jouett was the other rider the night of famous Paul Reveres ride to warn the Virginia General Assembly that the British were coming. It was from the Cuckoo Tavern that Jouett rode to Charlottesville to warn the Virginia General Assembly of the British approach. The tavern was the stopping place for the aristocrats.

SIGNIFICANCE: Architecture/Engineering, Event Jerdone Castle Louisa 7 miles 54-45 DESCRIPTION: It is estimated that John Jerdone erected the structure in the early 1750s. The house is a rectangular frame building, with a lean-to on the East side. It is one and one-half stories. An addition to the house was made in the 1850s.

SIGNIFICANCE: Architecture/Engineering, Person Prospect Hill Spotsylvania 9 miles 88-56 DESCRIPTION: The Holladay family has owned The Prospect Hill property since 1798. The name Prospect Hill is believed to be attributed to the extraordinary view of the surrounding country from the property site.

The main house was erected in 1812. The frame structure has two stories and an attic.

Waller Holladay, scholar and a poet, was educated as a lawyer; but did not practice long. He is closely linked to Thomas Jefferson and Edmund and John Randolph (of Roanoke). The home had been raided by Union soldiers.

SIGNIFICANCE: Event, Architecture/Engineering, Person 3-2-127 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Power Station Water Federal Lands State Lands Roads Railroads Jurisdictions Pipeliines Airports Scale 1 : 40,000 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 Feet Figure 2.5-1 10-Mile Surrounding Area North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-128 September 2003

Water Roads Jurisdictions Scale 1 : 200,000 0 3 6 9 Miles Figure 2.5-2 50-Mile Surrounding Area North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-129 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

( )

N NNW NNE 240 NW 785 605 NE 437 719 233 17 156 137 WNW 388 58 120 130 ENE 259 49 115 171 1,313 91 17 204 219 23 85 240 0 23 823 877 1206 48 9 23 583 25 161 4 0 18 73 91 0 2 34 0 0 W 259 135 44 2 112 81 0 906 45 46 145 679 E 0 0 13 10 0 15 0 58 37 62 171 29 A 130 116 189 35 11 308 12 2 14 71 0 B 50 828 0 122 38 668 134 232 C 68 40 ESE WSW 12 24 D 119 920 114 459 E

SE SW 300 685 465 SSW SSE F

Ring Ring Ring S Kilometers Miles A 0-2 0 - 1.24 B 2-4 1.24 - 2.5 C 4-6 2.5 - 3.73 D 6-8 3.73 - 5.0 E 8 - 10 5.0 - 6.2 F 10 - 16 6.2 - 10.0 Figure 2.5-3 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2000 3-2-130 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

NNW NNE 349 880 1,141 NW NE 626 1,045 339 25 227 199 WNW 564 84 174 189 ENE 346 67 167 249 1,909 132 25 251 270 349 0 1275 1197 1754 59 13 33 718 198 5 0 26 106 112 0 3 49 0 0 W 319 166 54 2 138 100 0 1317 65 67 211 987 E 0 0 16 12 0 22 0 71 46 76 249 36 A 160 143 275 43 14 379 15 2 17 103 B

0 62 1,020 0 150 47 950 165 286 C 84 49 ESE WSW 15 30 D 147 1,133 140 588 E

SE SW 370 847 573 SSW SSE F

Ring Ring Ring Kilometers Miles S A 0-2 0 - 1.24 B 2-4 1.24 - 2.5 C 4-6 2.5 - 3.73 D 6-8 3.73 - 5.0 E 8 - 10 5.0 - 6.2 F 10 - 16 6.2 - 10.0 Figure 2.5-4 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2010 3-2-131 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

NNW NNE 458 1,154 1,498 NW NE 815 1,372 445 32 298 261 WNW 740 111 229 248 ENE 433 86 219 326 2,505 174 32 299 321 458 0 1673 1570 2301 70 17 44 853 236 6 0 34 139 133 0 4 65 0 0 W 379 198 64 3 164 119 0 1729 86 88 277 1,296 E 0 0 19 15 0 29 0 85 54 91 326 42 A 190 170 361 51 16 451 18 3 20 135 B

0 73 1,212 0 179 56 1,231 196 340 C 100 59 ESE WSW 18 35 D 174 1,347 167 717 E

SE SW 439 1,008 681 SSW SSE Ring Ring F Ring Kilometers Miles S A 0-2 0 - 1.24 B 2-4 1.24 - 2.5 C 4-6 2.5 - 3.73 D 6-8 3.73 - 5.0 E 8 - 10 5.0 - 6.2 F 10 - 16 6.2 - 10.0 Figure 2.5-5 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2020 3-2-132 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

NNW NNE 567 1,429 1,854 NW NE 1,004 1,698 550 40 369 324 WNW 917 137 283 307 ENE 520 104 272 404 3,102 215 40 346 371 567 0 20721944 2849 81 21 54 988 273 7 0 43 172 154 0 5 80 0 0 W 439 229 75 3 190 137 0 2140 106 109 343 1,604 E 0 0 22 17 0 35 0 98 63 105 404 49 A 220 197 446 59 19 522 20 3 24 168 B

0 85 1,404 0 207 64 1,513 227 393 C 115 68 ESE WSW 20 41 D 202 1,560 193 846 E

SE SW 509 1,170 788 SSW SSE Ring Ring F Ring Kilometers Miles S A 0-2 0 - 1.24 B 2-4 1.24 - 2.5 C 4-6 2.5 - 3.73 D 6-8 3.73 - 5.0 E 8 - 10 5.0 - 6.2 F 10 - 16 6.2 - 10.0 Figure 2.5-6 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2030 3-2-133 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

NNW NNE 676 1,704 2,211 NW NE 1,192 2,025 656 48 439 386 WNW 1,093 163 338 366 ENE 607 123 324 482 3,698 256 48 393 422 676 0 247023183397 93 25 65 1124 310 8 0 51 206 175 0 6 96 0 0 W 499 260 85 4 216 156 0 2552 127 130 408 1,912 E 0 0 25 19 0 42 0 112 71 119 482 56 A 251 224 532 67 21 594 23 4 27 200 B

0 96 1,596 0 235 73 1,794 258 447 C 131 77 ESE WSW 23 46 D 229 1,773 220 976 E

SE SW 578 1,332 896 SSW SSE Ring Ring F Ring Kilometers Miles S A 0-2 0 - 1.24 B 2-4 1.24 - 2.5 C 4-6 2.5 - 3.73 D 6-8 3.73 - 5.0 E 8 - 10 5.0 - 6.2 F 10 - 16 6.2 - 10.0 Figure 2.5-7 16-Kilometer (10-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2040 3-2-134 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

NNW NNE 31,647 10,406 126,778 NW NE 3,192 11,506 32,315 57,315 21,451 9,797 58,229 WNW 9,251 13,449 ENE 11,350 6,068 17,511 7,314 76,397 13,478 8,380 6,715 12,460 W 76,069 32,561 4,449 7,853 2,134 4,456 E 7,105 5,823 15,018 A 4,640 5,214 3,134 8,216 6,122 9,449 7,762 ESE WSW 6,340 3,594 46,504 B

5,839 6,202 213,500 16,883 65,437 SW SE C

7,085 368,445 46,152 SSW SSE D

Ring Ring Ring Miles S

Kilometers A 0 - 16 0 - 10 B 16 - 40 10 - 24.9 C 40 - 60 24.9 - 37.3 D 60 - 80 37.3 - 50 Figure 2.5-8 80-Kilometer (50-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2000 3-2-135 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

NNW NNE 35,717 11,816 159,959 NW NE 3,385 13,014 71,957 25,941 44,639 10,507 82,114 WNW 11,435 ENE 7,248 19,144 14,682 20,287 8,652 101,027 17,238 10,144 8,040 17,627 W 85,863 37,213 5,478 9,205 2,429 5,003 E 7,419 8,106 21,685 3,862 A 5,354 6,828 10,134 10,789 7,342 WSW 7,881 10,149 ESE 4,882 57,823 B

7,003 7,847 81,837 21,923 250,053 SW SE C

8,846 400,219 57,148 SSW SSE D

Ring Ring Ring Miles S Kilometers A 0 - 16 0 - 10 B 16 - 40 10 - 24.9 C 40 - 60 24.9 - 37.3 D 60 - 80 37.3 - 50 Figure 2.5-9 80-Kilometer (50-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2010 3-2-136 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

NNW NNE 39,787 13,225 193,139 NW NE 3,578 14,522 86,600 30,431 56,962 11,218 105,998 WNW 13,618 ENE 8,428 24,838 18,013 23,064 9,989 125,658 20,999 11,908 9,366 22,793 W 95,656 41,864 6,507 10,557 2,724 5,550 E 9,016 9,108 28,352 A 6,069 8,442 4,591 12,054 12,130 8,563 12,537 ESE WSW 9,421 6,170 69,141 B

9,491 286,605 98,238 8,168 26,962 SW SE C

10,607 431,993 68,144 SSW SSE D

Ring Ring Ring Miles S Kilometers A 0 - 16 0 - 10 B 16 - 40 10 - 24.9 C 40 - 60 24.9 - 37.3 D 60 - 80 37.3 - 50 Figure 2.5-10 80-Kilometer (50-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2020 3-2-137 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

NNW NNE 43,856 14,635 226,320 NW NE 3,772 16,030 101,242 34,922 69,286 11,928 15,802 129,883 WNW 30,533 ENE 9,607 21,345 25,840 11,327 150,288 24,759 13,672 10,691 27,960 W 105,450 46,516 7,536 11,910 3,020 6,097 E 10,612 10,109 35,018 A 6,783 5,319 10,055 13,969 13,470 9,783 14,924 WSW ESE 7,458 10,962 80,460 B

9,332 11,136 323,158 32,002 114,638 SW SE C

12,368 463,767 79,140 SSW SSE D

Ring Ring Ring Miles S Kilometers A 0 - 16 0 - 10 B 16 - 40 10 - 24.9 C 40 - 60 24.9 - 37.3 D 60 - 80 37.3 - 50 Figure 2.5-11 80-Kilometer (50-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2030 3-2-138 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

NNW NNE 47,926 16,044 259,500 NW NE 3,965 17,537 115,885 39,412 81,610 12,638 17,985 153,768 WNW 10,787 36,228 ENE 24,676 28,616 12,665 174,918 28,519 15,436 12,017 33,126 W 115,244 51,167 8,565 13,262 3,315 6,644 E 12,208 11,111 A 7,498 41,685 11,669 6,047 15,886 14,811 11,003 17,312 WSW ESE 8,746 12,503 91,779 B

12,780 359,710 10,496 37,042 131,038 SW SE C

14,130 495,541 90,136 SSW SSE D

Ring Ring Ring Miles S Kilometers A 0 - 16 0 - 10 B 16 - 40 10 - 24.9 C 40 - 60 24.9 - 37.3 D 60 - 80 37.3 - 50 Figure 2.5-12 80-Kilometer (50-Mile) Resident and Transient Population Distribution-2040 3-2-139 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 8.0E+06 7.0E+06 1000/SQ. MI 6.0E+06 500/SQ. MI Actual 2000 5.0E+06 Projected 2040 Population 4.0E+06 3.0E+06 2.0E+06 1.0E+06 0.0E+00 0 10 20 30 40 50 Distance (mile) From North Anna Site Figure 2.5-13 Population Density 3-2-140 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Manassas Rappanannock Page Fauquier Prince William Culpeper Charles Stafford Madison Rockingham Fredericksburg Greene King George Orange Spotsylvania Albemarle Westmoreland Caroline Louisa Richmond Charlottesville 16 km Fluvanna Essex Hanover King Goochland King and William Queen Buckingham Powhatan Cumberland New Kent Henrico Amelia Chesterfield Richmond 80 km 0 25 50 km LEGEND 0 10 20 30 mi Black / African American Minority Population Hispanic Minority Population Asian Minority Population North Anna Power Station Figure 2.5-14 Minority Population 3-2-141 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Manassass Rappanannock Page Fauquier Prince William Culpeper Charles Stafford Madison Rockingham Fredericksburg Greene King George Orange Spotsylvania Albemarle Westmoreland Caroline Louisa Richmond 16 km Essex Charlottesville Fluvanna Hanover King King and Goochland Queen William Buckingham Powhatan Henrico Cumberland New Kent Chesterfield Amelia Richmond 80 km LEGEND 0 25 50 km Low-Income Population 0 10 20 30 mi North Anna Power Station Figure 2.5-15 Low-Income Population 3-2-142 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Figure 2.5-16 50-Mile Vicinity Map Showing Counties and Important Towns and Cities Source: North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Application for Renewed Operating Licenses Appendix E -

Environmental Report, Figure 2-5 3-2-143 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Legend:

No Potential Low Potential Moderate to High Potential Figure 2.5-17 Area Potentials for Yielding Archeological Resources Within the Study Area Source: Cultural Resources Assessment, Louis Berger Group, 2001 (Reference 21) 3-2-144 Revision 0 September 2003

Cemetery 3 Cemetery 1 Cemetery 2 0 1/4 1/2 1 Mile 0 .5 1 Kilometer Figure 2.5-18 Cemeteries Within the NAPS Site Boundary Source: Cultural Resources Assessment, Louis Berger Group, 2001 (Reference 21)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-145 September 2003

Figure 2.5-19 Location of Historic Sites in the Vicinity of NAPS North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-146 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.6 Geology The following sections summarize geological, seismological, and geotechnical conditions at the ESP site. These conditions and utilization of the ESP site for new units are then evaluated for potential environmental impacts. The information is subdivided into three categories, corresponding to the subject conditions. The geological, seismological, and geotechnical information has been developed in accordance with the guidance provided in RG 4.2 (Reference 1).

The geological, seismological, and geotechnical information presented in this section is based on reviews of previous reports prepared for the existing units and the abandoned Units 3 and 4, geologic literature, and the results of a subsurface investigation performed in late 2002 (Part 2: Appendix 2.5.4 B) as part of the ESP application activities. Previous NAPS site-specific reports reviewed include the UFSAR for the existing units (Reference 2) and the ISFSI Safety Analysis Report (Reference 3). Reports prepared by Dames and Moore for licensing of the existing units (Reference 4) and the abandoned Units 3 and 4 (Reference 5) (Reference 6) were also reviewed.

Geological and geotechnical investigations conducted for the existing units and for the abandoned Units 3 and 4 included over 100 borings to depths ranging from 20 to 175 feet (Reference 4)

(Reference 5). Test pits were excavated in the area of abandoned Units 3 and 4, and detailed field geologic mapping was performed (Reference 6). During the foundation excavation for abandoned Units 3 and 4, the rock comprising the excavation walls and floor was mapped (Reference 7). As part of the ESP subsurface investigation program, seven borings, eight cone penetrometer tests, two seismic cone penetrometer tests, and cross-hole and down-hole seismic tests were performed.

The data obtained by the ESP investigation are presented in Part 2: Appendix 2.5.4 B. Field and aerial reconnaissance geologic mapping was also performed as part of the ESP seismicity investigation program.

2.6.1 Geological Conditions 2.6.1.1 Physiography The ESP site lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Figure 2.6-1). The Piedmont Province is a rolling hilly area that extends from its boundary with the Coastal Plain Province on the east to the Blue Ridge Province on the west. Elevations range from about 800 to 1500 feet along the western border of the Province and slope eastward to elevations of about 200 feet at its eastern border (Reference 8).

The ESP site is located within the Piedmont Upland section (referred to as subprovince in some publications) of the Piedmont Province, approximately 15 miles west of the Coastal Plain Province (Figure 2.6-1). Topography in the vicinity of the ESP site is characteristic of the Piedmont Upland section with a gently undulating surface varying in elevation from about 200 to 500 feet (Figure 2.6-2). The ESP site is surrounded by forest and brushwood-covered land interspersed with 3-2-147 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report an occasional farm and is well dissected by streams (Reference 2). Slopes in the region typically range from 2 to 5 percent with steeper slopes ranging from 7 to 10 percent along the lower tributaries of some of the larger streams.

2.6.1.2 Stratigraphy The Piedmont Upland section is underlain by Late Precambrian and Paleozoic age crystalline rocks, which are overlain by Cenozoic age residual soils. The crystalline rocks consist of deformed and metamorphosed sedimentary, igneous, and volcanic rocks, intruded by mafic dikes and granitic plutons (Reference 9). The rocks belong to a number of northeast trending lithotectonic belts, bounded by low-angle thrust faults (Paleozoic in age), and are interpreted to have formed along the shore and offshore of ancestral North America. The lithotectonic belts are: the Goochland-Raleigh belt; the Carolina and Eastern Slate belts; the Charlotte, Milton and Chopawamsic belts; and the Western/Inner Piedmont belt (Reference 10) (Figure 2.6-3).

The ESP site is located in the Chopawamsic belt. The Chopawamsic belt is bounded on the west and east by the Chopawamsic and Spotsylvania thrust faults, respectively, and is interpreted to be a volcanic-arc that was accreted to ancestral North America. The belt is comprised of the Chopawamsic Formation and the Ta River Metamorphic Suite, which are overlain unconformably by the Quantico Formation and intruded by rocks of the Falmouth Intrusive Suite (Figure 2.6-4 and Figure 2.6-5). The Chopawamsic Formation and Ta River Metamorphic suite have been assigned to the Cambrian and/or Ordovician Periods (Reference 11) and the Quantico Formation and Falmouth Intrusive Suite have been assigned to the Ordovician and Carboniferous Periods, respectively (Reference 12).

The ESP site is underlain by rocks of the Ta River Metamorphic Suite, which extend thousands of feet below the ground surface (Reference 13). The main rock encountered in borings completed during previous subsurface investigations at the NAPS site and in borings completed as part of the ESP subsurface investigation is a gneiss. The gneiss is generally described as a gray to dark gray:

• quartz gneiss with some biotite quartz gneiss, and

• hornblende gneiss, biotite quartz gneiss, and quartz gneiss.

The gneiss is moderately to intensely jointed and contains layers of quartz, pegmatite, chlorite, and clay. The upper part of the gneiss (averaging about 30 feet thick) is highly weathered and fractured, becoming less weathered and fractured with increasing depth.

Residual soil overlying the gneiss consists predominantly of saprolite. The saprolite is derived from weathering of the underlying bedrock and retains many of the structural and mineraological features of the bedrock. The saprolite extends to the top of the rock from which it was derived; however, the contact between the saprolite and sound rock may be gradational and not well defined. The saprolite at the site generally consists of micaceous clayey, silty, fine to coarse sand 3-2-148 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report with some to many relict rock fragments and in some areas of the site it extends to a depth of about 100 feet below the ground surface.

2.6.1.3 Faults Seven bedrock faults (Paleozoic in age) have been mapped within 5 miles of the ESP site (Figure 2.6-4 and Figure 2.6-5). Two of the faults, the Spotsylvania and Chopawamsic, are major thrust faults that separate lithotectonic belts within the Piedmont Province. The Long Branch and Sturgeon Creek faults are thrust faults, and the remaining three unnamed faults are designated as faults a, b, and c on Figure 2.6-4 and Figure 2.6-5.

2.6.2 Seismological Conditions 2.6.2.1 Tectonic Setting The northeast trending, fault-bounded belts comprising the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Paleozoic in age) are defined essentially on the basis of rock type and metamorphic grade. The faults that separate the belts are low-angle thrust faults created by large-scale detachment and northwest thrusting of rocks along a basal decollement. Below the decollement are rocks that form the North American basement complex. The basal decollement is a nearly horizontal blind thrust fault that dips gently southeast and is at a depth of approximately 3 to 6 miles below the ground surface (Reference 14) (Reference 15). The low-angle thrust faults rise from the basal decollement and either terminate in the subsurface or extend to the ground surface. Also located in the Piedmont Province are a number of Mesozoic age grabens and half-grabens (Triassic basins) that are bounded on their western side by normal faults. The normal faults are considered to be either listric into the Paleozoic thrust faults or penetrate into the North American basement complex (Reference 16).

2.6.2.2 Seismic Sources Seismic activity in the Piedmont Province is generally considered to originate in the North American basement. Geologic structures considered to be responsible for earthquake activity in the province are the basal decollement and associated thrust structures and the normal faults and intrusions associated with rifting that occurred during Mesozoic time (Reference 17).

2.6.2.2.1 Seismic Source Zones The region (200-mile radius) encompasses two areas where seismic sources have been delineated. These areas have been designated as seismic source zones and consist of the Central Virginia seismic source zone and the Giles County seismic source zone (Reference 18)

(Figure 2.6-6).

The Central Virginia seismic zone is an area of persistent, low-level seismicity. The zone is about 75 miles long and 90 miles wide and seismicity ranges in depth from about 2 to 11 miles below the 3-2-149 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report ground surface (Reference 19). The ESP site lies within the zone, near its northern boundary (Reference 18). Seismic sources within the Central Virginia seismic zone vary from place to place.

In the central and western parts of the zone, seismicity is considered to be attributed to west-dipping reflectors (interfaces between media of different elastic properties that reflect seismic waves) that form the roof of a detached antiform. In the eastern part of the zone, seismicity is considered to be related to intrusions that have created an extensive near-vertical dike swarm (Reference 20). Given the depth distribution of 2 to 11 miles and broad spatial distribution of seismicity, however, it is difficult to uniquely attribute the seismicity to any known geologic structure, and earthquakes are considered to occur within the upper portion of the North American basement complex or within thrust fault bounded crust above the basal decollement. The largest historical earthquake to occur in this zone occurred in Goochland County on December 23, 1875, about 30 miles southwest of the ESP site. It had a body-wave magnitude (mb) of 5 (Reference 21) and a Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of VII. Isoseismal maps indicate that the ESP site would have experienced a shaking intensity of MMI V (Reference 22).

The Giles County seismic zone is located in Giles County, Virginia, near its southwestern border with West Virginia. The zone is about 25 miles long, 6 miles wide and seismicity ranges in depth from 3 to 16 miles below the ground surface (Reference 23) (Reference 24). The ESP site is about 150 miles northeast of this zone (Reference 18). The source of seismicity within the Giles County seismic zone is considered to be due to normal faulting within the North American basement complex (Reference 16) (Reference 24). The largest known earthquake to occur in Virginia and the second largest earthquake to occur in the southeastern United States occurred in this zone on May 31, 1897. It had a magnitude mb of 5.8 and an intensity MMI of VIII (Reference 25). Isoseismal maps indicate that the ESP site would have experienced a shaking intensity of MMI V (Reference 22) from this earthquake.

2.6.2.2.2 Tectonic Sources (Faults)

The Spotsylvania and Chopawamsic thrust faults bound the eastern and western margins of the Chopawamsic belt, respectively. They have been mapped over significant distances within the Piedmont Province (Reference 12). The Spotsylvania thrust fault is about 4.5 miles southeast of the site and juxtaposes rocks of the Ta River Metamorphic Suite against rocks of the Goochland belt. It is a fault zone, rather than a single fault, having a width of approximately 1.5 miles (Reference 13)

(Reference 26) and a length of over 300 miles (Reference 11). The Chopawamsic thrust fault is about 4.5 miles northwest of the site and separates rocks of the Chopawamsic Formation from rocks of the Western Piedmont belt. Interpretations indicate that this structure extends for a distance of over 45 miles (Reference 27).

The Long Branch thrust fault is about 2 miles west of the site and separates rocks of the Quantico Formation from rocks of the Chopawamsic Formation and Ta River Metamorphic Suite. The fault has been mapped for over 45 miles and along its length it is locally displaced by smaller faults (Reference 12) (Reference 13).

3-2-150 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report The Sturgeon Creek fault is about 1 mile west of the site and displaces the fault contact between the Quantico Formation and the Ta River Metamorphic Suite. It has been mapped for a distance of about 10 miles (Reference 13).

Unnamed fault (a) extends directly through the NAPS site. The fault was found in the Ta River Metamorphic Suite during the foundation excavation for abandoned Units 3 and 4. The fault was investigated by Dames and Moore (Reference 6) and the results were presented to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (Reference 28). The results of the investigation indicate that movement occurred along the fault approximately 200 million years ago and that movement has not occurred since, or at least not within the last one million years, given the relatively undisturbed thickness of residual soil overlying the fault. The results of the investigation also concluded that the fault is of limited extent (Reference 6), although subsequent interpretation has extended the fault north and south for a total distance of about 7 miles (Reference 26) (Reference 29). Aerial reconnaissance, field reconnaissance and air photo interpretation carried out for this ESP application, however, did not reveal any evidence for existence of the fault over this distance. Bedrock exposures that are poor to non-existent along the entire 7-mile length of the postulated fault trace, and a lack of geomorphic expression do not support this extension of the fault.

Unnamed faults b and c are located east of the Long Branch thrust fault, approximately 1 and 4 miles west and north of the ESP site, respectively Figure 2.6-4. The longer of the two faults (b) juxtaposes rocks of the Quantico Formation against rocks of the Ta River Metamorphic and Falmouth Intrusive Suites. It is about 16 miles long, is offset by the Sturgeon Creek fault and is truncated at its northern end by the unnamed fault c. This fault juxtaposes rocks of the Quantico Formation against rocks of the Falmouth Suite.

2.6.3 Geotechnical Conditions For geotechnical purposes, the subsurface materials at the NAPS site were initially classified into the following five categories (Reference 4):

I Residual clays and clayey silts IIA Saprolite (rock fragments less than 10 percent of volume of overall mass)

IIB Saprolite (rock fragments 10 to 50 percent of soil mass)

III Weathered Rock (rock fragments more than 50 percent of volume of mass)

IV Parent Rock (slightly weathered to fresh rock below zone of soil and rock fragments)

In addition to these five categories, a sixth category termed Zone III-IV, representing a slightly to moderately weathered rock, was subsequently added to further describe the soil and rock with regard to engineering properties (Reference 2) (Reference 4) (Reference 5). The engineering properties for Zones IIA, IIB, III, III-IV, and IV, based on the previous and ESP field investigation and laboratory testing programs, are presented in Table 2.6-1.

3-2-151 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Bedrock at the ESP site exhibits various degrees of weathering that affects its engineering behavior and properties. Zone III bedrock is generally a poor quality rock, with an average rock quality designation (RQD) value of 20 percent, while Zone III-IV and IV bedrock is typically a good to excellent quality rock, with average RQD values of 50 and 95 percent, respectively.

While the saprolite at the ESP site has the relict structure of the parent bedrock, its engineering properties typically resemble those of a soil. It exhibits certain aspects that are characteristic of both cohesive and cohesionless soils. Zone IIA saprolite has been classified as silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), and high and low plasticity silt and clay (MH, ML, CH, and CL). Zone IIB saprolite has been classified as mainly silty sand (SM). Standard penetration test (SPT) N-values for the Zone IIA saprolite indicates medium dense conditions, while SPT N-values for the Zone IIB saprolite indicates very dense conditions. The presence of mica in the saprolite (about 5 to 20 percent) contributes to high void ratios, high compressibilities, and low compacted densities (Reference 30).

Therefore, due to the potential for excessive settlement of the Zone IIA saprolite, as occurred beneath the Units 1 and 2 SWR, no safety-related structures would be founded on the Zone IIA saprolite without ground improvement.

2.6.4 Environmental Impact Evaluation 2.6.4.1 Geological Impacts 2.6.4.1.1 Zones of Alteration, Weathering, and Structural Weakness Occasional zones of severely weathered and fractured rock have been identified in the weathered and unweathered gneiss at the ESP site (Reference 4) (Reference 5) (Reference 7)

(Part 2: Appendix 2.5.4B). The zones are typically 0.5 to 1 foot thick and contain quartz, clay, and iron oxides. Because of the tendency for zones of severely weathered rock to weather further upon exposure, where encountered in excavations for plant structures and judged to have a potential for impact on the stability of the foundation, they would be removed from the face of the excavation and replaced with cement grout. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts due to the effects of inadequate bearing capacity of the foundation rock mass resulting from the presence of weathered and fractured rock are anticipated for the ESP site.

2.6.4.1.2 Effects of Human Activity Massive sulfide and gold deposits have been mined from rocks of the Chopawamsic belt in the vicinity of the ESP site. The deposits have been mined predominantly in and around the town of Mineral, approximately 7 miles west of the site. Mined deposits within a 5-mile radius of the site have been designated the Allah Cooper, Sulfur, Cofer and Old Dominion (Reference 31)

(Reference 32) (Reference 33) (Reference 34). Published documentation of these mining activities indicate that the ESP site has not been nor would it be affected by these mining activities. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts due to the effects of mining activities are anticipated for the ESP site.

3-2-152 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.6.4.1.3 Construction Groundwater Control Groundwater at the ESP site generally occurs at depths ranging from about 6 to 58 feet below the present day ground surface, with the exception of the area of the abandoned Units 3 and 4 excavation where groundwater is within about 2 feet of the ground surface. Groundwater levels at the site are such that foundation excavations extending below the water table during plant construction are likely to require temporary dewatering. Any dewatering that may be required would be performed in a manner that minimizes drawdown effects on the surrounding environment. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts due to dewatering are anticipated for the ESP site.

2.6.4.1.4 Unforeseen Geologic Features Evaluation of the ESP sites geology indicates that no conditions are present that could potentially produce an adverse environmental impact associated with plant construction or operation. The ESP site has not been adversely affected by human activity with respect to the development of natural resources or groundwater withdrawal, nor are any such future activities expected to produce adverse effects at or beyond the site.

2.6.4.2 Seismological Impacts 2.6.4.2.1 Ground Shaking The upper-bound maximum earthquake magnitude estimate, developed for the Central Virginia and Giles County Seismic Source Zones, ranges from mb 6.6 to 7.2 (Reference 18). The two largest earthquakes to occur in the ESP site region are the 1875 Goochland County and 1897 Giles County earthquakes with intensities of MMI VII and VIII, respectively. Isoseismal maps indicate that the ESP site would have experienced a shaking intensity of MMI V from these two earthquakes (Reference 22). There is no physical evidence at the site, such as fissuring, liquefaction, landsliding, or lurching, to suggest that the surficial sediments or the underlying bedrock were disturbed by ground shaking during these events.

Damaging earthquake ground shaking is not expected to occur at the ESP site during the life of the new units. However, safety-related structures, systems, and components would be designed to accommodate the maximum horizontal ground accelerations determined for the ESP site.

Therefore, adverse environmental impacts resulting from the effects of ground shaking on plant structures would be small.

2.6.4.2.2 Surface Fault Rupture The seven bedrock faults mapped within the vicinity of the ESP site are not considered to be capable tectonic sources, as defined in RG 1.165, Appendix A (Reference 35). The faults are considered to be old structures that formed during Pre-Cambrian and Paleozoic time, and no deformational or geomorphic features indicative of potential Quaternary activity have been associated with them. No historical seismic activity has been reported as being associated with any 3-2-153 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report of the faults (Reference 23) (Reference 36). Therefore, the resulting environmental impacts of potential surface fault rupture would be small.

2.6.4.3 Geotechnical Impacts 2.6.4.3.1 Settlement Settlement at the ESP site is only a consideration for structures founded directly on the Zone IIA saprolite. Larger than expected settlement was initially recorded beneath the existing units SWR pumphouse, which is founded on about 65 feet of Zone IIA saprolite, mainly micaceous sand and silt. The settlement was considered to be a result of the weight of the pumphouse itself and the 30 feet of embankment fill built up around it.

The potential for excessive settlement of the Zone IIA saprolite makes it unsuitable, in its natural state, for the support of any safety-related structures due to the possibility of adverse environmental impacts that could result from damage to the structure during plant operation. The Zone IIA saprolite may be used to support safety-related structures if ground improvement methods are used and assuming adequate bearing capacity strengths can be achieved.

2.6.4.3.2 Slope Stability The only existing slope at the NAPS site with a potential to affect the safety of the new units is the 55-foot high, 2H:1V slope that presently exists between abandoned Units 3 and 4 and the existing units SWR. Static long-term analyses of modification of the existing slope using the computer program SLOPE/W produced a factor of safety in excess of the minimum 1.5 required.

Pseudo-static analyses using horizontal and vertical seismic accelerations developed in support of this ESP application produced a factor of safety less than the minimum acceptable value of 1.1.

However, when the pseudo-static analyses were run with the seismic input modified to conform to the reductions given by Seed (Reference 37), the computed factor of safety against slope failure is in excess of 1.1.

The Seed reductions are considered reasonable and valid, and the slope is considered to have an adequate factor of safety against failure during the ESP design seismic event.

A new slope may be excavated to the west of the existing SWR to accommodate ultimate heat sinks for the new units. This slope would have the same configuration and composition as the existing slope. The analytical conclusions for the existing slope would apply to the new slope, i.e.,

the new slope would be stable under seismic and long-term static conditions. If analysis during detailed engineering indicates unacceptable factors of safety against slope failure, modifications would be employed to ensure adequate slope stability.

Based on the preceding discussion, slope failure and the potential environmental implications associated with damage to the facility are not an issue for the new units.

3-2-154 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.6.4.3.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction of site soils during an earthquake event could affect the safety of the new units by causing foundation bearing failures and excessive settlement and slope failure. Liquefaction can occur when all of the following criteria are met:

• Design ground acceleration is high.

• Soil is saturated.

• Soils are sands or silty sands in a loose to medium dense condition.

At the ESP site, the first criterion is met, and the second criterion applies in many areas of the ESP site. However, the third criterion, involving the type and density of the soil, is less clearly applicable.

The Zone IIB soils are extremely dense and the Zone III weathered rock has over 50 percent rock fragments. Neither of these materials meets the loose or medium dense criterion and neither has liquefaction potential.

The only soil at the NAPS site with the gradation and relative density attributes than can potentially result in liquefaction is the Zone IIA saprolite. However, the structure, fabric, and mineralogy of this saprolite substantially reduces its potential for liquefaction. No evidence of liquefaction has been reported at the NAPS site. The possibility of isolated liquefaction effects in localized zones at the site may exist, although the fabric and structure of the soil are considered to minimize such effects.

To avoid these zones, structures associated with the new units would not be sited above them, or ground improvement measures would be implemented to mitigate any liquefaction effects. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts associated with possible liquefaction effects at the ESP site are anticipated.

2.6.4.3.4 Excavation

a. Excavation in Soil and Rock Temporary excavations in soil would have slopes no steeper than 1.5H:1V and would be performed in accordance with OSHA regulations. Where there is insufficient space to slope the excavations, vertical cuts would be supported with sheet pile, soldier piles and lagging or other suitable methods. For large excavations, this support may be supplemented by the use of tiebacks that are angled down and anchored, where possible, into bedrock. Temporary excavations into bedrock would be vertical, except where the structure of the rock dips into the excavation, in which case the excavation would be carried out parallel to the dip of the structure (about 1H:1V). The potential for the failure of temporary excavation slopes and walls during construction at the ESP site would be minimized and, therefore, environmental impacts associated with the failure of temporary excavation slopes are anticipated.

b. Excavation Techniques Excavations in the soils at the ESP site are expected to be achieved using conventional excavating equipment. Excavation in the Zone III rock would likely require the use of powerful 3-2-155 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report but conventional earthmoving equipment. Excavation in Zone III-IV and Zone IV rock would likely require the use of blasting techniques followed by removal using appropriate earthmoving equipment. To ensure the integrity of the foundation rock, the stability of the excavated slopes, and to limit the blasting impact on surrounding structures and the environment, controlled blasting techniques, such as pre-splitting use of delays, minimizing blast size, etc., would be utilized. Monitoring of the blast vibrations would be performed to determine blast magnitudes on existing structures and equipment in and around the NAPS site. No adverse environmental impacts resulting from excavation methods or the use of heavy construction equipment are anticipated during construction at the ESP site.

Alternatives to blasting for the excavation of rock at the ESP site would be reviewed and considered prior to selection of the final excavation method. The alternative excavation methods to be considered would likely include thermal lance, plasma gun, pile driver and expandable metal slug, drilling and expansive grout, hydraulic splitter, hoe ram, diamond wire saw, trenching machine, and water jet.

c. Disposal of Excavated Material Excavated material would be disposed of either within the NAPS site boundary or at an offsite disposal area. Whether at or off the site, the disposal area would be identified and approval for the intended purpose obtained in advance of the start of construction. The area would be a stable area, not prone to slumping or sliding, and isolated from waterways or streams.

Methods such as re-vegetation and erosion control measures would be used to mitigate the potential for the erosion of material at the disposal site. The topsoil would be removed to accommodate disposal of the material and would be used to cover and re-vegetate the stockpile at the completion of construction. No adverse environmental impacts from the disposal of excavated material are anticipated at or in the area or vicinity of the ESP site.

2.6.4.3.5 Backfill

a. Backfill Material Backfill at the ESP site would be a sound, well-graded granular material - either a sandy gravel or a gravelly sand - with less than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Although a large amount of saprolite would be excavated for the project, the saprolite would not be used as structural fill to support plant structures. An onsite testing laboratory would be established and operated by qualified soils technicians under the direction of a civil or geotechnical engineer to control the quality of the backfill. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts due to the use of poor quality backfill material or the improper placement and compaction of backfill are anticipated at the ESP site.

b. Source of Backfill Backfill material would either be imported or produced at the ESP site. If imported, materials such as dense graded Aggregate (e.g. Size 21A or 21B, as specified by the Virginia 3-2-156 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Department of Transportation Road and Bridge Specifications (Reference 38)) would be considered suitable. If the material is produced at the ESP site, a crushing, screening and blending plant would be set up to produce crushed rock to the required gradation specifications for use as structural fill. This would not adversely affect natural resources at or in the vicinity of the ESP site and as a result, no environmental impacts are anticipated.

Section 2.6 References

1. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Report for Nuclear Power Stations, Revision 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1976.

2. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, North Anna Power Station Units No. 1 and 2, Revision 38, September 3, 2002.

3. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Safety Analysis Report, North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Revision 3, Virginia Electric and Power Company, June 2002b.

4. Dames and Moore, Site Environmental Studies, Proposed North Anna Power Station, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric Power Company, Technical Report, January 13, 1969.

5. Dames and Moore, Site Environmental Studies, North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Proposed Units 3 and 4, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric Power Company, Technical Report, August 18, 1971.

6. Dames and Moore, Supplemental Geologic Data, North Anna Power Station, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Technical Report, August 17, 1973.

7. Geotechnical Report on Excavation, Reinforcement, and Final Conditions of Foundation Rock, North Anna Power Station - Units 3 and 4, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation for Virginia Electric and Power Company, July 1975.

8. Lane, C. F., Physiographic Provinces of Virginia, Virginia Geographer, Volume XV, Fall-Winter 1983.

9. Markewich, H. W., Pavich, M. J., and Buell, G. R., Contrasting Soils and Landscapes of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, Eastern United States, Geomorphology, Volume 3, 417-447, 1990.

10. Bledsoe, H. W., Jr., and Marine, I. W., DP-1559, Executive Summary: Review of Potential Host Rocks for Radioactive Waste Disposal in the Southeastern United States, prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company for the U.S. Department of the Energy, October 1980.

3-2-157 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

11. Spears, D. B., and Bailey, C. M., Geology of the central Virginia Piedmont between the Arvonia syncline and the Spotsylvania high-strain zone, Thirty-Second Annual Virginia Geological Conference, Charlottesville, Virginia, October 11-13, 2002.

12. Mixon, R. B., Pavlides, L., Powars D. S., Froelich, A. J., Weems, R. E., Schindler, J. S.,

Newell, W. L., Edwards, L. E., and Ward, L. W., Geologic Map of the Fredericksburg 30 x 60 Quadrangle, Virginia and Maryland, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Series Map I-2607, 2000.

13. Marr, J. D., Jr., Geologic Map of the Western Portion of the Richmond 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, Virginia, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, Publication 165, 2002.

14. Faill, R. T., A Geologic History of the North-Central Appalachians, Part 3. The Allegheny Orogeny, American Journal of Science, Volume 298, 131-179, February 1998.

15. Glover, L., III and Klitgord, K. D., E-3 Southwestern Pennsylvania to Baltimore Canyon Trough, Geological Society of America Centennial Continent/Ocean Transect No. 19, 1995.

16. Wheeler, R. L., Earthquakes and the Cratonward Limit of Iapetan Faulting in Eastern North America, Geology, Volume 23, 105-108, 1995.

17. Reger, J. P., Earthquakes and Maryland, Maryland Geological Survey Web Source, 2001:

www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/pubindex.html.

18. Seismic Hazard Methodology for the Central and Eastern United States, Tectonic Interpretations, Volumes 5 through 10, Technical Report, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), July 1986.

19. Wheeler, R. L, and Johnston, A. C., Geologic Implications of Earthquake Source Parameters in Central and Eastern North America, Seismological Research Letters, Volume 63, No. 4, 491-505, 1992.

20. Coruh, C., Bollinger, G. A., and Costain, J. K., Seismogenic structures in the central Virginia seismic zone, Geology, Volume 16, 748-751, August 1988.

21. Bollinger, G. A., and Sibol, M. S., Seismicity, Seismic Reflection Studies, Gravity and Geology of the Central Virginia Seismic Zone: Part I. Seismicity, Geological Society of America Bulletin, Volume 96, 49-57, January 1985.

22. Bollinger, G. A., and Hopper, M. G., Virginias Two Largest Earthquakes - December 22, 1875 and May 31, 1897, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Volume 61, No. 4, 1033-1039, 1971.

3-2-158 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

23. Chapman, M. C., and Krimgold, F., Seismic Hazard Assessment for Virginia, Virginia Technical Seismological Observatory, Department of Geological Sciences, February 1994.

24. Bollinger, G. A., and Wheeler, R. L., Professional Paper 1355, The Giles County, Virginia, Seismic Zone - Seismological Results and Geological Interpretations, U.S. Geological Survey, 1988.

25. Bollinger, G. A., Bulletin 2017, Specification of Source Zones Recurrence Rates, Focal Depths, and Maximum Magnitudes for Earthquakes Affecting the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey, 1992.

26. Pavlides, L., Revised Nomenclature and Stratigraphic Relationships of the Fredericksburg Complex and Quantico Formation of the Virginia Piedmont, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1146, 1980.

27. Harris, L. D., deWitt, W., Jr., and Bayer, K. C., Interpretive Seismic Profile Along Interstate I-64 from the Valley and Ridge to the Coastal Plain in Central Virginia, United States Geological Survey Oil and Gas Investigations Chart, OC-123, 1982.

28. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, North Anna Power Station, Units 3 and 4, Supplement Volume 2, Appendix E - Applicants Correspondence to the Atomic Energy Commission Relevant to the Geological Fault Investigation in Connection with the Construction of North Anna Power Station Units 3 and 4, Dockets Nos. 50-404 and 50-405, Virginia Electric Power Company, February 20, 1974.

29. Pavlides, L., Early Paleozoic composite mélange terrane, central Appalachian Piedmont, Virginia and Maryland; Its origin and tectonic history, Geological Society of America, Special Paper 228, 1989.

30. Sowers, G. F., and Richardson, T. L., Residual Soils of Piedmont and Blue Ridge, Transportation Research Board National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Record 919, July, 1984.

31. Poole, J. L., Notes on Some Abandoned Copper, Lead, and Zinc Mines in the Piedmont of Virginia, Virginia Minerals, Volume 20, No. 2, May 1974.

32. Hickman, R. C., Pyrites, Mineral, Louisa County, Virginia, United States Department of the Interior - Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations, R.I. 4116, August 1947.

33. Miller, J. W., and Craig, J. R., Ore Minerals of the Cofer Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposit, Louisa County, Virginia, The Canadian Mineralogist, Volume 35, part 6, 1465-1483, December 1997.

3-2-159 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

34. Pavlides, L., Gair, J. E., and Cranford, S. L., Massive Sulfide Deposits of the Southern Appalachians: Central Virginia Volcanic-Plutonic Belt as a Host for Massive Sulfide Deposits, Economic Geology and the Bulletin of the Society of Economic Geologists, Volume 77, No. 2, March-April 1982.

35. Regulatory Guide 1.165, Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1997.

36. Dames and Moore, A Seismic Monitoring Program at the North Anna Site in Central Virginia, January 24, 1974 through August 1, 1977, Technical Report for Virginia Electric Power Company, October 25, 1977

37. Seed, H. B. Considerations in the Earthquake-Resistant Design of Earth and Rockfill Dams, Geotechnique, Volume 29, No. 3, 1979.

38. Road and Bridge Specifications, Virginia Department of Transportation, 2002.

3-2-160 Revision 0 September 2003

Table 2.6-1 Summary of Geotechnical Engineering Properties Stratum IIA IIB III III-IV IV Coarse-grained Fine-grained Moderately to Slightly to Highly Weathered Moderately Fresh to Slightly Saprolite w/10 to Quartz Gneiss Weathered Quartz Weathered Quartz Description Saprolite Saprolite 50% Core Stone w/Biotite Gneiss w/Biotite Gneiss w/Biotite Rock properties Recovery, % - - - 60 90 100 RQD, % - - - 20 50 95 Unconfined compressive strength, ksi - - - 0.6 4 12 USCS symbol SP, SM, SC ML, CL, MH, CH Mainly SM - - -

Range of fines content, % 15 to 45 - - - - -

Natural moisture content, w, % - 26 - - - -

Undrained shear strength, cu, ksf - 2.0 - - - -

Effective cohesion, c, ksf 0.25 0.5 - - - -

Effective friction angle, , degrees 30 25 40 - - -

Total unit weight, , pcf 125 130 145 163 163 SPT N-value, N60, blows/ft 20 100 - - -

Shear and compression wave velocity Shear wave velocity range, ft/sec 600 to 1350 - - - 4000 to 8000 Shear wave velocity average, ft/sec 950 1600 2000 3300 6300 Compression wave velocity average, ft/sec 2100 3500 4500 7400 14,000 Elastic and shear moduli Elastic modulus (high strain), Ehs 1200 ksf 3500 ksf 120 ksi 1000 ksi 3750 ksi Elastic modulus (low strain), Els 9500 ksf 28,000 ksf 300 ksi 1000 ksi 3750 ksi Shear modulus (high strain), Ghs 450 ksf 1300 ksf 50 ksi 375 ksi 1400 ksi North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-161 September 2003

Table 2.6-1 Summary of Geotechnical Engineering Properties Stratum IIA IIB III III-IV IV Coarse-grained Fine-grained Moderately to Slightly to Highly Weathered Moderately Fresh to Slightly Saprolite w/10 to Quartz Gneiss Weathered Quartz Weathered Quartz Description Saprolite Saprolite 50% Core Stone w/Biotite Gneiss w/Biotite Gneiss w/Biotite Shear modulus (low strain), Gls 3500 ksf 10,000 ksf 125 ksi 375 ksi 1400 ksi Consolidation characteristics Recompression ratio, RR 0.015 - - - -

Coeff. of secondary compression, C 0.0008 - - - -

Coeff. of subgrade reaction, k1, kcf 230 1,500 - - -

Coefficient of sliding against concrete 0.35 0.45 0.6 0.65 0.7 Poissons ratio, µ (high strain) 0.35 0.3 0.33 0.33 0.33 Static earth pressure coefficients Active, Ka 0.33 0.22 - - -

Passive, Kp 3.0 4.6 - - -

At-rest, Ko 0.5 0.36 - - -

Hydraulic conductivity, cm/sec 5 x 10-4 - - - -

Note: - denotes no design parameter given.

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-162 September 2003

Figure 2.6-1 Regional Physiographic Map (200-Mile Radius)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-163 September 2003

Figure 2.6-2 Site Topographic Map (0.6-Mile Radius)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-164 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report B al Ij timo amsvil re G le neis Belt s an B al dG timo lena re M rm afic Gr o up Com B el plex t elt Goochland Belt ams North Anna Site ic B Ch o paw n nB to w t. el t a ura . An lto Belt S tn M Mi Be Raleig h

lt Be lt Eastern Slate Belt ied te mo Sla nt IN e lin R idg Inn er Ca a LA ue P ro P Bl rn/ L We Be TA ste lt tn B elt S Kin A gs o tte O ne M arl C Zo Ch C Br TI evard N A

TL elt lt A Be Ch ke e

au Kio Belair Belt ga B

Belt e M tn Pin 0 25 50 75 100 Miles Uchee Belt 0 100 Kilometers Source: Bledsoe and Marine, 1980 Fichter and Baedke, 2000 Figure 2.6-3 Lithotectonic Belts of the Piedmont Province 3-2-165 Revision 0 September 2003

Figure 2.6-4 Site Area Geologic Map (5-Mile Radius) (Sheet 1 of 2)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-166 September 2003

ESP SSAR Fig 030 Figure 2.6-4 Site Area Geologic Map (5-Mile Radius) (Sheet 2 of 2)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-167 September 2003

A A West East Chopawamsic Long Branch North Anna Spotsylvania Thrust Fault Thrust Fault Site Thrust Fault Fault "b" Fault "a" Sea Level PzZp Oq  ?

3,300

?

c t 6,600 OmII 9,900 SOe 13,000 16,000 OmIII OmIV 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 Miles PzZp Po River Metamorphic Suite (Late Pre-cambrian to early Paleozoic) Scale 1:24,000 t Ta River Metamorphic Suite (Cambrian and/or Ordovician) Source: Mixon and Others, 2000 c Chopawamsic Formation (Cambrian and/or Ordovician)

OmII Melange Zone II (Cambrian and/or Ordovician)

OmIII Melange Zone III (Cambrian and/or Ordovician)

OmIV Melange Zone IV (Cambrian and/or Ordovician)

Oq Quantico Formation (Ordovician)

SOe Ellisville Pluton (Silurian)

Figure 2.6-5 Site Area Geologic Cross Section (5-Mile Radius)

North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-168 September 2003

Central and Eastern North American Seismicity 1568 - 1987 50 St. Lawrence Seismic Zone Ottawa Seismic Zone 45 Adirondack Mtn.

Seismic Zone Clarendon Lindon Seismic Zone New England MAGNITUDE Seismic Zone 8

Upper Miss.

M Latitude (Deg.)

Seismic Zone 7 Anna, Ohio Seismic Zone 6 40 NY-NJ-PA 5

Seismic Zone 4 3

Central Virginia Seismic Zone Site Region Giles County, VA 35 Seismic Zone Charleston, SC Seismic Zone New Madrid, MO Seismic Zone Eastern Tennessee N = 817 200 KM Seismic Zone 30

-95 -90 -85 -80 -75 -70 -65 Longitude (Deg.) (from Bollinger and others, 1992)

Figure 2.6-6 Seismic Source Zones and Seismicity in Central and Eastern North America North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-169 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.7 Meteorology and Air Quality This section describes the general climate of the ESP site and the regional meteorological conditions used as the basis for design and operational conditions of the new units. This section also provides meteorological information that has been used to evaluate construction and operational impacts.

2.7.1 General Climate The description of the site general climate is based on regional meteorological information primarily collected for Richmond, Virginia, and supplemented by the meteorological information collected at the NAPS site.

2.7.1.1 General Description The climate in the Piedmont region of Virginia, where the ESP site is located, is classified as modified continental. Summers are warm and humid and winters are generally mild. The Blue Ridge Mountains to the west act as a partial barrier to outbreaks of cold, continental air in winter.

The mountains also tend to channel winds along a general north-south orientation. Temperatures in the site region rarely exceed 100°F or fall below 0°F. (Reference 1)

Based on 30 years of data (1971-2001), the area around the site receives an annual average rainfall of approximately 43.2 inches. Rainfall is fairly well distributed throughout the entire year, with the exception of July and August, when thunderstorm activity raises monthly totals to about 5.0 inches (Reference 1). Extra-tropical storms can also contribute substantially to the precipitation totals during September.

The 60-year climatological records show that the monthly average snowfall of 4 inches or more occurs only in January. Snow usually remains on the ground only 1 or 2 days at a time. Richmond averages about 16.3 inches of snow a year (Reference 1).

In general, during light wind conditions, the local environmental conditions predominate, resulting in a channeling effect of winds such that the airflow patterns follow the topographical contour lines of the region. Lake Anna has a moderating effect with respect to extreme temperatures in the immediate vicinity of the site. During periods of temperature inversions or light wind conditions, the local dispersion conditions can be somewhat restricted (Reference 2, Section 2.3.1.2.1).

The existing units Meteorological Monitoring Program began operations in 1971. The system was upgraded in 1978 in accordance with the criteria of RG 1.23 (Reference 2, Section 2.3.3.2.5.1).

Data collected by the existing units meteorological monitoring system is representative of long-term site meteorological conditions. However, long-term regional climatological data are considered more suitable for use for estimates of climatological extremes. Therefore, design and operating basis conditions (probable maximum precipitation, tornado parameters, snow load, ice thickness, etc.) are based primarily on regional climatological data.

3-2-170 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.7.1.2 Winds The climatological data indicate that while Richmonds prevailing wind is NNE on an annual basis, there are 6 months when the prevailing wind direction is northerly. The annual average wind speed is 7.9 mph. The monthly average wind speed is slightly lower during the summer season. The monthly average wind speed is highest during late winter and early spring. The maximum 2-minute average wind speed is 46 mph, while the maximum 5-second wind speed is 60 mph.

Based on the data collected from 1974 to 1987, the annual average wind speed is 8.6 mph. Similar to Richmond, the average onsite summer wind speed (5.4 mph) is also lower than those during other seasons (Reference 2, Section 2.3).

2.7.1.3 Temperature Annual average temperature is 58.2°F in Richmond, while the monthly average temperature ranges from the high 30s in January to the high 70s in July. Extreme temperatures recorded in Richmond range from a maximum of 105°F to a minimum of -12°F (Reference 1).

The annual average temperature onsite is 55.8°F, the monthly average temperature ranges from 33.6°F in February to 75F° in July (Reference 2, Section 2.3).

2.7.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture Annual average relative humidity in Richmond is 70 percent. The early morning relative humidity is highest during August and September, with an average of 90 percent. The relative humidity is highest throughout the day during October, ranging from 52 percent at noon to 89 percent early in the morning. Heavy fog conditions with visibility less than 0.25 mile are rare, on average occurring 27.1 days per year (Reference 1).

2.7.1.5 Precipitation Annual precipitation in Richmond is about 43 inches. For the 64-year period (1938-2001), the maximum annual precipitation of 61.3 inches was measured in 1975. During the same period, the minimum annual precipitation of 22.9 inches occurred in 1941 (Reference 1) (Reference 3).

On average, about 48 percent of the annual precipitation occurs from May through September each year. Generally, July has the highest amount of precipitation. The maximum 24-hour precipitation was 8.8 inches (August 1955), while the normal monthly total ranged from 3 to 5 inches. On average, there are about 11 days per year with precipitation greater than 1.0 inch.

Snowfall normally occurs from November through March, with an annual average of 16.3 inches.

The monthly maximum snowfall measured in the region was 29.8 inches in Charlottesville in March 1960 (Reference 21). The maximum 24-hour snowfall observed in Richmond was 21.6 inches in January 1940. Annually, there are 4.3 days with snowfall greater than 1.0 inch.

3-2-171 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.7.2 Regional Air Quality 2.7.2.1 Background Air Quality The ESP site is located in Louisa County, Virginia, which is within the Northeastern Virginia Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). This region is designated as in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants. The City of Richmond is within the State Capital Intrastate AQCR. This AQCR is also designated as attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.347). Criteria pollutants are those for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established, such as SO 2, PM10, PM2.5, CO, Ozone, NO x, and lead (Reference 4).

Attainment areas are areas where the ambient air quality levels are better than EPA-designated ambient air quality standards.

The Commonwealth of Virginia is also subject to a revised 8-hour ozone standard and a new ambient air quality standard for PM2.5, both promulgated by the EPA in July 1997 (Reference 5)

(Reference 6). PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 nominal micrometers. The EPA is taking steps to implement the new standards but has not yet designated the non-attainment areas for these standards. Currently, Louisa County is designated as attainment for the ozone 1-hour standard.

The EPA has designated Class I Areas as areas with pristine air quality, such as wilderness areas, national parks, and Indian Reservations. There are two Class I Areas in Virginia: James River Face Wilderness and Shenandoah National Park, in which visibility is an important issue (Reference 7).

The Shenandoah National Park is located closer to the ESP site (42 miles away) than is the James River Face Wilderness.

2.7.2.2 Projected Air Quality VDEQ regulates airborne emissions at the NAPS site. Virginia Power holds an Exclusionary General Permit from VDEQ under Title 9 of the Virginia Administrative Code for all non-radiological airborne emissions resulting from plant operations. These emission sources at the NAPS site include two auxiliary boilers, four emergency diesel generators (3840 HP each), and a blackout generator (4640 HP). No air emission monitoring is performed at the site. Compliance under the Exclusionary General Permit is based on fuel sulfur content and fuel consumption records. Annual operation of the auxiliary boilers and the diesel generators is limited under the permit to 3000 and 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br />, respectively. Under the terms of the permit, Virginia Power provides VDEQ with emissions update information and compliance certification annually (Reference 8).

The number of new unit-related non-radiological emission sources (i.e., auxiliary boilers, emergency diesel generators or station blackout generators, and cooling towers) on the ESP site is unknown at this time. However, these new emission sources would be regulated under the VDEQ air regulations. If Dominion decides to build the new units, Dominion would provide the required emissions update information to VDEQ. These future non-radiological emission sources would not 3-2-172 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report be expected to cause significant impacts to ambient air quality or to visibility in Class I areas. New unit sources such as emergency and station blackout generators would only be operated for short time periods during tests or in the event of a loss of station power., In addition, the distances between the ESP site and the Class I areas are relatively long.

2.7.2.3 Inversion and High Air Pollution Potential In the ESP site region, the annual frequency of occurrence of low-level inversions or isothermal layers based at or below 500 feet in elevation is approximately 30 percent according to Hosler (Reference 9). Seasonally, the greatest frequencies of inversions occur during the fall and winter (34 percent and 33 percent, respectively). Spring and summer have the lowest inversion frequencies (about 28 percent of the time for each season). Most of these inversions are nocturnal in nature generated through nighttime cooling.

The mean maximum mixing height depth (MMMD) is another indication of the restriction to atmospheric dilution at a site. The mixing depth is the distance above the ground in which relatively free vertical mixing occurs in the atmosphere (Reference 10). According to Holzworth, the annual afternoon MMMD value for the ESP site region is about 4900 feet (Reference 11). The seasonal afternoon MMMD values for the ESP site during fall and winter are about 4600 feet and 3300 feet, respectively. Shallow mixing depths have a greater frequency of occurrence during the fall and winter seasons: fall and winter have a higher frequency of inversions. The actual effect of the mixing height on pollutants emitted within the mixing depth is determined by the actual hourly mixing heights.

2.7.3 Severe Weather 2.7.3.1 Thunderstorms, Hail, and Lightning Based on 65 years of records, Richmond averages 36 thunderstorms per year. July has the highest frequency of thunderstorm occurrences, 8.2 days (Reference 1).

Hail can occasionally occur at the ESP site (associated with well-developed thunderstorms). A review of data for the period between 1950 and 2002, indicates that there was a total of 65 reported hail storms in Louisa County and in the immediately surrounding counties of Hanover, Caroline, Spotsylvania, and Orange (Reference 12). Among those hailstorms, 17 occurred in Louisa County.

There were four cases of 1.75-inch hailstones.

There are ten documented cases of ice storms in Louisa and in the immediately surrounding counties (Reference 12). Two of these ice storms occurred in Louisa County.

The mean frequency of lightning strikes to earth can be estimated using an EPRI method (Reference 13). The formula provided by EPRI assumes a relationship between the average 3-2-173 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report thunderstorm days per year (T) and the number of lightning strikes to earth per square mile per year (N).

N = 0.31 T Based on 65 years of data, there are 36 days of thunderstorms per year on average in Richmond (Reference 1). Consequently, the number of lightning strokes to earth per square mile is about 11.2 per year. The ESP site plant envelope area is approximately 0.065 mi2. Using this area as the potential reactor area, the annual average number of lightning strokes in the reactor area can be calculated as follows:

11.2/mi2/year x 0.065 mi2 = 0.73 lightning strokes per year at the reactor area 2.7.3.2 Tornadoes and Severe Winds Based on the period of record, 1953-1999 (Reference 14), Virginia ranks 28th in the U.S. for average annual number of tornadoes.

During the period of January 1950 through June 2002, a total of 71 tornadoes were reported within a 50-mile radius of the ESP site (Reference 12). This averages 1.35 tornadoes per year within the 50-mile radius, which includes thirty counties in Virginia and one county (Charles County) in Maryland. Among those 71 tornadoes, 70 of them occurred in Virginia and one occurred in Maryland. For the same period of record, the tornado intensities, based on the Fujita Tornado Scale, and the number of tornado occurrences in the entire Commonwealth of Virginia are presented in Table 2.7-2.

During the 53-year period (1950-2002), 443 tornadoes were reported in Virginia (Reference 12).

This is equivalent to about 8.4 tornadoes per year. In Louisa County and the immediate surrounding four-county area (Hanover, Spotsylvania, Caroline and Orange), 6 tornadoes were reported in Louisa County, 2 were tornadoes reported in Hanover County, 1 tornado funnel (without touching down) was reported in Spotsylvania County, 3 tornadoes were reported in Orange County, and 4 tornadoes were reported in Caroline County. Therefore, the annual average tornado frequency in the counties surrounding the ESP site is much lower than that for the entire state.

According to statistical methods proposed by Thom, the probability of a tornado striking a point within a given area may be estimated as follows (Reference 15):

zxt P = ----------

A where:

P = the mean probability per year z = the mean path area of a tornado t = the mean number of tornadoes per year 3-2-174 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report A = the area of concern The Event Record Details provided in the Storm Events report list the path length and path width of a specific tornado (Reference 12). For tornado events within the 50-mile radius from the ESP site, according to the available recorded data, the calculated mean tornado path length is about two miles and the calculated mean path width is about 115 yards. These values yield a z value of 0.131 square miles. Using a 50-mile radius as a basis for A and a value of 1.35 tornadoes per year yields an annual probability of 2.25 x 10-5, or a recurrence interval of 44,400 years.

According to Thoms latest compilation for characterizing extreme winds, the extreme 1-mile wind speed at 30 feet above the ground (100-year return period) is 80 MPH (Reference 16). The values for other recurrence intervals are listed in Table 2.7-3. The fastest mile wind speed is defined as the 1-mile passage of wind with the highest speed for the day. The fastest mile wind of 68 MPH, recorded in Richmond from 1958-1989 occurred in October 1954 (Reference 17).

2.7.3.3 Heavy Snow and Ice Storms An examination of the 1950-2002 period indicates that there were 19 snowstorms in Louisa County. The immediately surrounding counties had 19 to 22 snowstorms during the same period (Reference 12).

During the same 53-year period, the records show that there were ten documented cases of ice storms in Louisa County and the immediately surrounding counties (Reference 12). Two of these storms occurred in Louisa County. These same ice storms also impacted Hanover and Caroline counties, and one of the two storms affected Spotsylvania County. The other two ice storms affected Orange and Spotsylvania Counties within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of each other. The ice storms that occurred in Louisa County caused damage to trees and power lines in nearby Hanover and Caroline Counties.

2.7.3.4 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms From January 1950 through June 2002, a total of 7 hurricanes and 2 tropical storms passed within 100 nautical miles of the site (Reference 12). The last of these hurricanes was Hurricane Irene, which was a Category 1 (weak) hurricane at the time of closest approach to Wakefield, Virginia (80 miles southeast of the site) during the overnight hours of October 18, 1999. The storm brought heavy rain into southeast Virginia. The highest sustained wind speeds were 24 MPH at the Norfolk International Airport. The hurricane did not significantly impact the site area any more than a heavy summer thunderstorm or a major winter storm.

The most recent tropical storm to affect the area was induced by Hurricane Floyd on September 16, 1999. Rainfall reports of over 3 inches were common including a 5.97-inch measurement in Spotsylvania, Virginia (Reference 12). A maximum rainfall of 6.52 inches and a maximum 2-minute wind of 40 mph were recorded in Richmond, Virginia, on that day (Reference 18).

3-2-175 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Over the past 100-year period (1899-1998), a total of 164 Category 1 (weak) through 5 (devastating) hurricanes have crossed the U.S. coastline at one or more points. This is equivalent to an average of five hurricanes every three years (Reference 19). On average, a tropical storm can be expected to impact Virginia annually, with hurricanes expected once every 2.3 years (Reference 20).

2.7.4 Local Meteorology Data acquired from the National Climatic Data Center (in Asheville, NC) have been used to determine the normal, means, and extremes of temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, and fog applicable to the ESP site. The 2001 Richmond Local Climatological Data (Reference 1) provides detailed climatological data for this first-order station. Climatological summaries for other stations in the area also provide supplemental information (Reference 21 through Reference 25).

Direction and distance of the National Weather Service (NWS) stations closest to the ESP site are provided in Table 2.7-1:

Table 2.7-1 NWS Stations Near ESP Site Distance NWS Station (miles) Direction Richmond 44 Southeast Fredericksburg 25 Northeast Charlottesville 41 West Gordonsville 25 West-Northwest Louisa 14 West Partlow 8 East The closest station, Partlow, was closed on December 31, 1976 (Reference 26); therefore, recent date are not available from this station.

Besides using data from the nearby meteorological stations, data collected from the existing units meteorological monitoring system was also used to characterize local meteorological conditions.

The onsite primary meteorological tower is located about 1750 feet east-northeast from the Unit 1 containment building (see Figure 2.7-1 and Figure 2.7-2). Based on proximity, the meteorological parameters (i.e., wind speed and wind direction) collected by the tower are representative of the ESP site. Consequently, they are appropriate for use in describing local meteorological conditions.

2.7.4.1 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters A summary of normal and extremes of available temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, and fog are presented for Richmond in Table 2.7-4. Climatological means for Richmond and stations in 3-2-176 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report the site region are presented in Table 2.7-5. Monthly temperature means for other applicable stations are presented in Table 2.7-6.

2.7.4.1.1 Wind Direction, Wind Speed and Wind Persistence The distribution of wind direction and speed is an important consideration when evaluating transport conditions relevant to site diffusion climatology. The topographic features of the site region and/or the general circulation of the atmosphere (i.e., movement of pressure systems and location of semi-permanent zones) are factors in influencing the wind direction within the site region. For the ESP site, the prevailing wind is from the south-southwest during the summer season and from the northwest and north during the winter season. These wind directions are due primarily to the location of the Bermuda High off the eastern coast of the United States during the summer season, and the development of a cold high-pressure zone over the eastern portion of the United States during the winter season.

However, the topographic features of the ESP site region, in conjunction with the movement of pressure systems and the location of the semi-permanent pressure zones, have a definite influence on the wind direction distribution. The Blue Ridge Mountains, which are oriented in a south-southwest to north-northeast direction, are located approximately 40 to 50 miles northwest of the ESP site. Consequently, the prevailing winds during the summer season are from the south and south-southwest because of the channeling effect created by the presence of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Additionally, the Blue Ridge Mountains act as a barrier to the prevailing westerly winds at the surface; but even more so, they act as a barrier to the movement of low-pressure cells from the Gulf of Mexico region to the northeast portion of the United States. Consequently, low-pressure cells that are generated in the Gulf are frequently forced to move toward the east on the back (west) side of the Blue Ridge Mountains, therefore, resulting in a southerly flow of air in the ESP site region instead of a southeasterly or easterly wind.

Topographic features also have a definite influence with respect to the wind direction during periods of light winds. Usually, during episodes of near calm, the pressure gradient is weak and there is no organization in the general circulation. However, due to topographic effects such as the presence of Lake Anna, the airflow typically follows the contour lines of the land. Air is channeled along Lake Anna and the North Anna River Valley during light wind conditions. If there is a sufficient temperature gradient between the ambient air over the lake and surrounding land, a weak lake breeze could form. However, the lake breeze would affect only the area in the immediate vicinity of the lake (less than 1 mile) (Reference 2, Section 2.3.2.2.1.1).

The seasonal and annual average distributions of wind direction based on data collected at the existing units primary tower are presented in Figure 2.7-3 through Figure 2.7-12 for the lower (33 ft) and upper (159 ft) levels (Reference 2). Winds occur on an annual basis along a north-south orientation with a general westerly component. Wind direction distributions based on the lower level data are similar to those based on the upper level data. However, the upper level data indicate a 3-2-177 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report more distinct north-south orientation of wind flow s. Wind data at R ichmond show a south-southwest/north orientation that is similar to the general wind flow at the ESP site (Reference 1).

Wind direction distributions show seasonal variations. The frequencies of northerly and southerly winds are generally equivalent during the fall season. Winds from the northwest and south-southwest sectors characterize wind flows during the winter. During the spring season, the wind flow is predominantly from the northwest at the lower level. During the summer months, the predominant wind is from the south-southwest.

Atmospheric dilution is directly proportional to the wind speed (other factors remaining constant).

The seasonal and annual median wind speeds for the ESP site are presented in Table 2.7-7. As indicated in the table, mean wind speeds show seasonal variations.

The mean annual wind speeds at the ESP site are 6.3 MPH and 8.6 MPH at the lower and upper tower level, respectively. The annual frequencies of calm are 0.37 and 0.75 percents for the lower and upper tower levels, respectively (Reference 2, Section 2.3.2.2.1.1).

Wind persistence is important when considering potential effects of a radiological release. It is defined as a continuous flow from a given direction or range of directions. Wind persistence roses for meteorological data collected at the NAPS site are presented in Figure 2.7-13 through Figure 2.7-22. The maximum 22.5-degree range direction persistence episodes recorded at NAPS during the period of record from the data for the lower level was a 26-hour wind from the north. The maximum persistence period at the upper level was 33 hours3.819444e-4 days <br />0.00917 hours <br />5.456349e-5 weeks <br />1.25565e-5 months <br /> from the west-northwest. In general, extreme persistence periods (greater than 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />) at the ESP site are associated with moderately high winds and relatively low or moderate turbulence (Reference 2, Section 2.3.2.2.1.2).

2.7.4.1.2 Atmospheric Stability Atmospheric stability, as applied in this report, is determined by the delta T method defined by the NRC (Reference 2, Section 2.3.3.2).

The seasonal and annual frequencies of stability classes and associated wind speeds for the ESP site are presented in Table 2.7-8. The vertical stability data, based on delta T site measurements, indicate the predominance of neutral and slightly stable conditions (Reference 2, Section 2.3.2.2.1.1).

Extremely unstable conditions (Stability Class A) are more frequent and extremely stable conditions (Stability Class G) are less frequent during the summer than during the winter. This situation is attributed to the greater solar heating of the surface during the summer and the large-scale restrictive dilution conditions (discussed in Section 2.7.1.5) that generally occur during the winter.

Also, ground snow cover is conducive to the formation of stable (or inversion) conditions.

Instrumentation is available in the main control room of the existing units by which personnel can identify atmosphere stability. The existing units Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures identify 3-2-178 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report station specific instructions and appropriate temperature values for determining RG 1.23, Table 2 atmospheric stability classifications. This stability classification method allows for the rapid assessment of pertinent meteorological parameters by control room personnel in the event of an accidental release of radioactive material to the atmosphere.

2.7.4.1.3 Temperature Ambient temperature at the ESP site is measured by the primary tower at the 33-foot level, and differential temperature is measured between the 33-foot and 158.9-foot levels. The annual onsite average temperature, as reported in Reference 2, is 55.8°F, while the annual temperature in Richmond is 58.3°F. Several degrees difference on an annual basis is expected because the ESP site is located in a rural area, which tends to have slightly lower average temperature than large cities that are influenced by the heat-island effect. In addition, the presence of Lake Anna would also moderate the site temperature. The annual average temperature measured in Louisa (Reference 24) is 56.1°F. The nearby Partlow station, located in southern Spotsylvania County, has an annual average temperature of 55.2°F. (Reference 25) 2.7.4.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture The relative humidity data collected in Richmond is described in Section 2.7.1.4. These data are representative of the ESP site area due to its similar exposure to the Atlantic shore. Based on 24-year (1973-1996) records, the 0.4 percent, 1 percent, and 2 percent wet-bulb temperatures measured in Richmond are 79°F, 78°F and 77°F, respectively. Wet bulb temperature is used for cooling system-modeling studies.

2.7.4.1.5 Precipitation As stated in Section 2.7.1.5, the annual precipitation in Richmond is about 43 inches. This annual total is representative of conditions at the ESP site. Based on a 30-year (1951-1980) period, the annual precipitation recorded in Louisa averages 41.1 inches (Reference 23). The annual precipitation in Partlow (1951-1971) is 42.2 inches (Reference 25). In Louisa, the maximum 24-hour precipitation is 11.2 inches (August 1969), while the maximum monthly precipitation is 16.3 inches (August 1969). The Richmond monthly average precipitation ranges from 3 to 5 inches, while in Louisa, the monthly averages range from 3 to 4.7 inches.

In Louisa, the annual snowfall averages about 20 inches (Reference 23). The Partlow annual snowfall averages about 18.6 inches (Reference 25). These values are slightly higher than the average value of 16.3 inches measured in Richmond. The maximum monthly snowfall measured in Louisa (32.2 inches) is also slightly higher than 28.5 inches measured in Richmond or 29.8 inches measured in Charlottesville (Reference 21).

2.7.4.1.6 Fog The closest available fog data for the ESP site area are from the NWS observations at Richmond International Airport in Richmond. The local climatological data for Richmond through 2001 indicate 3-2-179 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report an average of 27.1 days per year of heavy fog based on 73 years of records (Reference 1). Heavy fog is defined by the NWS as fog that reduces visibility to one-quarter of a mile or less. The frequency of fog conditions at the ESP site would be expected to be somewhat different from Richmond. The ESP site is characterized by gentle rolling terrain that rises to an average height of 50 to 150 feet above Lake Annas level. Low regions at the site and also in the vicinity of the lake would be expected to have a higher frequency of fog occurrences attributed to the accumulation of relatively cool surface air due to drainage flows from higher elevations when compared to the relatively flat region of the Richmond airport.

2.7.4.1.7 Topographical Description The ESP site and exclusion area (approximately 1803 acres) is located in the northeastern portion of Virginia in Louisa County along the North Anna River. The site region is characterized by gently rolling terrain that rises to an average height of 50 to 150 feet above Lake Annas level and is cut by the North Anna River. The topography in the site region is characteristic of the Central Piedmont Plateau, which has a gently undulating surface that varies from 200 to 500 feet above sea level.

Figure 2.7-23 and Figure 2.7-24 present the topographic features of the site. Section 2.7.4.1.1 discusses how the topographic features of the site influence wind direction distribution.

Lake Anna, which extends approximately 17 miles along the old North Anna riverbed, was formed by damming up the North Anna River about 5 miles southeast of the site. As described in Section 2.3.1, the North Anna Reservoir and the WHTF, which together form Lake Anna, cover a surface area of about 13,000 acres and contain approximately 305,000 acre-feet of water.

Because of the gently rolling terrain, there is cold air drainage into low-lying areas at night. Some wind channeling along Lake Anna is expected during low-wind-speed conditions. This same effect also occurred in the natural lowland area before the lake was developed.

2.7.5 Short-Term Diffusion Estimates 2.7.5.1 Basis To evaluate potential health effects for design basis accidents (DBAs), NUREG-1555, Section 7.1 requires the applicant to account for the 50 percentile /Q values at appropriate distances from the effluent release points (Reference 27). The NRC-sponsored PAVAN computer code (Reference 28) was used to generate these overall site, 50 percentile /Q values.

Recent readily available site meteorological data (1996-1998) were used for a quantitative evaluation of the hypothetical accident at the ESP site. Onsite data provide representative measurements of local dilution conditions appropriate to the ESP site and are reasonable representative of long-term conditions. The use of the recent 3-year data for dispersion analyses involving accidental releases in this ESP application is consistent with the approach used in the license renewal application for the existing units (Reference 29) and also satisfies the requirement 3-2-180 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report of RG 4.7 (Reference 30). These 3-year combined joint frequency distributions of wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability recorded at the NAPS site are presented in Table 2.7-9.

The PAVAN program implements the guidance provided in RG 1.145 (Reference 31) and performs the following calculation procedures. The code computes /Q values at the EAB and low population zone (LPZ) for each combination of wind speed and atmospheric stability for each of the 16 downwind direction sectors. Because since the ground level release scenario provides a bounding case, elevated releases were not evaluated. The /Q values for each sector are then ranked in descending order, and an associated cumulative frequency distribution is derived based on the frequency distribution of wind speed and stabilities for that sector. The /Q values are also ranked independent of wind direction into a cumulative frequency distribution for the entire site.

The PAVAN model was configured to calculate offsite /Q values assuming both wake-credit allowed and wake-credit not-allowed. As described in Section 2.1, the EAB is the perimeter of a 5000-foot-radius circle from the center of the abandoned Unit 3 containment. There are no residential areas in the EAB. The PPE indicates that the highest expected structure would be about 234 feet above grade level. Therefore, the closest EAB is more than 10 building heights away from the boundary of the plant envelope developed for the ESP site. As a result, the entire EAB is located beyond the wake influence zone that would be induced by a containment building. The LPZ is a 6-mile-radius circle centered at the Unit 1 containment building. Because it is located further away from the plant site than the EAB, the wake-credit not allowed scenario of the PAVAN results was used for the /Q analysis at the EAB and LPZ.

To be conservative, the shortest distances between the ESP plant envelope boundaries to the 5000-ft-radius circle for each downwind sector were entered as input to calculate the /Q values at the EAB (see Table 2.7-10). Similarly, the shortest distance from the ESP plant envelope area boundary to the LPZ was entered as input to calculate the X/Q values at the LPZ. With respect to the ESP site, the shortest distance between the ESP site plant envelope boundary and the LPZ is 8843 m (about 5.5 mi.) measured from the southwest of the plant envelope area.

2.7.5.2 PAVAN Modeling Results Based on the PAVAN-generated ordered /Q values (see Table 2.7-11 and Table 2.7-12), the 50 overall site /Q values calculated by the model at the EAB and LPZ are 3.14E-05 and 1.36E-06, respectively.

2.7.6 Long-Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates 2.7.6.1 Basis The NRC-sponsored, computer code designated XOQDOQ (Reference 32) was used to estimate

/Q values due to routine releases. The XOQDOQ model implements the assumptions outlined in 3-2-181 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report RG 1.111 (Reference 33). A straight-line trajectory was assumed between the release point and all receptors by the XOQDOQ model.

The primary function of the XOQDOQ computer code, obtained from RSICC (Reference 34), is to calculate annual /Q values and annual average relative deposition D/Q values, at interested receptors (i.e., EAB, LPZ, nearest milk cow, residence, garden, meat animal, etc.). The program assumes the material released to the atmosphere to be a Gaussian distribution around the plume centerline. In estimating concentrations for longer time periods, the Gaussian distribution is assumed to be evenly distributed within the directional sector.

Input data and assumptions used in the XOQDOQ modeling are presented below.

• Meteorological Data: Three-year combined (1996-1998) onsite joint frequency distribution of wind speed, wind direction and atmospheric stability.

• Type of Release: Ground level

• Wind Sensor Height: 33 ft

• Vertical Temperature Difference: 33 ft-158.9 ft

• Number of Wind Speed Categories: 7

• Release Height: 33 ft (default height)

• Minimum Building Cross-Sectional Area: 2250 m2

• Distances from the release point to the site boundary, and the nearest milk cow, vegetable garden, milk goat, and meat animal: See Table 2.7-13.

For dispersion analysis, a smaller cross-sectional area usually results in higher ground level concentrations. To be conservative, the minimum building cross-sectional area of 2250 m 2 was used to evaluate building downwash effect.

When compared to the elevated releases, ground level releases usually produce higher pollutant concentrations for receptors located at ground level. Therefore, ground level releases were conservatively assumed in the /Q analysis. Distances from the Unit 1 containment building to various interested receptors (nearest residence, garden, meat animal, site boundary, and vegetable garden) for each directional sector are provided in Reference 35, Appendix C. Because the plant envelope area for the ESP site is an area (not a point), the shortest distances from any point of the plant envelope to the interested receptors were re-calculated for each directional sector. The results are presented in Table 2.7-13. The maximum annual /Q (no decay) value at the EAB (0.88 mile to the ESE of the plant envelope) is 3.70 x 10-6 sec/m3. The maximum annual average /Q value calculated for the nearest residence (0.96 mile to the NNE of the plant envelope) is 2.4 x 10-6 sec/m3. The maximum annual /Q for the nearest vegetable garden (0.94 mile to the NE of the plant envelope) is 2.0 x 10-6 sec/m3. Finally, the maximum annual /Q for the nearest meat animal (1.37 miles to the SE of the plant envelope) is 1.4 x 10-6 sec/m3.

3-2-182 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-14 summarizes the maximum /Q and D/Q values predicted by the XOQDOQ model for the sensitive receptors due to routine releases. Table 2.7-15 summarizes the maximum annual average /Q and D/Q values at distances between 0.25 and 50 miles and for various segment boundaries.

Detailed annual average /Q and D/Q estimates generated by the XOQDOQ model for the interested receptors and at distances between 0.25 mile to 50 miles, as well as for various segment boundaries, are also presented. Table 2.7-16 represents /Q estimates at the specific points of interest. Table 2.7-17 lists /Q estimates at downwind distances between 0.25 and 50 miles.

Table 2.7-18 contains /Q estimates that include radioactive decay with a half-life of 2.26 days for short-lived noble gases. Table 2.7-19 contains /Q estimates that include radioactive decay with a half-life of 8 days for all iodines released to the atmosphere. Finally, Table 2.7-20 contains estimates of long-term average D/Q at downwind distances between 0.25 and 50 miles.

Section 2.7 References

1. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 2001, National Climatic Data Center, NOAA, Richmond, Virginia.

2. North Anna Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Rev. 38, Dominion Virginia Power.

3. Richmond, Virginia, Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Environmental Data Service, NOAA, 1973.

4. 40 CFR 81, Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes, Code of Federal Regulations, 1971.

5. 40 CFR 50.7, National 8-Hour Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Code of Federal Regulations, July 18, 1997.

6. 40 CFR 50.10, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Code of Federal Regulations, July 18, 1997.

7. 40 CFR 81, Subpart D, Identification of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas Where Visibility Is An Important Value, Code of Federal Regulations, November 30, 1979.

8. NUREG-1437, Supplement 7, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2002.

9. Hosler, C. R. Low-Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States, Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 89, No. 9, 1961, 319-332.

3-2-183 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

10. Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Vol. 10, EPA-450/4-77-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.

11. Holzworth, G. C. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.

12. Storm Events for Virginia, 01/01/1950 Through 6/30/2002, National Climatological Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Website, www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms, accessed December 2, 2002.

13. Summary of Items of Engineering Interest, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 1998.

14. 1999 Annual Summaries, Flood/Flash Flood, Lightning, Tornado, Hurricane, National Climatic Data Center, NOAA.

15. Thom, H. C. S. Tornado Probabilities, Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 91, Nos. 10-12, 1963, 730-736.

16. Thom, H. C. S. New Distribution of Extreme Mile Winds in the United States, ASCE Environmental Engineering Conference, Dallas, Texas, 1967.

17. Richmond, Virginia, Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 1989, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

18. Richmond, Virginia, Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, 1999, National Climatic Data Center, NOAA.

19. Neumann, C. J, B. R. Jarvinen, C. J. McAdie, and G. R. Hammer. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1998, Historical Climatology Series 6-2, Fifth Revision, 1999, National Climatological Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

20. Virginia Tropical Cyclone Climatology, Website, www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/research/roth/vaclimohur.htm, accessed December 12, 2002.

21. Charlottesville, Virginia, Climatological Summary, Period 1951-1980, Climatography of the United States, No. 20.

22. Fredericksburg, Virginia, Climatological Summary, Period 1951-1980, Climatography of the United States, No. 20.

23. Louisa, Virginia, Climatological Summary, Period 1951-1980, Climatography of the United States, No. 20.

3-2-184 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report

24. Piedmont Research Station, Virginia, Climatological Summary, Period 1951-1980, Climatography of the United States, No. 20.

25. Partlow, Virginia, Climatological Summary, Period 1952-1971, Climatography of the United States, No. 20-44.

26. Virginia Climate Advisory 12/00, Virginia State Climatology Office, 2003, Website, climate.virginia.edu/advisory/2000/ad00-12.htm, accessed March 24.

27. NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1999.

28. NUREG/CR-2858, PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design Basis Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations, PNL-4413, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1982.

29. North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Application for Renewed Operating Licenses, Dominion Energy, May 2001.

30. Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, Rev. 2, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April 1998.

31. Regulatory Guide 1.145, Rev. 1, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1982.

32. NUREG/CR-2919, XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations, Final Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1982.

33. Regulatory Guide 1.111, Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases for Light-Water-Cooled Reactors, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1977.

34. NRCDOSE 2.3.2, CCC-684, Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, 2002.

35. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, 2001 Annual Report, Dominion Virginia Power, North Anna Power Station, Prepared by Dominion Virginia Power and Teledyne Brown Engineering Environmental Services.

3-2-185 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-2 Summary of Virginia Tornado Intensities Tornado Intensity Number of Occurrences (Fujita Tornado Scale) (January 1950-June 2002)

F0 96 F1 172 F2 72 F3 29 F4 2 F5 0 Funnel Cloud 19 Waterspout 23 Dust Devil 4 Non-Classified 26 Notes: Scale Wind Speed (mph)

F0 40-72 F1 73-112 F2 113-157 F3 158-206 F4 207-260 F5 261-318 Source: Storm Events for Virginia, 01/01/1950 through 6/30/2002, NCDC, NOAA.

3-2-186 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-3 Extreme 1-Mile Wind Passage at Richmond, Virginia Speed Recurrence Interval Probability (mph) (years) 0.5 48 2 0.1 60 10 0.04 68 25 0.02 72 50 0.01 80 100 0.001 105 1000 Source: Thom, H. C. S., New Distribution of Extreme Mile Winds in the United States, ASCE Environmental Engineering Conference, Dallas, Texas, 1967.

3-2-187 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-4 Richmond Climatological Data Source: Richmond, Virginia, Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data 2001, NCDC, NOAA.

3-2-188 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-5 Mean Annual Meteorological Data for Stations in the Site Region Mean Annual Mean Annual Mean Annual Location Temperature (°F) Precipitation (in.) Snowfall (in.)

Charlottesville 56.8 45.72 24.2 Fredericksburg 56.2 40.99 17.7 Louisa 56.3 41.62 19.9 Piedmont Research Station 55.9 38.68 22.0 Partlow 55.2 42.24 18.6 Source: Reference 21 through Reference 25.

Table 2.7-6 Comparison of Mean Temperature Data for North Anna, Richmond, Partlow, and Louisa (°F) (September 16, 1971-September 15, 1972)

Month North Anna Richmond Partlow Louisa January (1972) 36.6 40.7 37.6 39.5 February (1972) 33.6 37.6 35.5 36.2 March (1972) 43.0a 47.2 45.1 46.3a April (1972) 54.7a 56.2 54.1 55.0 May (1972) 62.4 64.6 62.4 62.1 June (1972) 68.3 70.1 69.5 68.1 July (1972) 75.0 77.1 77.0 74.8 August (1972) 72.9 75.2 73.1 72.8 a b September (16-30, 1971; 1-15, 1972) 68.2 69.6 ( ) (b)

October (1971) 62.8 64.6 63.9 63.0a November (1971) 45.8a 48.5 46.6a 47.1 December (1971) 46.3a 48.0 46.8 46.2 Source: Reference 2

a. One or more days of data missing.

b. Data not available.

3-2-189 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-7 North Anna Mean Wind Speeds (mph) 1974-1987 Spring Summer Fall Winter Elevation (Mar, Apr, May) (Jun, Jul, Aug) (Sept, Oct, Nov) (Dec, Jan, Feb) Annual Upper Level 9.6 7.5 8.3 9.2 8.6 Lower Level 7.1 5.4 5.9 6.6 6.3 Source: Reference 2 Table 2.7-8 North Anna Vertical Stability (T) and Low-Level Wind Speed Distribution 1974-1987 Vertical Stability Categories Period A B C D E F G Spring Frequency (%) 20.04 5.41 4.86 29.87 24.18 7.92 7.71 Wind Speed (mph) (8.6) (8.4) (8.6) (7.9) (6.3) (4.0) (2.9)

Summer Frequency (%) 25.33 5.38 5.10 29.52 27.21 6.42 1.44 Wind Speed (mph) (6.1) (6.2) (6.2) (5.7) (4.3) (3.2) (2.9)

Fall Frequency (%) 21.28 4.16 4.25 28.71 25.57 10.26 6.14 Wind Speed (mph) (6.9) (7.1) (7.4) (6.8) (4.9) (3.4) (3.2)

Winter Frequency (%) 13.39 4.82 4.85 35.10 27.55 8.09 6.60 Wind Speed (mph) (7.6) (7.8) (8.2) (7.4) (5.6) (3.5) (2.8)

Annual Frequency (%) 20.00 4.91 4.74 30.69 26.08 8.22 5.46 Wind Speed (MPH) (7.2) (7.4) (7.6) (7.0) (5.2) (3.5) (3.0)

Source: Reference 2 3-2-190 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-9 1996-98 NAPS Meteorological Data (33-ft Level)

Wind Wind Speed (mph)

Dir. 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 GT-24 Total Stability Class A - by T NNE 7 16 12 2 0 0 37 NE 5 12 13 3 0 0 33 ENE 5 17 13 1 0 0 36 E 12 33 10 0 0 0 55 ESE 15 45 9 0 0 0 69 SE 6 44 1 0 0 0 51 SSE 14 54 0 0 0 0 68 S 14 151 5 0 0 0 170 SSW 16 171 39 1 0 0 227 SW 7 67 56 6 0 0 136 WSW 3 70 34 4 0 0 111 W 5 80 65 8 0 0 158 WNW 11 77 84 14 0 0 186 NW 32 132 70 18 1 0 253 NNW 35 47 39 21 1 0 143 N 14 24 44 8 0 0 90 Total 201 1040 494 86 2 0 1823 Number of hours of calm wind - 0 Stability Class B - by T NNE 2 16 9 0 0 0 27 NE 2 16 9 2 0 0 29 ENE 5 19 4 0 0 0 28 E 9 24 6 0 0 0 39 ESE 11 44 3 1 0 0 59 SE 1 26 1 0 0 0 28 SSE 2 25 0 0 0 0 27 S 5 61 5 0 0 0 71 SSW 4 85 44 12 0 0 145 SW 4 29 31 5 0 0 69 WSW 1 28 16 7 0 0 52 W 1 20 19 2 0 0 42 WNW 3 33 30 9 1 0 76 NW 14 35 54 14 8 7 132 NNW 9 37 37 26 4 0 113 N 1 29 12 14 0 0 56 Total 74 527 280 92 13 7 993 Number of hours of calm wind - 0 3-2-191 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-9 1996-98 NAPS Meteorological Data (33-ft Level)

Wind Wind Speed (mph)

Dir. 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 GT-24 Total Stability Class C- by T NNE 5 17 23 2 0 0 47 NE 10 13 10 0 0 0 33 ENE 6 31 13 0 0 0 50 E 16 32 7 1 0 0 56 ESE 23 79 13 4 0 0 119 SE 14 41 2 0 0 0 57 SSE 5 20 0 0 0 0 25 S 15 62 4 0 0 0 81 SSW 8 103 37 7 0 0 155 SW 8 55 39 17 0 0 119 WSW 1 27 14 6 0 0 48 W 9 23 22 4 0 0 58 WNW 13 35 32 7 2 0 89 NW 11 51 53 21 13 4 153 NNW 21 58 75 24 1 2 181 N 13 40 58 26 1 0 138 Total 178 687 402 119 17 6 1409 Number of hours of calm wind - 0 Stability Class D- by T NNE 161 608 284 29 4 0 1086 NE 147 492 205 8 6 0 858 ENE 157 381 164 12 3 0 717 E 169 414 183 12 9 0 787 ESE 96 330 114 9 0 0 549 SE 76 318 47 0 0 0 441 SSE 77 148 9 0 0 0 234 S 196 359 32 1 0 0 588 SSW 208 578 218 27 0 0 1031 SW 179 459 191 44 1 0 874 WSW 80 169 146 7 0 0 402 W 95 121 81 7 0 0 304 WNW 102 190 139 38 8 0 477 NW 155 282 195 41 14 2 689 NNW 150 484 325 77 7 2 1045 N 178 771 571 78 7 1 1606 Total 2226 6104 2904 390 59 5 11688 Number of hours of calm wind - 4 3-2-192 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-9 1996-98 NAPS Meteorological Data (33-ft Level)

Wind Wind Speed (mph)

Dir. 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 GT-24 Total Stability Class E- by T NNE 86 81 28 6 2 0 203 NE 91 74 18 4 6 1 194 ENE 87 62 5 0 0 1 155 E 91 83 10 4 0 1 189 ESE 109 125 22 2 0 0 258 SE 130 225 11 1 1 0 368 SSE 171 137 15 0 0 0 323 S 437 413 54 0 0 0 904 SSW 456 475 110 3 0 0 1044 SW 349 396 127 6 0 0 878 WSW 221 166 50 3 0 0 440 W 361 232 43 1 0 0 637 WNW 358 228 57 14 1 0 658 NW 230 111 31 2 1 0 375 NNW 127 87 15 9 0 0 238 N 78 105 39 16 1 0 239 Total 3382 3000 635 71 12 3 7103 Number of hours of calm wind - 15 Stability Class F- by T NNE 17 6 0 0 0 0 23 NE 21 2 1 0 0 0 24 ENE 26 2 0 0 0 0 28 E 46 9 0 0 0 2 57 ESE 34 12 1 0 0 3 50 SE 35 9 0 1 0 0 45 SSE 40 4 2 0 0 0 46 S 109 8 0 0 0 0 117 SSW 170 29 0 0 0 0 199 SW 121 46 0 0 0 0 167 WSW 123 17 4 0 0 0 144 W 321 98 0 0 0 0 419 WNW 332 82 1 2 0 0 417 NW 137 21 0 0 0 0 158 NNW 38 9 0 0 0 0 47 N 18 1 0 0 0 0 19 Total 1588 355 9 3 0 5 1960 Number of hours of calm wind - 14 3-2-193 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-9 1996-98 NAPS Meteorological Data (33-ft Level)

Wind Wind Speed (mph)

Dir. 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-18 19-24 GT-24 Total Stability Class G - by T NNE 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 NE 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 ENE 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 E 28 0 0 0 0 0 28 ESE 19 0 0 0 0 0 19 SE 18 1 0 0 0 0 19 SSE 8 1 0 0 0 0 9 S 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 SSW 12 2 0 0 0 0 14 SW 22 5 0 0 0 0 27 WSW 26 0 0 0 0 0 26 W 92 7 0 0 0 0 99 WNW 356 27 0 0 0 0 383 NW 280 14 0 0 0 0 294 NNW 71 0 0 0 0 0 71 N 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 Total 1005 57 0 0 0 0 1062 Number of hours of calm wind - 16 Total Observations - All Stability Categories NNE 293 744 356 39 6 0 1438 NE 290 609 256 17 12 1 1185 ENE 301 512 199 13 3 1 1029 E 371 595 216 17 9 3 1211 ESE 307 635 162 16 0 3 1123 SE 280 664 62 2 1 0 1009 SSE 317 389 26 0 0 0 732 S 783 1054 100 1 0 0 1938 SSW 874 1443 448 50 0 0 2815 SW 690 1057 444 78 1 0 2270 WSW 455 477 264 27 0 0 1223 W 884 581 230 22 0 0 1717 WNW 1175 672 343 84 12 0 2286 NW 859 646 403 96 37 13 2054 NNW 451 722 491 157 13 4 1838 N 324 970 724 142 9 1 2170 Total 8654 11770 4724 761 103 26 26038 Number of hours of calm wind - 49 Hours of missing data - 217 3-2-194 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-10 Shortest Distances from the ESP Plant Envelope Boundary to the EAB Downwind Distance Distance Direction (ft) (m)

S 3131 954 SSW 2934 894 SW 2860 872 WSW 2873 876 W 2860 872 WNW 2959 902 NW 3242 988 NNW 3822 1164 N 4586 1399 NNE 4660 1420 NE 4771 1454 ENE 4833 1474 E 4697 1433 ESE 4660 1420 SE 4389 1338 SSE 3822 1166 3-2-195 Revision 0 September 2003

Table 2.7-11 PAVAN Results for /Q Values at the EAB Plant Name: North Anna ESP Meteorological Instrumentation Data Period: 1996-98 JFD Wind Sensors Height: 33 ft Type of Release: Ground-Level Release T Heights: 33 ft-158.9 ft Source of Data: Onsite Comments: Data period: 1/1/96 - 12/31/98 Program: PAVAN, 10/76, 8/79 Revision, Implementation of RG 1.145 Site Exclusion Boundary Calculations:

Five Percent Overall Site Limit.

Building wake credit is not included.

Correction factors used in the annual average calculations.

Below are printed the ordered values of /Q and the frequency with which that value is reached or exceeded.

The top number is the /Q. The middle number is the frequency normalized to this sector.

The third number is the frequency with respect to all time.

0 6.951E-04 6.921E-04 6.787E-04 6.729E-04 6.374E-04 6.161E-04 5.168E-04 5.160E-04 4.601E-04 4.580E-04 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.00256 0.00348 0.00439 0.00555 0.00690 0.00799 0.00848 0.01282 0.01508 0.01596 0 4.553E-04 4.488E-04 4.448E-04 4.377E-04 4.320E-04 4.286E-04 4.232E-04 4.204E-04 4.182E-04 4.057E-04 0.033 0.034 0.035 0.035 0.058 0.063 0.065 0.065 0.067 0.068 0.03305 0.03362 0.03477 .035200 0.05766 0.06327 0.06461 0.06522 0.06681 0.06799 0 3.404E-04 3.398E-04 2.957E-04 2.829E-04 2.788E-04 2.763E-04 2.723E-04 2.708E-04 2.695E-04 2.687E-04 0.069 0.071 0.075 0.079 0.096 0.107 0.111 0.114 0.115 0.120 0.06934 0.07063 0.07526 0.07894 0.09591 0.10675 0.11084 0.11394 0.11542 0.11957 0 2.638E-04 2.614E-04 2.464E-04 2.375E-04 1.994E-04 1.991E-04 1.986E-04 1.977E-04 1.958E-04 1.947E-04 0.121 0.123 0.124 0.126 0.129 0.131 0.292 0.350 0.352 0.353 0.12104 0.12289 0.12421 0.12642 0.12933 0.13149 0.29249 0.34999 0.35217 0.35325 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-196 September 2003

Table 2.7-11 PAVAN Results for /Q Values at the EAB 0 1.939E-04 1.923E-04 1.899E-04 1.878E-04 1.826E-04 1.821E-04 1.760E-04 1.751E-04 1.710E-04 1.676E-04 0.411 0.484 0.485 0.485 0.489 0.574 0.643 0.644 0.648 0.648 0.41075 0.48358 0.48469 0.48535 0.48919 0.57352 0.64252 0.64375 0.64766 0.64818 0 1.629E-04 1.603E-04 1.587E-04 1.562E-04 1.539E-04 1.477E-04 1.477E-04 1.474E-04 1.370E-04 1.367E-04 0.656 0.669 0.676 0.682 0.685 0.689 0.720 0.992 0.992 0.994 0.65561 0.66945 0.67559 0.68152 0.68528 0.68911 0.71978 0.99194 0.99247 0.99351 0 1.315E-04 1.309E-04 1.301E-04 1.282E-04 1.279E-04 1.271E-04 1.260E-04 1.251E-04 1.234E-04 1.225E-04 1.250 1.350 2.423 2.489 2.492 2.623 2.676 2.703 4.114 4.467 1.25034 1.35001 2.42334 2.48850 2.49234 2.62267 2.67634 2.70317 4.11383 4.46650 0 1.212E-04 1.209E-04 1.201E-04 1.195E-04 1.179E-04 1.167E-04 1.159E-04 1.156E-04 1.153E-04 1.150E-04 4.470 4.555 4.624 1.723 4.835 4.861 4.996 5.038 5.039 5.046 4.47033 4.55467 4.62367 4.72333 4.83450 4.86133 4.99550 5.03767 5.03873 5.04640 0 1.149E-04 1.122E-04 1.110E-04 1.090E-04 1.070E-04 1.058E-04 1.039E-04 1.036E-04 1.022E-04 9.926E-05 5.066 5.089 5.135 5.136 5.138 5.139 5.140 5.144 5.144 5.179 5.06557 5.08857 5.13457 5.13592 5.13805 5.13871 5.13994 5.14377 5.14432 5.17882 0 9.725E-05 9.708E-05 8.449E-05 8.083E-05 8.034E-05 8.017E-05 8.009E-05 7.964E-05 7.893E-05 7.781E-05 5.332 5.478 6.003 6.421 6.436 6.471 6.478 8.403 9.633 10.097 5.33216 5.47782 6.00299 6.42082 6.43616 6.47066 6.47832 8.40265 9.63315 10.09698 0 7.736E-05 7.699E-05 7.677E-05 7.629E-05 7.538E-05 7.468E-05 7.041E-05 6.949E-05 6.785E-05 6.766E-05 10.795 11.128 11.600 11.603 11.933 12.351 12.650 12.658 13.156 13.236 10.79465 11.12815 11.59965 11.60348 11.93315 12.35098 12.64998 12.65765 13.15598 13.23648 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-197 September 2003

Table 2.7-11 PAVAN Results for /Q Values at the EAB 0 6.569E-05 6.409E-05 6.294E-05 6.225E-05 6.116E-05 6.016E-05 5.946E-05 5.912E-05 5.886E-05 5.780E-05 13.248 13.279 13.704 14.080 14.256 14.321 14.923 15.161 15.165 15.272 13.24798 13.27865 13.70415 14.07981 14.25615 14.32131 14.92315 15.16081 15.16465 15.27198 0 5.764E-05 5.738E-05 5.700E-05 5.698E-05 5.688E-05 5.595E-05 5.564E-05 5.562E-05 5.558E-05 5.481E-05 15.582 15.602 16.081 16.736 17.223 18.434 19.036 19.052 19.159 19.243 15.58248 15.60164 16.08081 16.73631 17.22314 18.43447 19.03630 19.05164 19.15897 19.24330 0 5.425E-05 5.365E-05 5.313E-05 5.083E-05 5.019E-05 5.003E-05 4.887E-05 4.788E-05 4.751E-05 4.654E-05 19.860 20.228 20.631 21.493 21.643 22.325 23.207 23.498 23.540 25.216 19.86047 20.22847 20.63097 21.49347 21.64297 22.32530 23.20697 23.49830 23.54046 25.21563 0 4.579E-05 4.533E-05 4.462E-05 4.396E-05 4.199E-05 4.172E-05 4.127E-05 4.118E-05 4.006E-05 3.990E-05 28.336 29.720 31.058 31.905 31.912 31.943 32.468 32.802 32.825 32.924 28.33596 29.71979 31.05762 31.90479 31.91245 31.94312 32.46828 32.80178 32.82478 32.92445 0 3.958E-05 3.948E-05 3.914E-05 3.906E-05 3.814E-05 3.753E-05 3.677E-05 3.667E-05 3.605E-05 3.541E-05 32.947 323.955 33.250 33.825 33.844 33.933 33.990 34.048 34.109 37.582 32.94745 32.95512 33.25028 33.82528 33.84445 33.93261 33.99011 34.04761 34.10894 37.58194 0 3.541E-05 3.441E-05 3.440E-05 3.406E-05 3.398E-05 3.390E-05 3.293E-05 3.246E-05 3.216E-05 3.184E-05 39.042 41.373 41.799 41.802 43.067 43.117 43.711 45.295 45.318 48.012 39.04244 41.37310 41.79860 41.80243 43.06743 43.11726 43.71143 45.29459 45.31759 48.01242 0 3.181E-05 3.147E-05 3.139E-05 3.116E-05 3.088E-05 3.088E-05 3.087E-05 3.064E-05 3.058E-05 3.034E-05 48.066 48.955 51.911 52.662 54.180 54.188 54.196 54.199 55.388 56.024 48.06609 48.95542 51.91091 52.66224 54.18024 54.18791 54.19558 54.19941 55.38774 56.02407 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-198 September 2003

Table 2.7-11 PAVAN Results for /Q Values at the EAB 0 3.024E-05 2.986E-05 2.969E-05 2.951E-05 2.919E-05 2.893E-05 2.872E-05 2.779E-05 2.778E-05 2.754E-05 56.388 57.607 58.293 58.412 58.719 60.206 60.835 60.839 61.927 62.134 56.38824 57.60724 58.29340 58.41224 58.71890 60.20623 60.83490 60.83873 61.92740 62.13440 0 2.738E-05 2.691E-05 2.653E-05 2.625E-05 2.607E-05 2.594E-05 2.540E-05 2.498E-05 2.377E-05 2.371E-05 62.571 63.212 63.376 63.380 63.415 63.902 64.093 66.282 66.849 68.705 62.57140 63.21156 63.37640 63.38023 63.41473 63.90156 64.09323 66.28206 66.84939 68.70472 0 2.363E-05 2.359E-05 2.356E-05 2.087E-05 2.038E-05 2.022E-05 1.957E-05 1.955E-05 1.926E-05 1.898E-05 68.724 68.904 68.985 68.992 69.069 69.115 70.196 70.307 70.342 70.407 68.72388 68.90405 68.98455 68.99222 69.06889 69.11488 70.19588 70.30705 70.34155 70.40672 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-199 September 2003

Table 2.7-12 PAVAN Results for /Q Values at the LPZ Plant Name: North Anna ESP Meteorological Instrumentation Data Period: 1996-98 JFD Wind Sensors Height: 33 ft Type of Release: Ground-Level Release T Heights: 33 ft-158.9 ft Source of Data: Onsite Comments: Data period: 1/1/96 - 12/31/98 Program: PAVAN, 10/76, 8/79 Revision, Implementation of RG 1.145 Low Population Zone Calculations:

Five Percent Overall Site Limit.

Building wake credit is not included.

Correction factors used in the annual average calculations.

Below are printed the ordered values of /Q and the frequency with which that value is reached or exceeded.

The top number is the /Q. The middle number is the frequency normalized to this sector.

The third number is the frequency with respect to all time.

0 9.406E-05 4.549E-05 2.687E-05 2.055E-05 1.668E-05 1.300E-05 9.555E-06 7.245E-06 5.870E-06 4.834E-06 0.061 0.115 3.967 4.025 4.243 10.331 10.346 11.707 24.671 24.706

.06133 .11500 3.96749 4.02499 4.24349 10.33081 10.34615 11.70698 24.67129 24.70580 0 3.301E-06 3.087E-06 2.730E-06 2.443E-06 2.002E-06 1.364E-06 1.351E-06 1.052E-06 1.009E-06 8.472E-07 24.717 36.217 44.750 44.769 47.204 47.476 70.874 70.920 70.932 82.064 24.71730 36.21728 44.75026 44.76943 47.20359 47.47576 70.87440 70.92039 70.93188 82.06385 0 5.969E-07 5.755E-07 4.436E-07 4.258E-07 2.785E-07 2.034E-07 1.671E-07 1.129E-07 9.494E-08 8.705E-08 82.746 84.241 84.467 84.487 87.120 88.174 89.715 90.171 96.178 96.243 82.74619 84.24117 84.46734 84.48650 87.12001 88.17415 89.71514 90.17131 96.17814 96.24330 0 8.356E-08 5.696E-08 3.849E-08 2.967E-08 2.848E-08 96.266 99.233 99.916 99.973 100.000 96.26630 99.23328 99.91560 99.97309 99.99992 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-200 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-13 ESP Application Nearby Sensitive Receptors Nearest Site Milk* Meat Milk* Veg. Garden Nearest Resident Boundary Cow Animal Goat 500 ft2 Sector (mile) (km) (mile) (km) (mile) (km) (mile) (km)

N 1.48 2.38 0.87 1.40 2.18 3.51 1.78 2.86 NNE 0.96 1.54 0.88 1.42 1.56 2.51 1.66 2.67 NE 0.94 1.51 0.90 1.45 1.44 2.32 0.94 1.51 ENE 2.18 3.51 0.91 1.47 2.58 4.15 2.18 3.51 E 1.38 2.22 0.89 1.43 3.58 5.76 1.38 2.22 ESE 1.77 2.85 0.88 1.42 None None 3.57 5.74 SE 1.37 2.20 0.83 1.34 1.37 2.20 1.37 2.20 SSE 0.91 1.46 0.73 1.17 2.71 4.36 1.21 1.95 S 1.01 1.63 0.62 0.99 None None 1.11 1.79 SSW 1.1 1.77 0.57 0.92 1.90 3.06 1.50 2.41 SW 2.78 4.47 0.54 0.87 None None 2.78 4.47 WSW 1.22 1.96 0.55 0.88 1.22 1.96 1.52 2.45 W 1.30 2.09 0.54 0.87 4.20 6.76 4.80 7.72 WNW 0.98 1.58 0.56 0.90 3.98 6.40 None None NW 0.88 1.42 0.62 0.99 None None 0.98 1.58 NNW 0.93 1.50 0.72 1.16 1.93 3.11 1.13 1.82 Note: No milk cow or goats within a 5-mile radius of the NAPS.

Source: Reference 35.

3-2-201 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Table 2.7-14 XOQDOQ Predicted Maximum /Q and D/Q Values at Specific Points of Interest

/Q Type of Direction Distance /Q (2.26 Day /Q Location from Site (miles) (No Decay) Decay) (8 Day Decay) D/Q Residence NNE 0.96 2.4E-06 2.4E-06 2.1E-06 7.2E-09 EAB ESE 0.88 3.7E-06 3.7E-06 3.3E-06 1.2E-08 a Meat Animal SE 1.37 1.4E-06 1.4E-06 1.2E-06 3.1E-09 b Veg. Garden NE 0.94 2.0E-06 2.0E-06 1.8E-06 6.0E-09 Notes:

/Q - sec/m3 D/Q - 1/m2

a. direction = south

b. direction = north-northeast 3-2-202 Revision 0 September 2003

Table 2.7-15 XOQDOQ Predicted Maximum Annual Averages (Ground-Level Release)

No Decay Undepleted Distance in Miles From the Site ESE 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

/Q (s/m3) 2.685E-5 8.740E-6 4.697E-6 3.103E-6 1.742E-6 1.163E-6 8.527E-7 6.634E-7 5.373E-7 4.482E-7 3.822E-7 Distance in Miles From the Site ESE 5.00 7.50 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00

/Q (s/m3) 3.317E-7 1.934E-7 1.325E-7 7.833E-8 5.418E-8 4.079E-8 3.239E-8 2.668E-9 2.257E-8 1.948E-8 1.709E-8 Segment Boundaries in Miles From the Site ESE 0.5 - 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50

/Q (s/m3) 4.887E-6 1.787E-6 8.596E-7 5.394E-7 3.831E-7 1.971E-7 7.964E-8 4.100E-8 2.675E-8 1.951E-8 2.26 Day Decay, Undepleted Distance in Miles From the Site ESE 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

/Q (s/m3) 2.681E-5 8.712E-6 4.674E-6 3.083E-6 1.725E-6 1.148E-6 8.388E-7 6.504E-7 5.251E-7 4.365E-7 3.711E-7 Distance in Miles From the Site ESE 5.00 7.50 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00

/Q (s/m3) 3.210E-7 1.841E-7 1.241E-7 7.095E-8 4.750E-8 3.462E-8 2.662E-8 2.124E-8 1.740E-8 1.455E-8 1.237E-8 Segment Boundaries in Miles From the Site ESE 0.5 - 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50

/Q (s/m3) 4.864E-6 1.770E-6 8.458E-7 5.272E-7 3.719E-7 1.878E-7 7.233E-8 3.485E-8 2.131E-8 1.459E-8 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-203 September 2003

Table 2.7-15 XOQDOQ Predicted Maximum Annual Averages (Ground-Level Release) 8.0 Day Decay, Depleted Distance in Miles From the Site ESE 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

/Q (s/m3) 2.540E-5 7.974E-6 4.180E-6 2.711E-6 1.475E-6 9.592E-7 6.875E-7 5.240E-7 4.166E-7 3.415E-7 2.866E-7 Distance in Miles From the Site ESE 5.00 7.50 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00

/Q (s/m )

3 2.450E-7 1.344E-7 8.739E-8 4.735E-8 3.047E-8 2.153E-8 1.614E-8 1.261E-8 1.015E-8 8.357E-9 7.007E-9 Segment Boundaries in Miles From the Site ESE 0.5 - 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50

/Q (s/m3) 4.370E-6 1.521E-6 6.945E-7 4.187E-7 2.874E-7 1.381E-7 4.874E-8 2.176E-8 1.268E-8 8.388E-9 Relative Deposition/Area Distance in Miles from Site NNE 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 D/Q (1/m2) 6.2570E-8 2.116E-8 1.086E-8 6.671E-9 3.326E-9 2.017E-9 1.364E-9 9.882E-10 7.514E-10 5.920E-10 4.793E-10 Distance in Miles from Site NNE 5.00 7.50 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 D/Q (1/m2) 3.964E-10 1.943E-10 1.219E-10 6.161E-11 3.729E-11 2.500E-11 1.792E-11 1.345E-11 1.046E-11 8.355E-12 6.820E-12 Segment Boundaries in Miles From the Site NNE 0.5 - 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 D/Q (1/m2) 1.129E-8 3.487E-9 1.388E-9 7.583E-10 4.820E-10 2.070E-10 6.420E-10 2.544E-11 1.359E-11 8.410E-12 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-204 September 2003

Table 2.7-16 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Specific Points of Interest (1996-98 Meteorological Data)

Ground-Level Release - No Purge Releases

/Q /Q (sec/m3) (sec/m3)

Dir. 2.26 Day 8.0 Day Type 2.26 Day 8.0 Day From Type of Dist. No Decay Decay Decay D/Q of Dist. No Decay Decay Decay D/Q Site Location (Mile) Undepleted Undepleted Depleted (1/m2) Location (Mile) Undepleted Undepleted Depleted (1/m2)

S Residences 1.01 1.10E-06 1.10E-06 9.40E-07 5.00E-09 S. B. 0.62 2.40E-06 2.40E-06 2.10E-06 1.20E-08 SSW Residences 1.1 7.50E-07 7.50E-07 6.50E-07 2.90E-09 S. B. 0.57 2.10E-06 2.10E-06 1.90E-06 8.70E-09 SW Residences 2.78 1.60E-07 1.60E-07 1.30E-07 4.80E-10 S. B. 0.54 2.10E-06 2.10E-06 1.90E-06 7.80E-09 WSW Residences 1.22 5.40E-07 5.30E-07 4.60E-07 1.70E-09 S. B. 0.54 1.90E-06 1.90E-06 1.70E-06 6.70E-09 W Residences 1.3 6.00E-07 5.90E-07 5.10E-07 1.80E-09 S. B. 0.54 2.30E-06 2.30E-06 2.10E-06 8.00E-09 WNW Residences 0.98 8.00E-07 7.90E-07 7.00E-07 2.70E-09 S. B. 0.56 1.90E-06 1.90E-06 1.80E-06 7.00E-09 NW Residences 0.88 9.70E-07 9.70E-07 8.60E-07 3.00E-09 S. B. 0.61 1.70E-06 1.70E-06 1.50E-06 5.40E-09 NNW Residences 0.93 7.70E-07 7.70E-07 6.80E-07 2.00E-09 S. B. 0.72 1.10E-06 1.10E-06 1.00E-06 3.00E-09 N Residences 1.48 9.70E-07 9.60E-07 8.20E-07 2.30E-09 S. B. 0.87 2.20E-06 2.20E-06 1.90E-06 5.80E-09 NNE Residences 0.96 2.40E-06 2.40E-06 2.10E-06 7.20E-09 S. B. 0.88 2.70E-06 2.70E-06 2.40E-06 8.30E-09 NE Residences 0.94 2.00E-06 2.00E-06 1.80E-06 6.00E-09 S. B. 0.9 2.10E-06 2.10E-06 1.90E-06 6.40E-09 ENE Residences 2.18 3.50E-07 3.50E-07 2.90E-07 7.50E-10 S. B. 0.92 1.30E-06 1.30E-06 1.10E-06 3.40E-09 E Residences 1.38 1.30E-06 1.30E-06 1.10E-06 2.30E-09 S. B. 0.89 2.60E-06 2.50E-06 2.30E-06 5.00E-09 ESE Residences 1.77 1.40E-06 1.40E-06 1.20E-06 2.00E-09 S. B. 0.88 3.70E-06 3.70E-06 3.30E-06 6.70E-09 SE Residences 1.37 1.40E-06 1.40E-06 1.20E-06 2.90E-09 S. B. 0.83 2.80E-06 2.80E-06 2.50E-06 6.70E-09 SSE Residences 0.91 1.30E-06 1.30E-06 1.20E-06 5.10E-09 S. B. 0.72 1.90E-06 1.90E-06 1.70E-06 7.50E-09 Note: S. B. - Site Boundary; M. A. - Meat Animal; V. G. - Vegetable Garden North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-205 September 2003

Table 2.7-16 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Specific Points of Interest (1996-98 Meteorological Data)

Ground-Level Release - No Purge Releases

/Q /Q (sec/m3) (sec/m3)

Dir. 2.26 Day 8.0 Day Type 2.26 Day 8.0 Day From Type of Dist. No Decay Decay Decay D/Q of Dist. No Decay Decay Decay D/Q Site Location (Mile) Undepleted Undepleted Depleted (1/m2) Location (Mile) Undepleted Undepleted Depleted (1/m2)

S M. A. - - - - - V. G. 1.11 9.30E-07 9.20E-07 8.10E-07 4.30E-09 SSW M. A. 1.9 3.20E-07 3.20E-07 2.70E-07 1.10E-09 V. G. 1.5 4.60E-07 4.60E-07 3.90E-07 1.70E-09 SW M. A. - - - - - V. G. 2.78 1.60E-07 1.60E-07 1.30E-07 4.80E-10 WSW M. A. 1.22 5.40E-07 5.30E-07 4.60E-07 1.70E-09 V. G. 1.52 3.80E-07 3.80E-07 3.20E-07 1.20E-09 W M. A. 4.2 1.00E-07 1.00E-07 7.70E-08 2.30E-10 V. G. 4.8 8.40E-08 8.20E-08 6.20E-08 1.80E-10 WNW M. A. 3.98 9.50E-08 9.30E-08 7.30E-08 2.40E-10 V. G. None - - - -

NW M. A. None - - - - V. G. 0.98 8.20E-07 8.20E-07 7.20E-07 2.50E-09 NNW M. A. 1.93 2.50E-07 2.50E-07 2.10E-07 5.60E-10 V. G. 1.13 5.70E-07 5.70E-07 4.90E-07 1.40E-09 N M. A. 2.18 5.40E-07 5.30E-07 4.40E-07 1.20E-09 V. G. 1.78 7.30E-07 7.30E-07 6.10E-07 1.70E-09 NNE M. A. 1.56 1.10E-06 1.10E-06 9.50E-07 3.10E-09 V. G. 1.66 1.00E-06 1.00E-06 8.60E-07 2.80E-09 NE M. A. 1.44 1.00E-06 1.00E-06 8.90E-07 2.90E-09 V. G. 0.94 2.00E-06 2.00E-06 1.80E-06 6.00E-09 ENE M. A. 2.58 2.80E-07 2.70E-07 2.20E-07 5.60E-10 V. G. 2.18 3.50E-07 3.50E-07 2.90E-07 7.50E-10 E M. A. 3.58 3.40E-07 3.40E-07 2.70E-07 4.40E-10 V. G. 1.38 1.30E-06 1.30E-06 1.10E-06 2.30E-09 ESE M. A. None - - - - V. G. 3.57 5.20E-07 5.10E-07 4.10E-07 5.90E-10 SE M. A. 1.37 1.40E-06 1.40E-06 1.20E-06 2.90E-09 V. G. 1.37 1.40E-06 1.40E-06 1.20E-06 2.90E-09 SSE M. A. 2.71 2.60E-07 2.50E-07 2.10E-07 7.70E-10 V. G. 1.21 8.60E-07 8.60E-07 7.40E-07 3.10E-09 Note: S. B. - Site Boundary; M. A. - Meat Animal; V. G. - Vegetable Garden North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-206 September 2003

Table 2.7-17 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles No Decay, Undepleted Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases Annual Average /Q (sec/m3) Distance in Miles from the Site Sector 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 S 9.892E-06 3.343E-06 1.737E-06 1.099E-06 5.804E-07 3.710E-07 2.630E-07 1.990E-07 1.573E-07 1.285E-07 1.076E-07 SSW 7.733E-06 2.642E-06 1.380E-06 8.743E-07 4.630E-07 2.965E-07 2.105E-07 1.594E-07 1.262E-07 1.031E-07 8.641E-08 SW 6.892E-06 2.360E-06 1.235E-06 7.838E-07 4.158E-07 2.667E-07 1.896E-07 1.437E-07 1.139E-07 9.320E-08 7.815E-08 WSW 6.435E-06 2.194E-06 1.149E-06 7.299E-07 3.879E-07 2.491E-07 1.773E-07 1.346E-07 1.067E-07 8.740E-08 7.334E-08 W 7.894E-06 2.665E-06 1.399E-06 8.926E-07 4.777E-07 3.083E-07 2.203E-07 1.678E-07 1.335E-07 1.096E-07 9.221E-08 WNW 6.843E-06 2.320E-06 1.217E-06 7.739E-07 4.128E-07 2.660E-07 1.899E-07 1.446E-07 1.150E-07 9.437E-08 7.937E-08 NW 6.822E-06 2.367E-06 1.253E-06 7.999E-07 4.290E-07 2.776E-07 1.988E-07 1.517E-07 1.209E-07 9.942E-08 8.374E-08 NNW 5.763E-06 2.029E-06 1.080E-06 6.897E-07 3.706E-07 2.402E-07 1.723E-07 1.316E-07 1.050E-07 8.641E-08 7.284E-08 N 1.469E-05 5.213E-06 2.778E-06 1.771E-06 9.494E-07 6.142E-07 4.399E-07 3.357E-07 2.675E-07 2.200E-07 1.853E-07 NNE 1.868E-05 6.567E-06 3.500E-06 2.234E-06 1.198E-06 7.757E-07 5.558E-07 4.242E-07 3.382E-07 2.782E-07 2.344E-07 NE 1.523E-05 5.352E-06 2.854E-06 1.826E-06 9.817E-07 6.364E-07 4.564E-07 3.487E-07 2.782E-07 2.290E-07 1.930E-07 ENE 9.350E-06 3.256E-06 1.748E-06 1.126E-06 6.118E-07 3.995E-07 2.881E-07 2.211E-07 1.771E-07 1.463E-07 1.237E-07 E 1.774E-05 6.092E-06 3.305E-06 2.154E-06 1.188E-06 7.835E-07 5.696E-07 4.400E-07 3.543E-07 2.940E-07 2.497E-07 ESE 2.685E-05 8.740E-06 4.697E-06 3.103E-06 1.742E-06 1.163E-06 8.527E-07 6.634E-07 5.373E-07 4.482E-07 3.822E-07 SE 1.932E-05 6.168E-06 3.268E-06 2.151E-06 1.202E-06 8.001E-07 5.855E-07 4.548E-07 3.678E-07 3.064E-07 2.611E-07 SSE 1.049E-05 3.458E-06 1.807E-06 1.158E-06 6.243E-07 4.053E-07 2.910E-07 2.225E-07 1.776E-07 1.463E-07 1.234E-07 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-207 September 2003

Table 2.7-17 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles No Decay, Undepleted Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases Annual Average /Q (sec/m3) Distance in Miles from the Site Sector 5.000 7.500 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000 S 9.185E-08 5.021E-08 3.285E-08 1.820E-08 1.203E-08 8.748E-09 6.752E-09 5.430E-09 4.499E-09 3.814E-09 3.291E-09 SSW 7.380E-08 4.043E-08 2.649E-08 1.469E-08 9.713E-09 7.062E-09 5.450E-09 4.381E-09 3.629E-09 3.076E-09 2.653E-09 SW 6.680E-08 3.671E-08 2.412E-08 1.342E-08 8.899E-09 6.484E-09 5.013E-09 4.037E-09 3.348E-09 2.841E-09 2.453E-09 WSW 6.274E-08 3.459E-08 2.277E-08 1.272E-08 8.461E-09 6.180E-09 4.788E-09 3.863E-09 3.209E-09 2.727E-09 2.358E-09 W 7.905E-08 4.398E-08 2.916E-08 1.646E-08 1.103E-08 8.108E-09 6.314E-09 5.116E-09 4.267E-09 3.638E-09 3.156E-09 WNW 6.805E-08 3.789E-08 2.514E-08 1.422E-08 9.558E-09 7.041E-09 5.493E-09 4.458E-09 3.723E-09 3.177E-09 2.759E-09 NW 7.188E-08 4.017E-08 2.672E-08 1.515E-08 1.018E-08 7.497E-09 5.847E-09 4.743E-09 3.960E-09 3.379E-09 2.932E-09 NNW 6.257E-08 3.506E-08 2.336E-08 1.327E-08 8.922E-09 6.572E-09 5.126E-09 4.158E-09 3.471E-09 2.961E-09 2.570E-09 N 1.591E-07 8.890E-08 5.911E-08 3.347E-08 2.246E-08 1.652E-08 1.286E-08 1.042E-08 8.691E-09 7.407E-09 6.422E-09 NNE 2.012E-07 1.126E-07 7.492E-08 4.248E-08 2.854E-08 2.100E-08 1.637E-08 1.327E-08 1.108E-08 9.446E-09 8.194E-09 NE 1.658E-07 9.287E-08 6.186E-08 3.512E-08 2.362E-08 1.739E-08 1.357E-08 1.101E-08 9.187E-09 7.837E-09 6.802E-09 ENE 1.065E-07 6.033E-08 4.050E-08 2.325E-08 1.575E-08 1.167E-08 9.148E-09 7.451E-09 6.242E-09 5.342E-09 4.650E-09 E 2.158E-07 1.239E-07 8.400E-08 4.888E-08 3.344E-08 2.496E-08 1.968E-08 1.611E-08 1.356E-08 1.165E-08 1.017E-08 ESE 3.317E-07 1.934E-07 1.325E-07 7.833E-08 5.418E-08 4.079E-08 3.239E-08 2.668E-08 2.257E-08 1.948E-08 1.709E-08 SE 2.264E-07 1.317E-07 9.011E-08 5.318E-08 3.676E-08 2.767E-08 2.198E-08 1.810E-08 1.531E-08 1.322E-08 1.160E-08 SSE 1.061E-07 5.969E-08 3.991E-08 2.281E-08 1.545E-08 1.144E-08 8.972E-09 7.312E-09 6.130E-09 5.250E-09 4.573E-09 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-208 September 2003

Table 2.7-17 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles No Decay, Undepleted Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases

/Q (sec/m3) for each segment Segment Boundaries in Miles from the Site Direction From Site 0.5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 S 1.810E-06 6.025E-07 2.662E-07 1.583E-07 1.080E-07 5.175E-08 1.871E-08 8.825E-09 5.453E-09 3.823E-09 SSW 1.436E-06 4.804E-07 2.130E-07 1.269E-07 8.669E-08 4.165E-08 1.510E-08 7.124E-09 4.400E-09 3.083E-09 SW 1.285E-06 4.313E-07 1.918E-07 1.145E-07 7.841E-08 3.780E-08 1.379E-08 6.540E-09 4.053E-09 2.848E-09 WSW 1.195E-06 4.022E-07 1.794E-07 1.073E-07 7.358E-08 3.559E-08 1.306E-08 6.232E-09 3.878E-09 2.733E-09 W 1.455E-06 4.946E-07 2.228E-07 1.342E-07 9.249E-08 4.519E-08 1.687E-08 8.170E-09 5.135E-09 3.646E-09 WNW 1.265E-06 4.278E-07 1.921E-07 1.156E-07 7.962E-08 3.893E-08 1.458E-08 7.093E-09 4.473E-09 3.184E-09 NW 1.299E-06 4.441E-07 2.010E-07 1.215E-07 8.399E-08 4.124E-08 1.551E-08 7.553E-09 4.760E-09 3.386E-09 NNW 1.117E-06 3.836E-07 1.741E-07 1.055E-07 7.306E-08 3.598E-08 1.358E-08 6.620E-09 4.173E-09 2.967E-09 N 2.872E-06 9.831E-07 4.447E-07 2.689E-07 1.859E-07 9.126E-08 3.428E-08 1.664E-08 1.046E-08 7.422E-09 NNE 3.619E-06 1.241E-06 5.618E-07 3.399E-07 2.351E-07 1.155E-07 4.349E-08 2.116E-08 1.332E-08 9.465E-09 NE 2.952E-06 1.016E-06 4.613E-07 2.796E-07 1.936E-07 9.529E-08 3.595E-08 1.752E-08 1.104E-08 7.854E-09 ENE 1.807E-06 6.318E-07 2.910E-07 1.779E-07 1.240E-07 6.179E-08 2.375E-08 1.175E-08 7.475E-09 5.353E-09 E 3.413E-06 1.223E-06 5.748E-07 3.558E-07 2.503E-07 1.266E-07 4.982E-08 2.511E-08 1.616E-08 1.167E-08 ESE 4.887E-06 1.787E-06 8.596E-07 5.394E-07 3.831E-07 1.971E-07 7.964E-08 4.100E-08 2.675E-08 1.951E-08 SE 3.416E-06 1.234E-06 5.904E-07 3.693E-07 2.617E-07 1.343E-07 5.409E-08 2.782E-08 1.815E-08 1.324E-08 SSE 1.885E-06 6.456E-07 2.941E-07 1.785E-07 1.238E-07 6.122E-08 2.334E-08 1.152E-08 7.336E-09 5.260E-09 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-209 September 2003

Table 2.7-18 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles 2.260-Day Decay, Undepleted Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases Annual Average /Q (sec/m3) Distance in Miles from the Site Sector 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 S 9.882E-06 3.336E-06 1.732E-06 1.094E-06 5.768E-07 3.679E-07 2.603E-07 1.964E-07 1.550E-07 1.263E-07 1.055E-07 SSW 7.724E-06 2.636E-06 1.375E-06 8.704E-07 4.598E-07 2.938E-07 2.081E-07 1.572E-07 1.241E-07 1.013E-07 8.462E-08 SW 6.884E-06 2.355E-06 1.231E-06 7.800E-07 4.128E-07 2.641E-07 1.873E-07 1.417E-07 1.120E-07 9.140E-08 7.644E-08 WSW 6.427E-06 2.189E-06 1.145E-06 7.262E-07 3.849E-07 2.466E-07 1.750E-07 1.325E-07 1.048E-07 8.560E-08 7.164E-08 W 7.884E-06 2.658E-06 1.394E-06 8.880E-07 4.739E-07 3.051E-07 2.174E-07 1.651E-07 1.310E-07 1.073E-07 9.001E-08 WNW 6.834E-06 2.315E-06 1.213E-06 7.700E-07 4.097E-07 2.633E-07 1.875E-07 1.423E-07 1.129E-07 9.244E-08 7.754E-08 NW 6.814E-06 2.361E-06 1.248E-06 7.960E-07 4.258E-07 2.748E-07 1.963E-07 1.494E-07 1.187E-07 9.741E-08 8.183E-08 NNW 5.755E-06 2.023E-06 1.075E-06 6.859E-07 3.675E-07 2.375E-07 1.698E-07 1.294E-07 1.029E-07 8.446E-08 7.099E-08 N 1.467E-05 5.198E-06 2.767E-06 1.762E-06 9.415E-07 6.074E-07 4.338E-07 3.301E-07 2.623E-07 2.151E-07 1.807E-07 NNE 1.866E-05 6.550E-06 3.486E-06 2.222E-06 1.189E-06 7.675E-07 5.484E-07 4.175E-07 3.319E-07 2.723E-07 2.288E-07 NE 1.521E-05 5.339E-06 2.843E-06 1.816E-06 9.740E-07 6.298E-07 4.505E-07 3.432E-07 2.731E-07 2.242E-07 1.885E-07 ENE 9.337E-06 3.247E-06 1.741E-06 1.120E-06 6.065E-07 3.949E-07 2.840E-07 2.173E-07 1.735E-07 1.429E-07 1.205E-07 E 1.772E-05 6.073E-06 3.289E-06 2.140E-06 1.177E-06 7.738E-07 5.608E-07 4.318E-07 3.466E-07 2.868E-07 2.427E-07 ESE 2.681E-05 8.712E-06 4.674E-06 3.083E-06 1.725E-06 1.148E-06 8.388E-07 6.504E-07 5.251E-07 4.365E-07 3.711E-07 SE 1.929E-05 6.149E-06 3.253E-06 2.137E-06 1.191E-06 7.898E-07 5.761E-07 4.460E-07 3.595E-07 2.985E-07 2.535E-07 SSE 1.048E-05 3.450E-06 1.800E-06 1.152E-06 6.194E-07 4.010E-07 2.871E-07 2.189E-07 1.743E-07 1.432E-07 1.204E-07 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-210 September 2003

Table 2.7-18 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles 2.260-Day Decay, Undepleted Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases Annual Average /Q (sec/m3) Distance in Miles from the Site Sector 5.000 7.500 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000 S 8.989E-08 4.859E-08 3.144E-08 1.702E-08 1.100E-08 7.823E-09 5.903E-09 4.641E-09 3.760E-09 3.117E-09 2.630E-09 SSW 7.211E-08 3.904E-08 2.528E-08 1.368E-08 8.832E-09 6.268E-09 4.723E-09 3.707E-09 2.999E-09 2.481E-09 2.091E-09 SW 6.518E-08 3.538E-08 2.295E-08 1.245E-08 8.048E-09 5.717E-09 4.310E-09 3.384E-09 2.737E-09 2.265E-09 1.908E-09 WSW 6.112E-08 3.325E-08 2.160E-08 1.175E-08 7.604E-09 5.407E-09 4.078E-09 3.203E-09 2.591E-09 2.144E-09 1.806E-09 W 7.696E-08 4.223E-08 2.761E-08 1.516E-08 9.882E-09 7.064E-09 5.351E-09 4.219E-09 3.423E-09 2.840E-09 2.398E-09 WNW 6.631E-08 3.644E-08 2.386E-08 1.314E-08 8.600E-09 6.169E-09 4.688E-09 3.706E-09 3.015E-09 2.508E-09 2.122E-09 NW 7.006E-08 3.865E-08 2.537E-08 1.401E-08 9.174E-09 6.583E-09 5.003E-09 3.955E-09 3.218E-09 2.677E-09 2.265E-09 NNW 6.081E-08 3.359E-08 2.206E-08 1.217E-08 7.957E-09 5.697E-09 4.320E-09 3.408E-09 2.766E-09 2.295E-09 1.938E-09 N 1.547E-07 8.524E-08 5.588E-08 3.077E-08 2.008E-08 1.436E-08 1.088E-08 8.579E-09 6.961E-09 5.774E-09 4.873E-09 NNE 1.959E-07 1.081E-07 7.096E-08 3.916E-08 2.561E-08 1.835E-08 1.392E-08 1.099E-08 8.934E-09 7.421E-09 6.272E-09 NE 1.614E-07 8.924E-08 5.865E-08 3.242E-08 2.122E-08 1.522E-08 1.157E-08 9.140E-09 7.433E-09 6.179E-09 5.226E-09 ENE 1.035E-07 5.772E-08 3.818E-08 2.128E-08 1.400E-08 1.007E-08 7.667E-09 6.067E-09 4.938E-09 4.107E-09 3.473E-09 E 2.091E-07 1.182E-07 7.888E-08 4.449E-08 2.950E-08 2.135E-08 1.632E-08 1.296E-08 1.058E-08 8.819E-09 7.474E-09 ESE 3.210E-07 1.841E-07 1.241E-07 7.095E-08 4.750E-08 3.462E-08 2.662E-08 2.124E-08 1.740E-08 1.455E-08 1.237E-08 SE 2.191E-07 1.253E-07 8.436E-08 4.816E-08 3.222E-08 2.348E-08 1.805E-08 1.440E-08 1.180E-08 9.866E-09 8.385E-09 SSE 1.032E-07 5.726E-08 3.774E-08 2.096E-08 1.379E-08 9.931E-09 7.568E-09 5.995E-09 4.886E-09 4.069E-09 3.446E-09 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-211 September 2003

Table 2.7-18 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles 2.260-Day Decay, Undepleted Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases

/Q (sec/m3) for each segment Segment Boundaries in Miles from the Site Direction From Site 0.5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 S 1.805E-06 5.989E-07 2.634E-07 1.559E-07 1.059E-07 5.015E-08 1.755E-08 7.903E-09 4.666E-09 3.127E-09 SSW 1.431E-06 4.773E-07 2.106E-07 1.249E-07 8.492E-08 4.027E-08 1.410E-08 6.334E-09 3.727E-09 2.490E-09 SW 1.280E-06 4.284E-07 1.895E-07 1.126E-07 7.670E-08 3.647E-08 1.283E-08 5.776E-09 3.402E-09 2.272E-09 WSW 1.191E-06 3.993E-07 1.771E-07 1.054E-07 7.188E-08 3.426E-08 1.209E-08 5.461E-09 3.220E-09 2.151E-09 W 1.450E-06 4.909E-07 2.199E-07 1.317E-07 9.029E-08 4.345E-08 1.558E-08 7.130E-09 4.239E-09 2.849E-09 WNW 1.261E-06 4.247E-07 1.897E-07 1.135E-07 7.780E-08 3.748E-08 1.350E-08 6.225E-09 3.723E-09 2.515E-09 NW 1.295E-06 4.409E-07 1.985E-07 1.194E-07 8.209E-08 3.973E-08 1.439E-08 6.642E-09 3.974E-09 2.685E-09 NNW 1.113E-06 3.805E-07 1.717E-07 1.034E-07 7.121E-08 3.451E-08 1.250E-08 5.749E-09 3.424E-09 2.302E-09 N 2.860E-06 9.753E-07 4.386E-07 2.637E-07 1.813E-07 8.762E-08 3.160E-08 1.450E-08 8.621E-09 5.792E-09 NNE 3.605E-06 1.231E-06 5.544E-07 3.336E-07 2.295E-07 1.111E-07 4.020E-08 1.851E-08 1.105E-08 7.444E-09 NE 2.941E-06 1.008E-06 4.554E-07 2.745E-07 1.890E-07 9.169E-08 3.327E-08 1.536E-08 9.183E-09 6.198E-09 ENE 1.800E-06 6.265E-07 2.869E-07 1.744E-07 1.208E-07 5.920E-08 2.180E-08 1.016E-08 6.094E-09 4.118E-09 E 3.397E-06 1.212E-06 5.660E-07 3.482E-07 2.433E-07 1.209E-07 4.547E-08 2.151E-08 1.301E-08 8.842E-09 ESE 4.864E-06 1.770E-06 8.458E-07 5.272E-07 3.719E-07 1.878E-07 7.233E-08 3.485E-08 2.131E-08 1.459E-08 SE 3.401E-06 1.223E-06 5.810E-07 3.610E-07 2.541E-07 1.280E-07 4.912E-08 2.364E-08 1.445E-08 9.890E-09 SSE 1.878E-06 6.407E-07 2.902E-07 1.752E-07 1.208E-07 5.880E-08 2.150E-08 1.002E-08 6.022E-09 4.081E-09 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-212 September 2003

Table 2.7-19 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles 8.000-Day Decay, Depleted Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases Annual Average /Q (sec/m3) Distance in Miles from the Site Sector 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 S 9.360E-06 3.051E-06 1.547E-06 9.606E-07 4.921E-07 3.065E-07 2.124E-07 1.575E-07 1.223E-07 9.819E-08 8.091E-08 SSW 7.316E-06 2.411E-06 1.228E-06 7.643E-07 3.924E-07 2.448E-07 1.699E-07 1.261E-07 9.799E-08 7.876E-08 6.495E-08 SW 6.521E-06 2.154E-06 1.100E-06 6.851E-07 3.524E-07 2.202E-07 1.530E-07 1.137E-07 8.845E-08 7.115E-08 5.872E-08 WSW 6.088E-06 2.002E-06 1.023E-06 6.380E-07 3.287E-07 2.057E-07 1.431E-07 1.064E-07 8.285E-08 6.670E-08 5.508E-08 W 7.468E-06 2.432E-06 1.245E-06 7.802E-07 4.048E-07 2.546E-07 1.778E-07 1.327E-07 1.036E-07 8.364E-08 6.924E-08 WNW 6.474E-06 2.117E-06 1.083E-06 6.764E-07 3.498E-07 2.196E-07 1.533E-07 1.143E-07 8.924E-08 7.202E-08 5.962E-08 NW 6.454E-06 2.160E-06 1.115E-06 6.992E-07 3.636E-07 2.292E-07 1.605E-07 1.200E-07 9.385E-08 7.588E-08 6.290E-08 NNW 5.452E-06 1.851E-06 9.612E-07 6.028E-07 3.140E-07 1.983E-07 1.390E-07 1.040E-07 8.145E-08 6.591E-08 5.468E-08 N 1.390E-05 4.756E-06 2.473E-06 1.548E-06 8.044E-07 5.070E-07 3.549E-07 2.653E-07 2.076E-07 1.678E-07 1.391E-07 NNE 1.767E-05 5.993E-06 3.115E-06 1.952E-06 1.015E-06 6.404E-07 4.485E-07 3.354E-07 2.625E-07 2.123E-07 1.760E-07 NE 1.441E-05 4.884E-06 2.541E-06 1.596E-06 8.319E-07 5.254E-07 3.683E-07 2.757E-07 2.159E-07 1.747E-07 1.450E-07 ENE 8.845E-06 2.971E-06 1.556E-06 9.843E-07 5.183E-07 3.297E-07 2.324E-07 1.748E-07 1.374E-07 1.116E-07 9.283E-08 E 1.679E-05 5.558E-06 2.941E-06 1.882E-06 1.006E-06 6.465E-07 4.594E-07 3.477E-07 2.748E-07 2.241E-07 1.873E-07 ESE 2.540E-05 7.974E-06 4.180E-06 2.711E-06 1.475E-06 9.592E-07 6.875E-07 5.240E-07 4.166E-07 3.415E-07 2.866E-07 SE 1.828E-05 5.628E-06 2.909E-06 1.879E-06 1.018E-06 6.601E-07 4.721E-07 3.592E-07 2.852E-07 2.335E-07 1.958E-07 SSE 9.928E-06 3.156E-06 1.608E-06 1.012E-06 5.291E-07 3.346E-07 2.348E-07 1.759E-07 1.379E-07 1.116E-07 9.268E-08 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-213 September 2003

Table 2.7-19 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles 8.000-Day Decay, Depleted Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases Annual Average /Q (sec/m3) Distance in Miles from the Site Sector 5.000 7.500 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000 S 6.805E-08 3.507E-08 2.180E-08 1.110E-08 6.849E-09 4.687E-09 3.426E-09 2.620E-09 2.071E-09 1.679E-09 1.389E-09 SSW 5.465E-08 2.822E-08 1.756E-08 8.952E-09 5.520E-09 3.776E-09 2.758E-09 2.108E-09 1.665E-09 1.349E-09 1.115E-09 SW 4.945E-08 2.561E-08 1.597E-08 8.170E-09 5.050E-09 3.461E-09 2.531E-09 1.937E-09 1.532E-09 1.242E-09 1.027E-09 WSW 4.642E-08 2.411E-08 1.507E-08 7.733E-09 4.793E-09 3.291E-09 2.411E-09 1.848E-09 1.463E-09 1.188E-09 9.832E-10 W 5.848E-08 3.065E-08 1.929E-08 9.997E-09 6.243E-09 4.312E-09 3.175E-09 2.443E-09 1.941E-09 1.581E-09 1.313E-09 WNW 5.036E-08 2.642E-08 1.664E-08 8.645E-09 5.416E-09 3.751E-09 2.768E-09 2.134E-09 1.698E-09 1.385E-09 1.152E-09 NW 5.319E-08 2.801E-08 1.769E-08 9.211E-09 5.771E-09 3.996E-09 2.949E-09 2.272E-09 1.808E-09 1.475E-09 1.226E-09 NNW 4.627E-08 2.442E-08 1.544E-08 8.051E-09 5.043E-09 3.491E-09 2.574E-09 1.983E-09 1.577E-09 1.285E-09 1.067E-09 N 1.176E-07 6.193E-08 3.908E-08 2.032E-08 1.270E-08 8.781E-09 6.467E-09 4.976E-09 3.953E-09 3.219E-09 2.672E-09 NNE 1.489E-07 7.846E-08 4.956E-08 2.581E-08 1.616E-08 1.118E-08 8.243E-09 6.348E-09 5.048E-09 4.113E-09 3.417E-09 NE 1.227E-07 6.473E-08 4.094E-08 2.135E-08 1.338E-08 9.264E-09 6.834E-09 5.267E-09 4.190E-09 3.416E-09 2.839E-09 ENE 7.876E-08 4.200E-08 2.676E-08 1.410E-08 8.894E-09 6.191E-09 4.586E-09 3.546E-09 2.829E-09 2.312E-09 1.925E-09 E 1.595E-07 8.619E-08 5.543E-08 2.959E-08 1.884E-08 1.320E-08 9.835E-09 7.639E-09 6.119E-09 5.017E-09 4.191E-09 ESE 2.450E-07 1.344E-07 8.739E-08 4.735E-08 3.047E-08 2.153E-08 1.614E-08 1.261E-08 1.015E-08 8.357E-09 7.007E-09 SE 1.672E-07 9.154E-08 5.941E-08 3.214E-08 2.067E-08 1.461E-08 1.095E-08 8.553E-09 6.884E-09 5.669E-09 4.753E-09 SSE 7.849E-08 4.159E-08 2.639E-08 1.385E-08 8.732E-09 6.079E-09 4.505E-09 3.485E-09 2.783E-09 2.276E-09 1.897E-09 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-214 September 2003

Table 2.7-19 Long-Term Average /Q (sec/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles 8.000-Day Decay, Depleted Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases

/Q (sec/m3) for each segment Segment Boundaries in Miles from the Site Direction From Site 0.5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 S 1.620E-06 5.137E-07 2.155E-07 1.231E-07 8.127E-08 3.650E-08 1.159E-08 4.759E-09 2.641E-09 1.688E-09 SSW 1.285E-06 4.095E-07 1.724E-07 9.870E-08 6.523E-08 2.936E-08 9.340E-09 3.834E-09 2.125E-09 1.356E-09 SW 1.150E-06 3.676E-07 1.552E-07 8.907E-08 5.897E-08 2.663E-08 8.518E-09 3.513E-09 1.952E-09 1.248E-09 WSW 1.070E-06 3.428E-07 1.451E-07 8.343E-08 5.531E-08 2.505E-08 8.057E-09 3.340E-09 1.862E-09 1.193E-09 W 1.302E-06 4.214E-07 1.802E-07 1.043E-07 6.952E-08 3.179E-08 1.039E-08 4.372E-09 2.461E-09 1.588E-09 WNW 1.132E-06 3.645E-07 1.554E-07 8.985E-08 5.986E-08 2.739E-08 8.987E-09 3.802E-09 2.149E-09 1.391E-09 NW 1.163E-06 3.784E-07 1.626E-07 9.447E-08 6.315E-08 2.902E-08 9.566E-09 4.050E-09 2.289E-09 1.481E-09 NNW 9.996E-07 3.267E-07 1.408E-07 8.198E-08 5.489E-08 2.528E-08 8.356E-09 3.538E-09 1.997E-09 1.291E-09 N 2.569E-06 8.375E-07 3.596E-07 2.089E-07 1.397E-07 6.416E-08 2.111E-08 8.902E-09 5.012E-09 3.234E-09 NNE 3.238E-06 1.057E-06 4.544E-07 2.642E-07 1.767E-07 8.126E-08 2.680E-08 1.133E-08 6.394E-09 4.132E-09 NE 2.642E-06 8.654E-07 3.732E-07 2.173E-07 1.455E-07 6.703E-08 2.216E-08 9.389E-09 5.304E-09 3.432E-09 ENE 1.616E-06 5.381E-07 2.353E-07 1.382E-07 9.317E-08 4.340E-08 1.460E-08 6.269E-09 3.570E-09 2.322E-09 E 3.052E-06 1.041E-06 4.646E-07 2.763E-07 1.879E-07 8.880E-08 3.055E-08 1.336E-08 7.687E-09 5.037E-09 ESE 4.370E-06 1.521E-06 6.945E-07 4.187E-07 2.874E-07 1.381E-07 4.874E-08 2.176E-08 1.268E-08 8.388E-09 SE 3.055E-06 1.050E-06 4.771E-07 2.866E-07 1.964E-07 9.408E-08 3.311E-08 1.476E-08 8.602E-09 5.690E-09 SSE 1.687E-06 5.500E-07 2.379E-07 1.388E-07 9.304E-08 4.303E-08 1.436E-08 6.157E-09 3.509E-09 2.286E-09 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-215 September 2003

Table 2.7-20 Long-Term Average D/Q (1/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Relative Deposition per Unit Area (M**-2) at Fixed Points By Downwind Sectors ********************

Distances in Miles Direction From Site 0.250 0.500 0.750 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 S 4.819E-08 1.630E-08 8.367E-09 5.138E-09 2.561E-09 1.553E-09 1.050E-09 7.611E-10 5.787E-10 4.559E-10 3.691E-10 SSW 3.194E-08 1.080E-08 5.546E-09 3.405E-09 1.698E-09 1.030E-09 6.961E-10 5.045E-10 3.836E-10 3.022E-10 2.446E-10 SW 2.633E-08 8.902E-09 4.571E-09 2.807E-09 1.399E-09 8.486E-10 5.738E-10 4.158E-10 3.161E-10 2.491E-10 2.016E-10 WSW 2.286E-08 7.732E-09 3.970E-09 2.438E-09 1.215E-09 7.371E-10 4.983E-10 3.611E-10 2.746E-10 2.163E-10 1.751E-10 W 2.691E-08 9.101E-09 4.673E-09 2.869E-09 1.430E-09 8.676E-10 5.866E-10 4.251E-10 3.232E-10 2.546E-10 2.061E-10 WNW 2.495E-08 8.438E-09 4.333E-09 2.660E-09 1.326E-09 8.044E-10 5.439E-10 3.941E-10 2.997E-10 2.361E-10 1.911E-10 NW 2.242E-08 7.583E-09 3.893E-09 2.391E-09 1.192E-09 7.229E-10 4.887E-10 3.542E-10 2.693E-10 2.122E-10 1.718E-10 NNW 1.628E-08 5.504E-09 2.826E-09 1.735E-09 8.652E-10 5.247E-10 3.548E-10 2.571E-10 1.955E-10 1.540E-10 1.247E-10 N 4.309E-08 1.457E-08 7.481E-09 4.594E-09 2.290E-09 1.389E-09 9.391E-10 6.805E-10 5.175E-10 4.077E-10 3.300E-10 NNE 6.257E-08 2.116E-08 1.086E-08 6.671E-09 3.326E-09 2.017E-09 1.364E-09 9.882E-10 7.514E-10 5.920E-10 4.793E-10 NE 5.046E-08 1.706E-08 8.761E-09 5.379E-09 2.682E-09 1.627E-09 1.100E-09 7.969E-10 6.059E-10 4.774E-10 3.865E-10 ENE 2.720E-08 9.199E-09 4.723E-09 2.900E-09 1.446E-09 8.769E-10 5.929E-10 4.296E-10 3.267E-10 2.574E-10 2.084E-10 E 3.824E-08 1.293E-08 6.640E-09 4.077E-09 2.033E-09 1.233E-09 8.335E-10 6.040E-10 4.593E-10 3.618E-10 2.929E-10 ESE 5.097E-08 1.724E-08 8.849E-09 5.434E-09 2.709E-09 1.643E-09 1.111E-09 8.050E-10 6.121E-10 4.822E-10 3.904E-10 SE 4.574E-08 1.547E-08 7.942E-09 4.877E-09 2.431E-09 1.475E-09 9.970E-10 7.225E-10 5.493E-10 4.328E-10 3.504E-10 SSE 4.085E-08 1.381E-08 7.092E-09 4.355E-09 2.171E-09 1.317E-09 8.902E-10 6.451E-10 4.905E-10 3.865E-10 3.129E-10 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-216 September 2003

Table 2.7-20 Long-Term Average D/Q (1/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Relative Deposition per Unit Area (M**-2) at Fixed Points By Downwind Sectors ********************

Annual Average /Q (sec/m3) Distance in Miles Direction From Site 5.000 7.500 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000 S 3.053E-10 1.496E-10 9.388E-11 4.745E-11 2.872E-11 1.926E-11 1.380E-11 1.036E-11 8.056E-12 6.435E-12 5.252E-12 SSW 2.024E-10 9.917E-11 6.222E-11 3.145E-11 1.904E-11 1.276E-11 9.145E-12 6.867E-12 5.339E-12 4.265E-12 3.481E-12 SW 1.668E-10 8.174E-11 5.129E-11 2.592E-11 1.569E-11 1.052E-11 7.538E-12 5.660E-12 4.401E-12 3.515E-12 2.869E-12 WSW 1.449E-10 7.099E-11 4.454E-11 2.251E-11 1.363E-11 9.136E-12 6.547E-12 4.916E-12 3.822E-12 3.053E-12 2.492E-12 W 1.705E-10 8.356E-11 5.243E-11 2.650E-11 1.604E-11 1.075E-11 7.706E-12 5.786E-12 4.499E-12 3.594E-12 2.933E-12 WNW 1.581E-10 7.748E-11 4.861E-11 2.457E-11 1.487E-11 9.971E-12 7.145E-12 5.365E-12 4.171E-12 3.332E-12 2.720E-12 NW 1.421E-10 6.962E-11 4.369E-11 2.208E-11 1.336E-11 8.961E-12 6.421E-12 4.821E-12 3.749E-12 2.994E-12 2.444E-12 NNW 1.031E-10 5.054E-11 3.171E-11 1.603E-11 9.701E-12 6.504E-12 4.661E-12 3.500E-12 2.721E-12 2.174E-12 1.774E-12 N 2.730E-10 1.338E-10 8.394E-11 4.243E-11 2.568E-11 1.722E-11 1.234E-11 9.264E-12 7.203E-12 5.754E-12 4.697E-12 NNE 3.964E-10 1.943E-10 1.219E-10 6.161E-11 3.729E-11 2.500E-11 1.792E-11 1.345E-11 1.046E-11 8.355E-12 6.820E-12 NE 3.197E-10 1.567E-10 9.830E-11 4.968E-11 3.007E-11 2.016E-11 1.445E-11 1.085E-11 8.435E-12 6.738E-12 5.500E-12 ENE 1.724E-10 8.446E-11 5.300E-11 2.679E-11 1.621E-11 1.087E-11 7.789E-12 5.849E-12 4.548E-12 3.633E-12 2.965E-12 E 2.423E-10 1.187E-10 7.451E-11 3.766E-11 2.279E-11 1.528E-11 1.095E-11 8.223E-12 6.393E-12 5.107E-12 4.168E-12 ESE 3.229E-10 1.583E-10 9.929E-11 5.019E-11 3.038E-11 2.037E-11 1.459E-11 1.096E-11 8.520E-12 6.806E-12 5.555E-12 SE 2.898E-10 1.420E-10 8.912E-11 4.504E-11 2.726E-11 1.828E-11 1.310E-11 9.835E-12 7.647E-12 6.108E-12 4.986E-12 SSE 2.588E-10 1.268E-10 7.957E-11 4.022E-11 2.434E-11 1.632E-11 1.170E-11 8.782E-12 6.828E-12 5.454E-12 4.452E-12 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-217 September 2003

Table 2.7-20 Long-Term Average D/Q (1/m3) for Routine Releases at Distances Between 0.25 to 50 Miles Ground Level Release - No Purge Releases

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Relative Deposition per Unit Area (M**-2) at Fixed Points By Downwind Sectors ********************

/Q (sec/m3) for each segment Segment Boundaries in Miles Direction From Site 0.5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 S 8.694E-09 2.686E-09 1.069E-09 5.841E-10 3.712E-10 1.594E-10 4.944E-11 1.960E-11 1.046E-11 6.477E-12 SSW 5.762E-09 1.780E-09 7.084E-10 3.871E-10 2.460E-10 1.057E-10 3.277E-11 1.299E-11 6.936E-12 4.293E-12 SW 4.749E-09 1.467E-09 5.839E-10 3.191E-10 2.028E-10 8.710E-11 2.701E-11 1.071E-11 5.717E-12 3.538E-12 WSW 4.125E-09 1.274E-09 5.071E-10 2.771E-10 1.761E-10 7.565E-11 2.346E-11 9.298E-12 4.965E-12 3.073E-12 W 4.855E-09 1.500E-09 5.969E-10 3.262E-10 2.073E-10 8.905E-11 2.761E-11 1.094E-11 5.844E-12 3.617E-12 WNW 4.502E-09 1.391E-09 5.534E-10 3.024E-10 1.922E-10 8.256E-11 2.560E-11 1.015E-11 5.419E-12 3.354E-12 NW 4.045E-09 1.250E-09 4.973E-10 2.718E-10 1.727E-10 7.420E-11 2.301E-11 9.119E-12 4.870E-12 3.014E-12 NNW 2.937E-09 9.072E-10 3.610E-10 1.973E-10 1.254E-10 5.386E-11 1.670E-11 6.619E-12 3.535E-12 2.188E-12 N 7.773E-09 2.402E-09 9.557E-10 5.222E-10 3.319E-10 1.426E-10 4.421E-11 1.752E-11 9.357E-12 5.792E-12 NNE 1.129E-08 3.487E-09 1.388E-09 7.583E-10 4.820E-10 2.070E-10 6.420E-11 2.544E-11 1.359E-11 8.410E-12 NE 9.103E-09 2.812E-09 1.119E-09 6.115E-10 3.887E-10 1.669E-10 5.177E-11 2.052E-11 1.096E-11 6.782E-12 ENE 4.908E-09 1.516E-09 6.033E-10 3.297E-10 2.095E-10 9.001E-11 2.791E-11 1.106E-11 5.907E-12 3.656E-12 E 6.899E-09 2.132E-09 8.482E-10 4.635E-10 2.946E-10 1.265E-10 3.924E-11 1.555E-11 8.305E-12 5.140E-12 ESE 9.195E-09 2.841E-09 1.130E-09 6.177E-10 3.926E-10 1.686E-10 5.230E-11 2.073E-11 1.107E-11 6.851E-12 SE 8.252E-09 2.550E-09 1.015E-09 5.544E-10 3.524E-10 1.514E-10 4.693E-11 1.860E-11 9.934E-12 6.149E-12 SSE 7.369E-09 2.277E-09 9.059E-10 4.950E-10 3.146E-10 1.351E-10 4.191E-11 1.661E-11 8.870E-12 5.490E-12 North Anna Revision 0 Early Site Permit Application 3-2-218 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Figure 2.7-1 Location of Meteorological Tower 3-2-219 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

9 Current Tower Base

@261 MSL 8 1 2

4 3

7 5

6 1 Basketball Backboard 095° 100' 2 30 x 50 Pavilion 122° 222' 3 20 x 30 Pavilion 160° 294' 4 Softball Backstop 200° 203' 5 Nearest Contiguous Tree Line >500' 6 Training Center 205° 740' 7 Unit 1 Containment 250° 1750' 8 Original Tower 272° 1020' 9 Back-up Tower - -

Figure 2.7-2 Location of Meteorological Tower Relative to Local Ground Features 3-2-220 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

8.29%

NNW NNE 7.77% 5.93%

NW NE 11.10% 4.78%

WNW ENE 7.57%

3.95%

W E 4.51% 5.06%

WSW ESE 3.64% 5.30%

SW SE 5.93% 5.61%

SSW SSE 8.32% 4.56%

S 7.36%

Figure 2.7-3 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Spring 3-2-221 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

8.72%

NNW NNE 7.53% 6.98%

NW NE 8.53% 5.50%

WNW ENE 6.07%

4.14%

W E 5.28% 4.15%

WSW ESE 4.29% 4.91%

SW SE 7.33% 5.26%

SSW SSE 10.06% 4.20%

S 6.70%

Figure 2.7-4 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Spring 3-2-222 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

7.55%

NNW NNE 6.03% 5.38%

NW NE 5.88% 4.38%

WNW ENE 7.25%

3.77%

W E 4.38% 4.68%

WSW ESE 4.26% 4.91%

SW SE 8.32% 4.78%

SSW SSE 12.72% 5.17%

S 10.39%

Figure 2.7-5 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Summer 3-2-223 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

7.52%

NNW NNE 6.79% 5.46%

NW NE 6.65% 4.07%

WNW ENE 4.91%

3.44%

W 4.54%

E 4.10%

WSW ESE 5.25% 4.82%

SW SE 9.49% 4.92%

SSW SSE 14.16% 4.57%

S 9.09%

Figure 2.7-6 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Summer 3-2-224 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

10.94%

NNW NNE 7.11% 6.92%

NW NE 6.84% 5.00%

WNW ENE 8.73%

3.89%

W E 5.30% 3.87%

WSW ESE 4.11% 3.87%

SW SE 6.65% 3.41%

SSW SSE 10.09% 4.12%

S 8.40%

Figure 2.7-7 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Fall 3-2-225 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

10.46%

NNW NNE 7.90% 7.53%

NW NE 6.66% 5.68%

WNW ENE 5.03%

4.15%

W E 4.57% 3.69%

WSW ESE 4.42% 3.94%

SW SE 7.78% 3.52%

SSE SSW 3.63%

11.55% S 7.41%

Figure 2.7-8 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Fall 3-2-226 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

9.48%

NNW NNE 7.74% 7.10%

NW NE 10.41% 4.26%

WNW ENE 8.44%

3.02%

W E 5.35% 3.50%

WSW ESE 5.15% 3.38%

SW SE 8.24% 3.43%

SSE SSW 3.56%

9.24%

S 7.10%

Figure 2.7-9 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Winter 3-2-227 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

10.64%

NNW NNE 8.31% 8.05%

NW NE 7.01% 5.00%

WNW ENE 6.87%

3.32%

W E 5.35% 3.16%

WSW ESE 5.15% 3.32%

SW SE 8.24% 3.43%

SSE SSW 3.56%

9.24%

S 7.10%

Figure 2.7-10 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Winter 3-2-228 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

9.07%

NNW NNE 7.17% 6.33%

NW NE 8.58% 4.61%

WNW ENE 8.00%

3.67%

W E 4.88% 4.29%

WSW ESE 4.27% 4.38%

SW SE 7.24% 4.32%

SSE SSW 4.36%

10.06%

S 8.30%

Figure 2.7-11 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Overall 3-2-229 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

9.32%

NNW NNE 7.63% 7.00%

NW NE 7.22% 5.07%

WNW ENE 5.70%

3.78%

W E 5.06% 3.78%

WSW ESE 4.81% 4.26%

SW SE 8.33% 4.30%

SSW SSE 11.57% 3.89%

S 7.43%

Figure 2.7-12 North Anna Seasonal Wind Direction Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Overall 3-2-230 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

26 NNW NNE 11 12 NW NE 25 14 WNW ENE 17 8

W E 14 15 WSW ESE 16 11 SW SE 14 15 SSW SSE 17 20 S

21 Figure 2.7-13 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Spring 3-2-231 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

28 NNW NNE 12 14 NW NE 19 11 WNW ENE 17 9

W E 11 11 WSW ESE 10 10 SW SE 19 11 SSW SSE 20 9 S

23 Figure 2.7-14 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Spring 3-2-232 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

16 NNW NNE 10 11 NW NE 9 9 WNW ENE 11 8

W E 8 7 WSW ESE 7 7 SW SE 16 12 SSW SSE 17 9 S

12 Figure 2.7-15 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Summer 3-2-233 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

14 NNW NNE 15 13 NW NE 13 11 WNW ENE 13 7

W E 8 7 WSW ESE 8 9 SW SE 169 10 SSW SSE 17 8 S

17 Figure 2.7-16 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Summer 3-2-234 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

23 NNW NNE 24 11 NW NE 9 18 WNW ENE 13 15 W E 9 10 WSW ESE 14 9 SW SE 18 10 SSW SSE 16 11 S

15 Figure 2.7-17 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Fall 3-2-235 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

30 NNW NNE 30 12 NW NE 11 16 WNW ENE 10 11 W E 12 10 WSW ESE 13 19 SW SE 17 13 SSW SSE 29 13 S

15 Figure 2.7-18 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Fall 3-2-236 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

25 NNW NNE 22 18 NW NE 14 13 WNW ENE 19 6

W E 15 10 WSW ESE 10 7 SW SE 18 15 SSW SSE 15 10 S

16 Figure 2.7-19 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Winter 3-2-237 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

25 NNW NNE 22 14 NW NE 14 12 WNW ENE 33 6 W E 17 9 WSW ESE 13 9 SW SE 18 10 SSW 30 SSE S 9 18 Figure 2.7-20 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Winter 3-2-238 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

26 NNW NNE 24 18 NW NE 25 18 WNW ENE 19 15 W E 15 15 WSW ESE 16 11 SW SE 18 15 SSW SSE 17 S 20 21 Figure 2.7-21 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: Low-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Overall 3-2-239 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report N

30 NNW NNE 30 14 NW NE 19 18 WNW ENE 33 11 W E 17 11 WSW ESE 13 19 SW SE 19 13 SSW SSE 30 S 13 23 Figure 2.7-22 North Anna Seasonal Wind Persistence Roses: High-Level Winds:

1974-1987: Season = Overall 3-2-240 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report Figure 2.7-23 Topographic Map Source: Reference 2 3-2-241 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 400 CL N

Elevation (feet) 300 W E S

CL 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-07-12, Long. 77°-04-20) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-04-20, Long. 77°-43-57) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-03-02, Long. 77°-42-51) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-03-03, Long. 77°-42-30)

Figure 2.7-24 Vertical Profiles (Sheet 1 of 4)

Source: Reference 2 3-2-242 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report CL 400 N W E Elevation (feet) 300 S

CL 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi 3

Distance (feet x 10 )

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-01-37, Long. 77°-42-51) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-00-40, Long. 77°-43-57) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-00-00, Long. 77°-45-30) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 37°-59-59, Long. 77°-47-28)

Figure 2.7-24 Vertical Profiles (Sheet 2 of 4)

Source: Reference 2 3-2-243 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report CL N

400 W E Elevation (feet) 300 S

CL 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-00-00, Long. 77°-49-28) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-00-00, Long. 77°-30-39) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-01-37, Long. 77°-32-03) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-03-30, Long. 77°-52-28)

Figure 2.7-24 Vertical Profiles (Sheet 3 of 4)

Source: Reference 2 3-2-244 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 400 CL N

Elevation (feet) 300 W E S

CL 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-05-02, Long. 77°-52-05) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-06-20, Long. 77°-50-59) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-07-12, Long. 77°-47-23) 400 Elevation (feet) 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 mi 2 mi 3 mi 4 mi 5 mi Distance (feet x 103)

From Reactor 3 to Reference Point (Lat. 38°-07-30, Long. 77°-47-23)

Figure 2.7-24 Vertical Profiles (Sheet 4 of 4)

Source: Reference 2 3-2-245 Revision 0 September 2003

North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3 - Environmental Report 2.8 Related Federal Project Activities The purpose of this section is to identify any federal activities related to this ESP application and to highlight the possible need for federal agencies to participate in the preparation of the environmental impact statement as cooperating agencies.

In summary, there are no known federal activities or projects associated with early site permitting at the ESP site.

Specifically:

• No known federal projects (e.g., water supply pipelines) are planned that would provide additional cooling water for the new units.

• No known federal actions are planned regarding the acquisition and/or use of the ESP site.

• No known federal projects are planned that must be completed as a condition of construction or operation of the new units.

• No known federal projects are contingent on construction or operation of the new units at the ESP site.

Section 2.8 References None 3-2-246 Revision 0 September 2003