ML26033A412
| ML26033A412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/2026 |
| From: | NRC/NMSS/DREFS/EPMB1 |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML26033A412 (0) | |
Text
1 Subsequent License Renewal for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Historic and Cultural Resources Affected Environment NEPA (TN661) requires Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their actions on the affected human environment, which includes aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources as these terms are commonly understood, including such resources as sacred sites. Section 106 of the NHPA (TN4839) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. While the NHPA emphasizes impacts on historic properties, for NEPA compliance, impacts on cultural resources that are not eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would also need to be considered. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c) (TN513), the NRC complies with NHPA Section 106 through its NEPA process.
Historic and cultural resources are the remains of past human activities and include precontact (i.e., prehistoric) and historic era archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, and objects. Historic properties are defined as resources listed on or eligible for listing in the NRHP.
The NRHP is the Nations official list of recognized buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts of national, State, or local historical significance that merit preservation. The criteria for eligibility are listed in 36 CFR 60.4 (TN1682) and include (a) association with significant events in history; (b) association with the lives of persons significant in the past; (c) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, period, or construction; and (d) sites or places that have yielded, or are likely to yield, important information.
In the context of NEPA, the proposed action (i.e., undertaking) is HNP SLR, which would authorize an additional 20 years of operations. The direct area of potential effects (APE) consists of lands within the approximately 2,244 ac (908 ha) HNP site, including the transmission lines up to the first substation, that may be directly or indirectly affected by land-disturbing or other operational activities associated with continued operations and maintenance and/or refurbishment activities. The indirect APE is a 6 mi (10 km) radius based off the HNP center point, located equidistant between HNP, Units 1 and 2. These APEs are consistent with those identified in the applicants ER (SNC 2025-TN12548).
This section describes the cultural background and the historic and cultural resources found at the HNP site and surrounding area. The chronology of the area is divided into the following periods: Paleoindian (prior to 8000 B.C.), Archaic (8000-1000 B.C.), Woodland (1000 B.C.-A.D.
1000), Mississippian (A.D. 1000-1600), Post-Contact (A.D. 1540-1732), Colonial Georgia and Early Statehood (A.D. 1732-1838), and Post-Cession Historic (A.D. 1838-present). The applicable cultural history background information described in the applicants ER, Section 3.8.2.7 in Appendix E (SNC 2025-TN12548), remains accurate and is incorporated herein by reference.
The HNP initial license renewal EIS, Section 2.2.9 (NRC 2001-TN12684) and the applicants ER (SNC 2025-TN12548) describe historic and cultural resources at the HNP site and surrounding area, based on historic and archaeological site file searches and field investigations. In addition
2 to its independent review, the NRC staff used this information to support its NHPA Section 106 and NEPA obligations and that information is incorporated herein by reference.
For the HNP initial license renewal EIS (NRC 2001-TN12684), a literature review was conducted through the Georgia Historic Preservation Division, University of Georgia State Archaeological Site Files, the National Park Services National Register Information System, and National Archaeological Database. In addition, sources at the University of Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, the Map Library at the University of Georgia Science Library, the Vidalia Public Library, and Appling County Heritage Center were examined for applicable maps and literature. For the ER (SNC 2025-TN12548), a literature review was conducted through Georgias Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources Geographic Information System (GNAHRGIS). These reviews identified no previously recorded archaeological sites or historic structures or architectural resources within the HNP site.
The NRiC staff conducted a confirmatory literature review through GNAHRGIS and the Georgia Department of Transportation cemeteries list to verify the information provided in the ER (SNC 2025-TN12548). This review covered the 2,244 ac (908 ha) HNP site and the 6 mi (10 km) indirect APE.
Thirty-seven previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the 6 mi (10 km) radius, which include 2 NRHP-eligible sites, 8 NRHP-ineligible sites, and 27 sites of undetermined eligibility; no historic structures or architectural resources were identified within the review radius. Sixty-six cemeteries are located within the review radius, one of which occurs on the HNP site: Bell Cemetery. Furthermore, monitoring has been conducted for projects near the cemetery, and no findings related to the cemetery have been identified outside of the cemetery fence line (SNC 2025-TN12618). The Bell Cemetery is located south of the fenced area containing HNP, Units 1 and 2, adjacent to a former recreation area. Calvary Cemetery, although located adjacent to, is outside the western boundary of the HNP site.
Thirteen cultural resources surveys have been previously conducted within the 6 mi (10 km) radius of the HNP center point, 4 of which were conducted on the HNP site. Of those four cultural resources surveys, only one (SNC 2025-TN12548 [conducted for the burial of a fiber optic line at HNP]) recommended one site within the HNP site as NRHP-eligible: two segments of a Baxley Back and Forth railroad spur. These segments were subsequently recommended as ineligible by Brockingtons 2024 survey (see below). The other three previous surveys within the HNP site were conducted for the proposed widening of Highway 1 (Gresham 1996-TN12710), a proposed fiber optic line from Charlton County to Fulton County (Thomas et al. 2000-TN12712),
and a proposed satellite dish and access road (Peltier and Capici 2021-TN12713).
During the week of March 24, 2024, Brockington (SNC 2026-TN12749) performed a field investigation conducted as part of the SLR process to identify and evaluate structures associated with HNP, Units 1 and 2 that could be NRHP-eligible. Of the 2,244 ac (908 ha) total HNP site, the architectural investigation evaluated a 1,169 ac (473 ha) parcel south of the Altamaha River and east of Highway 1 where the plant and associated structures are located.
Fifty-eight properties were identified that were constructed between 1968 and 1979 (two additional properties, the Bell Cemetery and the Cork and Hook Building, pre-date HNP), 52 of which are within the fenced area of HNP (Table 3-5). In addition, there are 117 buildings that were constructed after 1979. All properties were evaluated for their individual NRHP-eligibility and for those within the fenced area, their NRHP-eligibility as part of a potential district was also evaluated. Brockington recommended that no buildings or structures were NRHP-eligible, either individually or as contributors to a potential district. The Bell Cemetery has an undetermined
3 NRHP-eligibility and will continue to be completely avoided during the SLR term. The applicant submitted the architectural inventory report to the Georgia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in July 2024. By letter dated December 17, 2025, the Georgia SHPO (GDCA 2025-TN12702) concurred that the evaluated buildings or structures were neither individually NRHP-eligible nor eligible as contributors to a potential district, and that the NRHP-eligibility of the Bell Cemetery is currently unknown.
Table 3-1 Architectural Resources Surveyed in the Area of Potential Effects Built Prior to 1980 Building Index No.
Building/Structure Name Location Year Built Individually NRHP Eligible District Contributing 11 Turbine Building Cooling Tower A Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 15 Switchyard Support Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973-1974 No No 19 Intake Structure Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 20 Diesel Generator Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 21 Off-Gas Recombiner Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 22 Service Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973 No No 24 Unit 1 Turbine Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973 No No 26 Unit 1 Radwaste Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 29 Unit 1 Reactor Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973 No No 30 Unit 2 Reactor Building Inside Fenced HNP 1974 No No
4 Building Index No.
Building/Structure Name Location Year Built Individually NRHP Eligible District Contributing Complex 31 Unit 2 HPCI Pump Room Inside Fenced HNP Complex ca 1975 No No 34-A Water Treatment Plant Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1971 No No 34-B Water Treatment Plant Tank Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 34-C Water Treatment Plant Tank Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 35 Fire Pump House Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1971 No No 37 Retrofit (outage) Support Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974, large ca 1980 addition No No 45 Unit 1 Circulation Water Pump Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973 No No 46 Waste Gas Treatment Center Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 47 Unit 2 Circulation Water Pump Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 48 Hot Machine Shop Inside Fenced HNP Complex ca 1975 No No 49-A Cooling Tower Support Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 49-B Cooling Tower Support Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No
5 Building Index No.
Building/Structure Name Location Year Built Individually NRHP Eligible District Contributing 49-C Cooling Tower Support Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 49-D Cooling Tower Support Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 49-E Cooling Tower Support Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 49-F Cooling Tower Support Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 50 Discharge Structure Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 51 Reactor Unloading Dock Inside Fenced HNP Complex ca 1972 No-Demolished No-Demolished 52 Auxiliary Boilers Inside Fenced HNP Complex ca 1973 No No 54 Off-Gas Stack Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973 No No 56-A Fire Protection Tank Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 56-B Fire Protection Tank Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 57-A Condensate Storage Tank Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 57-B Condensate Storage Tank Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No
6 Building Index No.
Building/Structure Name Location Year Built Individually NRHP Eligible District Contributing 58-A Unit 1 Cooling Tower Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972-1973 Upgraded ca 2005 No No 58-B Unit 1 Cooling Tower Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972-1973 Upgraded ca 2005 No No 58-C Unit 1 Cooling Tower Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972-1973 Upgraded ca 2005 No No 59-A Unit 2 Cooling Tower Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 Upgraded ca 2023 No No 59-B Unit 2 Cooling Tower Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 Upgraded ca 2022 No No 59-C Unit 2 Cooling Tower Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 Upgraded ca 2020 No No 60 NOAA Weather Control House Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No-Demolished No-Demolished 70 Unit 2 Turbine Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 71 Unit 1 Control Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973 No No 72 Unit 2 Control Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No No 78 Central Alarm System Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex ca 1974 No No 98 Unit 1 Liquid Nitrogen Storage Inside Fenced HNP Complex ca 1975 No No 99 Unit 2 Liquid Nitrogen Storage Inside ca 1975 No No
7 Building Index No.
Building/Structure Name Location Year Built Individually NRHP Eligible District Contributing Fenced HNP Complex 114 Chlorine Building Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973 No No 115 Sanitary Water Tank Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No 116 Boiler Inside Fenced HNP Complex ca 1973 No No 118 Neutralization Tank Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1972 No No N/A 500 kV Switchyard Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973-1974 No No N/A 230 kV Switchyard Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1973-1974 No No N/A Cooling Tower Channels Inside Fenced HNP Complex 1971-1974 No No 5
Warehouse No. 3 Outside Fenced HNP Complex 1971 No N/A 6
Warehouse No. 2 Outside Fenced HNP Complex 1971 No N/A 7
Warehouse No. 1 Outside Fenced HNP Complex 1970 No N/A 41 Backup Meteorological Tower Outside Fenced HNP Complex 1974 No N/A Baxley B&F Railroad Three Remaining Railroad Spurs Outside Fenced 1969 No No
8 Building Index No.
Building/Structure Name Location Year Built Individually NRHP Eligible District Contributing (Spurs)
HNP Complex SFR-1 Restrooms and Storage Outside Fenced HNP Complex ca 1970 No N/A 79 Cork and Hook Building (now Staff Development Building)
Outside Fenced HNP Complex ca 1940 No N/A N/A Bell Family Cemetery Outside Fenced HNP Complex Mid-Nineteenth to Early Twentieth Century Unknown Under Criterion D N/A B&F = Baxley Back and Forth Railroad; ca = circa; HNP = Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant; HPCI = High Pressure Coolant Injection; N/A = not available; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places.
The NRC staff reviewed the applicants policies and procedures as part of the confirmatory review. Procedures addressing historic and cultural resources at HNP include annual cultural resources sensitivity training for timber harvesting staff and maintenance and construction staff, as appropriate. If any ground disturbance is planned at HNP, applicable procedures are followed to review the proposed activity on a project-by-project basis, and Environmental Affairs for GPC is contacted, if appropriate. Furthermore, HNP operates under the Georgia Power Company Unanticipated Discoveries Policy, which addresses unanticipated discoveries of archaeological sites and unanticipated discoveries of human remains. If there is a discovery situation involving human remains, appropriate parties, including federally recognized Indian Tribes, will be notified in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. GPC employs a professional archaeologist that has stop work authority and is responsible for contacting Indian Tribes, as appropriate (SNC 2025-TN12618).
By letters dated July 22, 2025, the NRC initiated NHPA Section 106 consultation by sending letters to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Georgia SHPO (NRC 2025-TN12715), 9 federally recognized Indian Tribes (NRC 2025-TN12716), and one State-recognized Indian Tribe (NRC 2025-TN12717). In these letters, the NRC provided information about the proposed action, defined the APE, and indicated that the NRC would use the process specified in 36 CFR 800.8(c) (TN513) to satisfy NHPA Section 106 requirements. The historic and cultural resource sections of this EA will be made available to the aforementioned parties for review and comment. Responses were received from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Georgia SHPO (see Appendix B).
Environmental Consequences: Historic and Cultural Resources Section 3.7 of the LR GEIS (NRC 2024-TN10161) provides background information for this Category 2 issue, which is incorporated herein by reference. No new construction or modifications are anticipated during the SLR term. Any facility operations and maintenance activities necessary to support continued operation would be limited to previously disturbed areas and would be expected to be similar to current operations. Additionally, SNCs
9 environmental protocols and procedures would be followed to identify and protect historic and cultural resources (SNC 2025-TN12618). Since no sites, buildings, or structures have been recommended NRHP-eligible at HNP, activities associated with operations and maintenance during the SLR term would have no impact on historic and cultural resources. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will result in No Historic Properties Affected as defined in 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1) (TN513). Additionally, under NEPA, the impacts to historic and cultural resources during the SLR term would be SMALL and not significant.