1
Infrastructure and community services include transportation, recreation, housing, public 2
services, and education, as described in the following sections. 3
4.4.4.1 Traffic 4
This section deals with the infrastructure impacts of the traffic generated by building activities. 5
Air-quality impacts of transportation are addressed in Section 4.4.1 and the human health 6
impacts are addressed in Section 4.8.3. 7
Impacts of the proposed project on transportation and traffic would be most obvious on the rural 8
roads of Cherokee County, specifically McKowns Mountain Road, a two-lane county road that 9
provides the only access to the Lee Nuclear Station site. Building-related impacts on traffic are 10
determined by six elements: 11
1. Number and timing of non-Lee Nuclear Station site traffic 12
2. number and timing of project worker vehicles on the roads per shift 13
3. number of shift changes for the workforce per day 14
4. number and timing of truck deliveries to the site per day 15
5. projected population growth rate in Cherokee County 16
6. capacity and usage of the roads. 17
Duke’s analysis assumed a single 10- to 12-hour shift, with the possibility of night testing or the 18
addition of another shift. Also, an estimated 100 truck deliveries would be made daily to the site 19
(Duke 2009c). Both the workforce and truck deliveries would access the Lee Nuclear Station 20
site via McKowns Mountain Road. 21
The SCDOT estimates the capacity on a two-lane highway at 1700 vehicles per hour for each 22
direction and 3200 vehicles per hour for both directions. The 2006 Average Annual Daily Traffic 23
(AADT) report indicates approximately 950 vehicles a day travel McKowns Mountain Road 24
between SC 105 and the end of the road near the Broad River (Duke 2009c). With only one 25
shift for 4510 Lee Nuclear Station site workers and a 103 Make-up Pond C site workers 26
assuming one worker per vehicle during peak building activities, traffic on McKowns Mountain 27
Road would be more than 2.5 times the AADT maximum twice daily. 28
McKowns Mountain Road is a two lane road that provides the only access to the Lee Nuclear 29
Station site. Approximately 74 residences exist along McKowns Mountain Road and it provides 30
egress to SC 105 and SC 329 for approximately 250 residences, 3 churches, 1 business, and 31
1 fire station (Duke 2008l). 32
Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site Duke had a traffic study commissioned in 2007 to study the impacts of building proposed Lee 1
Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. The study analyzed the following intersections: 2
• Shelby Highway and Interstate 85 (I-85) northbound and southbound ramps 3
• SC 329 and Shelby Highway 4
• SC 329 and US-29 5
• SC 329 and McKowns Mountain Road. 6
The traffic study was based on earlier assumptions of workforce size (3200 workers) than what 7
is now expected during the peak period, with the workforce split into two shifts, 70 percent on 8
the dayshift and 30 percent on the nightshift. The study concluded that with a single dayshift or 9
with staggered dayshifts without mitigation, major intersections near the Lee Nuclear Station site 10
would operate at a level of service (LOS) F which would fail to meet the South Carolina 11
Department of Transportation minimum acceptable LOS of D or above (Duke 2008l). Based on 12
several strategies, including traffic analyses peak hourly traffic, and costs, Duke Energy 13
identified several strategies for managing traffic near the Lee Nuclear Station site. Potential 14
mitigation measures include staggering day shifts, a park-and-ride shuttle service, and a 15
combination of staggered shifts and shuttle service (Duke 2008c). 16
Based on information provided by Duke and the review team’s own independent review, 17
including visits to the site and affected communities, the review team concludes that during 18
peak site employment, traffic from Lee Nuclear Station site activities would have locally 19
noticeable impacts in the immediate vicinity of the site and for residents on McKowns Mountain 20
Road and minimal impacts on other roadways in the region. These impacts would be largely 21
temporary and of short duration, based on the size of the workforce during any one period, and 22
would have lesser impacts before and after peak employment. As mentioned in the previous 23
paragraph, Duke has identified several planned mitigation measures to minimize the building- 24
related impacts on traffic. Therefore, the review team concludes that traffic impacts in the 25
vicinity of the Lee Nuclear Station site would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. The rest of the 26
region would experience little to no traffic-related impacts. 27
Norfolk Southern Railroad Company owns and operates the primary freight rail that passes 28
5.5 mi from the Lee Nuclear Station site on its route from Atlanta, Georgia, to Charlotte, North 29
Carolina. This line averages 22 trains per day. An abandoned railroad spur connects the main 30
line to the Lee Nuclear Station site. Duke plans to reactivate this spur before building and 31
operations begin. Reactivating this spur would require upgrading ballast and track mostly within 32
the existing corridor (Section 2.2.3.2) The Lee Nuclear Station site cannot be accessed by 33
barge because of downstream dams (Duke 2009c). Building activities would not affect 34
commercial rail traffic and given reactivating the railroad spur will occur mainly in the existing 35
corridor, the review team expects that the impacts from rail and waterway activities related to 36
the Lee Nuclear Station site would be minimal. 37
Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site
Draft NUREG-2111 4-78 December 2011
4.4.4.2 Recreation 1
Impacts on recreation may result from increased demand/use of existing and planned resources 2
and from aesthetic/visual and noise impacts, which were discussed earlier in Section 4.4.1. The 3
increase in demand on existing or planned resources would result from usage by in-migrating 4
workers and their families in the region. As discussed in Section 2.5.2.4, a variety of recreation 5
areas exist in the region, including national, state, and local parks and public and private 6
facilities that support outdoor activities (e.g., recreational boating and fishing on the Broad River 7
and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir, camping, and hunting). The review team expects that 8
recreationists would not be precluded from hunting, fishing, or other outdoor recreation activities 9
in the vicinity of the site as a result of building proposed Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. 10
The site is bounded by woods and water features. Therefore, recreationalists using the Broad 11
River and Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir directly adjacent to the Lee Nuclear Station site would 12
have visual access to building activities. Those farther away on the Broad River and those 13
using other recreational areas, such as local parks in Gaffney, South Carolina, and Kings 14
Mountain State Park, may be able to view the meteorological tower and cranes. Recreational 15
activities on the Broad River, primarily along the northern property line, may be affected by site 16
development noise. Those seeking access to the Broad River or Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir 17
via McKowns Mountain Road may be affected by the project workforce traffic to the site. In the 18
context of recreational experience, aesthetic, and noise impacts of building activities would be 19
localized near the site and isolated from most recreation areas except for the Broad River and 20
Ninety-Nine Islands Reservoir. Therefore, the review team anticipates that the impacts on local 21
recreation from building activities would be minimal. 22
There are no current recreational activities occurring within the Make-Up Pond C area (Duke 23
2010r). Once the pond is inundated, it would become private and no recreational activities 24
would be allowed (Duke 2009b). The review team expects the building and inundation of Make- 25
Up Pond C would have a minimal impact on recreation. 26
4.4.4.3 Housing 27
Regional housing characteristics and availability are described in Section 2.5.2.5 and 28
Table 2-23. The assumptions behind the review team’s estimated in-migration of workers were 29
established in Section 4.4.2. If the entire workforce required to build proposed Lee Nuclear 30
Station Units 1 and 2 were to originate from within a reasonable commuting distance of the site, 31
there would be no impact on housing demand. However, the review team expects that 32
approximately 3151 construction workers (70 percent of the total anticipated workers) plus 40 33
operations workers (36 percent of the 112 operations workers expected at during peak project 34
activities) would in-migrate into Cherokee and York Counties, the review team estimated that 35
half would live in Cherokee County and half in York County. Construction workers may choose 36
to rent housing, stay in hotels/motels, or stay in campers or mobile homes, while operations 37
Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site workers are likely to purchase housing. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005-2007 1
American Community Survey census, a total of 10,558 vacant housing units exist in Cherokee 2
(2617 units) and York (7941 units) Counties (USCB 2007d).(a) Based on these statistics from 3
the U.S. Census Bureau, Cherokee and York Counties have enough additional capacity to 4
house the in-migrating workers. 5
Approximately, 86 housing structures would be demolished and removed during the inundation 6
of Make-Up Pond C. Duke has provided relocation assistance to property owners and renters 7
located within, or adjacent to, the Make-Up Pond C site. After Duke purchased their homes, 8
current residents were allowed to stay 1 to 18 months rent-free to find new housing. For 9
owners, relocation expenses were included in the selling price. Most rentals were month to 10
month or week to week rentals and occupants were given at least a 30-days notice to vacate 11
(Duke 2009b). In 2010, local officials stated that most individuals relocated from the Make-Up 12
Pond C area found other available housing within Cherokee County (NRC 2010c). 13
In 2008, local officials in Cherokee County stated the current rental stock was limited, but new 14
apartments were being constructed on Highway 11 and that individuals were considering 15
constructing trailer parks in the area (NRC and PNNL 2008). According to York County officials, 16
several newer residential developments exist in the area. York County officials believe that 17
hotel rooms in York County would fill up during the proposed Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 18
building phase and outages because all were booked up during nearby Catawba Nuclear 19
Station outages. Officials also noted that an overflow of workers would probably live in 20
Cleveland County, North Carolina, because it has available rental stock (NRC and PNNL 2008). 21
The boom-and-bust nature of large-scale construction projects aggravates the housing impacts 22
in local communities. The typical pattern begins when in-migrating workers and their families 23
(along with local residents with enhanced economic resources because of project- and worker- 24
related jobs and expenditures) increase the demand for housing. Increased demand creates 25
upward pressure on both the housing supply and prices in the local area. When construction 26
ends, most in-migrating workers leave, and most local indirect jobs also are lost. Because part 27
of the workforce already lives locally, many of these impacts could be avoided. 28
Building the Lee Nuclear Station could affect housing values in the vicinity of the Lee Nuclear 29
Station site. In a review of previous studies on the effect of seven nuclear facilities, including 30
(a) During the preparation of this draft EIS, the results of the mandated U.S. decadal census for 2010 were being released in topical and regional data sets. While the U.S. Census Bureau has not issued all the data sets in final form, some of the preliminary information was considered by the review team. While some of the final data sets were released for National scale information, most of the fine-scale information is still under review by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and other Federal agencies. The review team is not aware of information that appears to be inconsistent with the earlier information sets and those sets projected from the earlier census. Data from the 2010 Census will be updated for the final environmental impact statement.
Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site
Draft NUREG-2111 4-80 December 2011
four nuclear power plants, on property values in surrounding communities, Bezdek and 1
Wendling (2006) concluded that assessed valuations and median housing prices have tended to 2
increase at rates above national and State averages. Clark et al. (1997) similarly found that 3
housing prices in the immediate vicinity of two nuclear power plants in California were not 4
affected by any negative imagery of the facilities. These findings differ from studies that looked 5
at undesirable facilities, largely related to hazardous waste sites and landfills, but also including 6
several studies on power facilities (Farber 1998) in which property values were negatively 7
affected in the short-term, but these effects were moderated over time. Bezdek and 8
Wendling (2006) attributed the increase in housing prices to benefits provided to the community 9
in terms of employment and tax revenues, with surplus tax revenues encouraging other private 10
development in the area. Given the findings from the studies discussed above, the review team 11
determines that the impact on housing value from building the Lee Nuclear Station would be 12
minor. 13
Based on the information provided by Duke, interviews with local real estate agents and city and 14
county planners, and NRC’s own independent review, the review team expects the housing 15
related impacts of building proposed Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 would be minimal and 16
temporary for the region and in Cherokee and York Counties, and additional mitigation would 17
not be warranted. 18
4.4.4.4 Public Services
19
This section describes the public services available and discusses the impacts of building 20
proposed Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 on water supply, waste treatment, police, fire and 21
medical services, education, and social services in the region. 22
Water Supply Facilities
23
The demand on potable water utilities would increase at the Lee Nuclear Station site during the 24
building phase. A detailed description of project-related water requirements and resulting 25
impacts is presented in Section 4.2. Proposed Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 would get 26
potable water from the Draytonville Water system to support project activities. Municipal water 27
users in Cherokee County currently consume 8 Mgd compared to water supply plant capacity of 28
18 Mgd. Information on water supply providers in York County is limited, but York County’s 29
largest water supplier is the City of Rock Hill which has an estimated 4 Mgd extra capacity 30
(Duke 2009c). The recommended usage requirement for estimating potable water consumption 31
for workers in hot climates is 30 gpd for each worker, which includes drinking water and sanitary 32
needs (Duke 2009c). At peak employment, with 4613 construction and operations workers, 33
there would be a total demand of 138,390 gpd. Using a U.S. Geological Survey average per 34
capita amount of water consumed per day of 90 gallons, the overall increase in consumption is 35
406,440 gpd from the additional population of 4516 from the in-migrating population. For the 36
purposes of this EIS, the review team considers the 30 gpd worker demand to be in addition to 37
Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site the USGS 90 gpd estimate as an upper bound in determining impacts, for a total of 544,830 gpd 1
of water usage. This is well within the excess capacity of local water suppliers in Cherokee and 2
York Counties. A letter from officials at the Draytonville Water Works to Duke dated June 7, 3
2010 states that no system improvements or capacity increases are needed (Duke 2010h). As 4
discussed in Section 4.2.2, the review team does not expect project activities to affect 5
groundwater or wells in the region. Therefore, the review team concludes that the impacts of 6
building proposed Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 on water systems would be minimal, and 7
mitigation would not be warranted. 8
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
9
Cherokee County, South Carolina, has two wastewater treatment facilities with a combined 10
maximum capacity of 9 Mgd. The first facility, Clary wastewater treatment plant, operates at 11
60 percent capacity, and the Broad River wastewater treatment plant operates at 40 percent 12
capacity. York County’s three wastewater treatment plants have 5.3 Mgd extra capacity and 13
could also accommodate the extra population. Wastewater treatment facilities in the two 14
counties have enough additional capacity to treat the entire 544,830 gpd used by workers at the 15
site and the increased in-migrating population. Proposed Lee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 16
would use the Broad River Wastewater Treatment Plant for wastewater needs. In a letter dated 17
June 7, 2010, Gaffney Board of Public Works officials stated that the Broad River wastewater 18
treatment plant will undergo an upgrade to meet the additional capacity (Duke 2010h). The 19
review team concludes the impacts of building the Lee Nuclear Station on wastewater treatment 20
facilities would be minimal and mitigation would not be warranted. 21
Police, Fire and Medical Services
22
A temporary increase in population from the project workforce for a new nuclear facility could 23
increase the burdens on local fire and police departments, but this increase would be transitory. 24
After the project has been completed, many of the workers would leave the area, relieving those 25
burdens. During the building phase, the temporary increase in demand for community 26
resources could be mitigated in several ways. Larger communities would have an easier time 27
assimilating the influx of new people because the additional new population comprises a smaller 28
percentage of the communities’ base populations. Likewise, the more communities that host 29
new workers, the less pressure each individual community would experience on its 30
infrastructure. Consequently, any incentives Duke can provide its employees to move into the 31
area in a planned manner would mitigate, but not remove, this short-term demand. Next, 32
communities can avoid the long-term commitment to the maintenance and operation of 33
infrastructure purchases to fulfill short-term demand increases. Instead of purchasing new fire 34
or police equipment, affected communities could lease vehicles or building space. 35
Cherokee and York Counties employ an estimated 96 and 307 police officers, respectively. The 36
resident-to-police officer ratios in Cherokee and York Counties are 570:1 and 739:1, 37
Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site
Draft NUREG-2111 4-82 December 2011
respectively (Duke 2009c). Assuming that half of the new population live in Cherokee County 1
and the other half live in York County, the respective resident-to-police officer ratios increase to 2
593:1 and 747:1. Cherokee County has 350 firefighters and York County has 688 firefighters 3
(Duke 2009c). The current resident-to-firefighter ratios are 155:1 and 210:1 for Cherokee and 4
York Counties, respectively. With the increased population, the ratios would rise to 161:1 and 5
212:1, respectively. The U.S. military has established a ratio of 1 to 4 officers per 1000 citizens 6
(between 1000:1 and 250:1) as generally acceptable levels. With the increased population, the 7
ratios for Cherokee and York Counties are still within acceptable levels. The Draytonville- 8
McKowns Mountain-Wilkinsville Volunteer Fire Department would respond to fires onsite during 9
building activities. Prior to nuclear fuel receipt, an onsite fire brigade is expected to be in place 10
(Duke 2009c). Demands for any new services associated with building proposed Lee Nuclear 11
Station Units 1 and 2 would be readily absorbed by the increase in revenue associated with 12
general growth in the local area. The review team concludes the building-related impacts on fire 13
and police services in Cherokee and York Counties would be minimal and temporary. 14
Cherokee County has one hospital, Upstate Carolina Medical Center, located in Gaffney, South 15
Carolina. It has 125 beds and nearly 100 medical staff. There are no medical facilities in York 16
County within 10 mi of the Lee Nuclear Station site. However, Piedmont Medical Center is just 17
outside the 10-mi radius and has an existing agreement with Duke to provide emergency 18
medical care for radiological contaminated employees at the Catawba Nuclear Station. 19
Piedmont Medical Center would also be used by Lee Nuclear Station as part of this agreement 20
(Duke 2009c). Based on the size and availability of medical services in the region, temporary