Síntesis final

30

Other offsite land use changes in the vicinity of the Lee Nuclear Station site would be expected 31

from developing the proposed transmission lines and reconstruction of the railroad spur from 32

East Gaffney to the site. 33

Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site

4.1.3.1 Transmission-Line Corridors

1

In proposing the new transmission-line corridors and associated rights-of-way, Duke conducted 2

a discrete and comprehensive transmission-line siting and environmental analysis (Duke 3

2007c). The fundamental goal of the siting analysis was to enable the selection of two 4

transmission-line corridors that minimized the impacts to land use, environmental resources, 5

cultural resources, and aesthetic quality. In delineating the siting study area, Duke considered 6

the topical influence of several key criteria, including physical geography and topography, the 7

Broad River Scenic Corridor, land-use and development patterns, transportation and 8

infrastructure corridors, and requiring linear segments of the existing Pacolet-Catawba 230-kV 9

line and the Oconee-Newport 525-kV line. As bounding conditions and among those quantified 10

for evaluation, Duke clearly indicated a number of areas to be avoided within the siting area, 11

including agricultural land, residences, historic and cultural landmarks, buildings, parks, and 12

wetlands. 13

Duke used both internal and external sources of data to characterize the siting area, including 14

use of local, State, and Federal resources. Additionally, extensive field investigations were 15

conducted to confirm or refute data regarding existing land use, aesthetic, natural, and cultural 16

resources, identifiable development patterns, and infrastructure. Field-specific activity also 17

included community and public workshops conducted in April 2007. Data and attributes were 18

combined into 12 Geographic Information System layers and weighted to assign sensitivity 19

related to transmission-line routing. Weighted data were then combined to form a multilayer 20

map or suitability composite. This allowed for analysis of the cumulative effect of the combined 21

data points and enabled ranking of the siting area from the lowest constraint to the highest 22

constraint in routing, including all points in between. 23

The geographic area under consideration was approximately 181,420 ac. Within that area, 24

21 routes were established as meeting criteria for the lowest constraint and impact. The routes, 25

composed of 115 different combinations of potential routes, were verified in field investigations. 26

In June 2007, the verified alternative routes were presented in follow-up public meetings. The 27

21 alternative routes were then individually evaluated against eight criteria, including cultural 28

and natural resources, land cover, land use, property ownership, occupied buildings and 29

facilities, public viewshed/visibility, residential viewshed/visibility, and water quality factors. The 30

two routes that represented the best combination of technical and environmental considerations 31

were determined to be Routes K and O (Figure 3-4). 32

As a result of the transmission-line study (Duke 2007c) and public meetings, Duke proposes to 33

build four new transmission lines to serve Lee Nuclear Station. This would require building two 34

transmission-line corridors along Routes K and O running south and southwest from the site to 35

their respective tie-in locations on the existing 230-kV Pacolet Tie–Catawba line, located 36

Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site

Draft NUREG-2111 4-8 December 2011

approximately 7 mi south of the site and the existing 525-kV Oconee–Newport line, located 1

approximately 15 mi south of the site. 2

From the Lee Nuclear Station to the Pacolet Tie–Catawba 230-kV line, both routes would 3

contain one double-circuit 230-kV line and one single-circuit 525-kV line. The transmission-line 4

corridor width would be approximately 325 ft where both the 230-kV and 525-kV lines run in the 5

same corridor. The 230-kV line from the Lee Nuclear Station site stops at the existing Pacolet 6

Tie–Catawba line. The 525-kV line would continue along both routes in a 200-ft-wide corridor 7

approximately 9.47 mi south, where it would tie in to the Oconee–Newport 525-kV line. 8

The design of the Lee Nuclear Station fold-in lines would meet or exceed all requirements of the 9

National Electrical Safety Code in effect at the time project activities are underway. Towers for 10

the 230-kV and 525-kV lines would be lattice framework, steel structures consisting of direct- 11

embedded foundations at a depth of approximately 12 ft below the ground surface and would be 12

nominally spaced at 1000 ft. 13

The most significant land-use impact from building transmission lines would be the permanent 14

restriction on structures and timber production within the corridors. Estimated acreage impacted 15

by the transmission-line corridors is approximately 986 ac; 97 percent of that acreage is not 16

subject to zoning restrictions and is predominantly forested land. Based on the information 17

available, the review team does not foresee any land-use conflict on the remaining 3 percent of 18

land. Section 2.2 described the existing land-use classifications and acreage that would be 19

affected. Approximately 690 ac of this forest land would be converted to cleared corridors. 20

Additionally, 162 ac of the proposed corridors are considered prime farmland, or farmland of 21

State-wide importance. Duke permits farming and crop production within transmission-line 22

corridors and expects limitations to these conditions related only to where transmission 23

structures are located. Continued permitted uses in the transmission-line corridors would 24

include pastures, crop production, road construction, parking lots, and other uses that do not 25

interfere with the safe, reliable operation of the transmission lines. It is expected that routine or 26

seasonal maintenance would take place outside crop production time frames, which would limit 27

the impact to existing crops (Duke 2007c, 2009c). Approximately 66 ac of transmission-line 28

corridor is within the 100-year floodplain (Section 2.3). The corridor also encompasses 17 ac of 29

wetlands and streams (Section 2.4). 30

Based on information provided by Duke and the review team’s independent review, the review 31

team concludes that because 986 ac of land would be impacted by transmission-line 32

installation, of which 690 ac of is forested land that would be cleared, transmission-line-corridor- 33

related impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing. 34

Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site

4.1.3.2 Railroad Corridor

1

Reconstruction of a railroad spur is planned to support project activities for the proposed Lee 2

Nuclear Station. The spur enters the site on the northern boundary, extends across the 3

northern quarter of the site, and terminates at the project building site. The railroad spur 4

originates in East Gaffney, southeast of the city center. Reconstruction would include 5

placement of new ballast and track and would take place within the existing corridor and 6

previously disturbed areas. Reconstruction of the railroad spur outside the Lee Nuclear Station 7

site boundary would make use of the existing right-of-way that already has been heavily 8

disturbed due to previous site building activities (Duke 2009c). 9

A portion of the existing railroad-spur corridor requires routing around an existing industrial 10

facility, Reddy Ice, in East Gaffney. At this location, the right-of-way passes through the Reddy 11

Ice driveway. The re-routing would extend the railroad spur a maximum of 125 ft to the north of 12

the current right-of-way and would involve approximately 1300 ft of track. Building the railway at 13

this location would be in accordance with all local, State, and Federal guidelines regarding good 14

engineering and construction practices to minimize the irreversible commitment of land and the 15

impact to the affected environment. 16

Based on information provided by Duke and the review team’s independent review, the review 17

team concludes that land-use impacts related to building the railroad spur would be minimal. 18