[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41565-41569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15276]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Operating License Renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in 
Athens, AL

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and 
TVA's procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. On 
May 16, 2002, the TVA Board of Directors decided to adopt the preferred 
alternative (Refurbishment and Restart of Unit 1 With Extended 
Operation Of All Units) identified in TVA's Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Operating License Renewal Of 
The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant In Athens, Alabama.
    The FSEIS was made available to agencies and the public for 
additional comment in April 2002. A Notice of Availability of the FSEIS 
was published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2002. Under the 
selected alternative, in response to increasing demand for bulk power, 
TVA seeks to maximize the use of existing facilities to the greatest 
extent possible. This approach has the three-fold benefits of assuring 
future power supplies, avoiding the even larger capital outlays 
associated with new construction, and avoiding the environmental 
impacts resulting from siting and construction of new power generating 
facilities. Consistent with this approach, TVA has decided to seek to 
extend operation of Units 1, 2 and 3 of its Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 
(BFN) located in Limestone County, Alabama. This will require obtaining 
a renewal of operating licenses for the units from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC). Renewal of the operating licenses would 
permit operation for an additional twenty years past the current 
(original) 40-year operating license terms which expire in 2013, 2014, 
and 2016 for Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
    License Renewal by itself involves existing BFN facilities and does 
not require any new construction or modifications beyond normal 
maintenance and minor refurbishment. However, there are other proposed 
projects not directly related to license renewal that are connected to, 
or could affect, license renewal. One of these projects is the recovery 
of Unit 1, which has been in a non-operational state for 17 years. 
Other projects include the addition of new administration and 
modifications fabrication buildings and

[[Page 41566]]

the construction of a dry cask storage facility for storage of spent 
nuclear fuel. Even without license renewal or Unit 1 restart, BFN 
requires expansion of its spent fuel storage capacity in 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce L. Yeager, Senior NEPA 
Specialist, Environmental Policy and Planning, Tennessee Valley 
Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 8C, Knoxville, Tennessee 
37902-1499; telephone (865) 632-8051 or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its most recent annual report to the 
Southeastern Electric Reliability Council, TVA projected continued 
growth in demand of total net energy (baseload) of approximately 2 
percent annually through the year 2010. TVA currently estimates that it 
will need approximately 2,000 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) annually by 2005, 
and 5,000-15,000 additional GWh annually by 2010. Continued energy 
generation from BFN is a major component of TVA's generating assets, 
representing 8 percent of generating capacity and about 13 percent of 
annual energy generation in FY 2000. Because of its low operating 
costs, BFN will continue to be a key generating asset even if some TVA 
customers were to elect other suppliers for some of their requirements 
under energy deregulation.
    TVA has decided to seek to extend operation of Units 1, 2, and 3 at 
its BFN site located in Limestone County, Alabama. This will require 
obtaining a renewal of the unit's operating licenses from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC). Renewal of the operating licenses would 
permit operation for an additional 20 years past the current (original) 
40-year operating license terms which expire in 2013, 2014, and 2016, 
for Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
    An earlier EIS prepared by TVA evaluated the effects on the 
environment of construction and operation of the three BFN units. The 
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), a former regulatory agency of the 
federal government which has been superceded by the NRC, participated 
in the preparation of that EIS as a cooperating agency. The AEC 
concluded on August 28, 1972, that the statement was adequate to 
support the original proposed license to operate the plant. Much of 
this material from the earlier EIS is incorporated by reference in 
TVA's current FSEIS. The current FSEIS for license renewal also 
incorporates by reference TVA's Energy Vision 2020 Programmatic EIS, 
which documented TVA's consideration of the strategies and programmatic 
issues related to both maintenance of existing generation capacity in 
TVA's power system and the addition of new generating capacity. TVA's 
FSEIS also referenced in whole or in part, applicable material covered 
in the NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 
of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437.

Alternatives Considered

    TVA considered three primary alternatives, i.e., No Action and two 
Action Alternatives. Reasonable alternatives ranged from ceasing 
operation altogether at BFN (when the current generating licenses 
expire) to maximizing utilization of the existing power production 
facilities at the BFN site by extending operation of all three units.
    The No Action Alternative would result from a decision to not 
extend operation of the BFN units beyond the expiration dates of the 
current operating licenses. Since it currently appears economically 
infeasible to recover Unit 1 without license renewal, such a decision 
would effectively terminate any further consideration of restarting the 
unit at this time. Operation of Units 2 and 3 would cease upon 
expiration of their operating licenses in 2014 and 2016, respectively.
    This No Action Alternative would not help meet the public demand 
for more energy from the TVA power system. If TVA took no action at all 
to meet growing demands, TVA's ability to continue to supply low cost, 
reliable power to the public would be impaired. The impacts of higher 
priced and undependable electric supplies would be manifested in 
customer hardship, potentially negatively affecting economic stability 
of the region served by TVA. Consequently it would be unreasonable for 
TVA to take no action at all to meet growing demands. Rather in this 
context, No Action means that TVA would turn to some other means of 
responding to energy demands on its power system (most likely obtaining 
power primarily from existing or newly constructed fossil-fuel-fired 
baseload sources). These means were assessed in TVA's Energy Vision 
2020 EIS and are identified in the resource plans the TVA Board 
approved after completion of that EIS process.
    Of the Action Alternatives, Alternative 1 was to continue to 
operate Units 2 and 3 at BFN for an additional 20-year period beyond 
the expiration dates of the current licenses. No major equipment 
changes were projected to be needed for continuing operation as-is, but 
some planned upgrades and additions would involve facilities 
modifications, such as extended power uprate (EPU) of Units 2 and 3 at 
120 percent of originally licensed power level, as documented under 
other NEPA analyses. Due to the planned EPU of Units 2 and 3, a sixth 
mechanical draft cooling tower would be erected. This alternative would 
offset some, but not all, the potential need to obtain power from other 
sources as identified under the No Action alternative. It would entail 
some of the impacts associated with the No Action alternative, because 
of need to meet demand for power not covered by restart of Unit 1 (see 
Alternative 2).
    Alternative 2 (TVA's preferred alternative and the alternative 
selected by the TVA Board) is to add refurbishment and restart of Unit 
1 to Alternative 1 (i.e., extended operation of all three BFN units at 
the EPU level of 120 percent of the originally licensed power level). 
Restart of Unit 1 could occur as early as 2007. Unit 1 recovery would 
necessitate construction of a new administration building to make space 
available to incoming (temporary) workers and to move (permanent) 
office workers away from radiation sources associated with operating 
Unit 1 with hydrogen water chemistry.
    Restarting Unit 1 under Alternative 2 would also require additional 
cooling tower capacity beyond that envisioned for Alternative 1. Sub-
alternatives for necessary additional cooling tower capacity could be 
obtained through a combination of constructing new towers, refurbishing 
the old original cooling towers, or even dismantling and replacing one 
or more of the old original towers with an updated and more efficient 
design. Sub-alternatives assessed included:
     Sub-alternative 2A, the addition of two new linear 
mechanical draft cooling towers to the six that would be functional for 
operation of Units 2 and 3 at EPU, making a total of eight very similar 
cooling towers. Making room for these towers would require removal of 
most of a large hill which was created by excavation of drainage canals 
associated with construction of the original six cooling towers.
     Sub-alternative 2B, which is similar to 2A except that the 
two new cooling towers would be some type other than the current linear 
mechanical draft cooling towers, such as round mechanical draft or 
modified hyperbolic design.
     Sub-alternative 2C, which involves demolition of the 
remaining four original cooling towers and to construct five new large 
linear mechanical draft cooling towers, all in roughly the same 
location as the original six towers. The

[[Page 41567]]

size of the existing (relatively new) tower 3 would also be increased. 
This alternative would not require removal of a significant portion of 
the spoils hill adjacent to the cooling towers, but could involve 
lowering the height of the hill by several feet to decrease wind 
resistance.
     Alternative 2D, the addition of a sixth mechanical draft 
cooling tower in the currently vacant position (4) where a tower was 
destroyed by an accidental fire in 1986, but never replaced. This 
additional sixth cooling tower would be similar to that identified for 
the uprate of Units 2 and 3 as described for Alternative 1. However, 
this tower would be somewhat larger than the recently replaced 16-cell 
linear mechanical draft cooling tower 3.
    Even without license extension or Unit 1 restart, BFN requires 
expansion of spent fuel storage capacity as a result of DOE's delay in 
receiving utility spent fuel. The site's spent fuel pools are slowly 
being filled and Unit 3 will lose full core off-load capability in 
2005. In response, TVA is planning to implement new spent fuel storage 
capacity during 2005 in order to avoid impacting availability of Unit 
3.
    Dry cask storage at BFN will consist of building a secured fenced-
in concrete storage pad in phases or sections. The current schedule 
calls for being able to begin storing fuel in 2005. This project would 
be required with or without EPU, license renewal, or Unit 1 recovery, 
but the size requirement for the total pad storage depends in part on 
how many units will be operating. The pad will be designed large enough 
to accommodate all known requirements. The location for the new dry 
cask storage facility would require tearing down the existing 
Modifications Fabrications Building and replacement construction with a 
new light commercial grade building.

Environmental Consequences

    Analyses conducted for the SEIS indicate that no significant 
impacts would be expected as a result of implementing any of the action 
alternatives considered. These findings are primarily a result of the 
fact that BFN is already an existing facility operating under an NRC 
license and that the proposed extension of unit operations and restart 
of Unit 1 result in relatively minor changes to those operations that 
have the potential for environmental effects.
    Under the design, commitments and conditions described in the FSEIS 
for the project, there would be no effects to the geologic setting, 
threatened or endangered species, wetlands, soils, recreation, or 
cultural resources. With the exception of carbon monoxide emissions, 
the impacts for any of the alternatives on ambient air quality, 
meteorology and climate are expected to be even less than those 
assessed in the original BFN EIS. The ambient air quality standard for 
carbon monoxide is still five orders of magnitude greater than emission 
estimates, so the impact is also considered negligible.
    Minor, insignificant effects (predominantly from modifications or 
currently ongoing activities that would proportionally extend in time 
with relicensing or slightly increase with restart of Unit 1) are 
anticipated for generation of solid and hazardous waste, spent fuel 
management, groundwater resources, floodplains/flood risk, terrestrial 
resources, socioeconomics conditions, transportation, land use, visual 
resources, and environmental noise, as well as public and occupational 
safety and health. Proper implementation of best management practices 
and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and Executive Orders 
will help ensure that these impacts are negligible. TVA does not 
anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases 
or exposures to the public from continuing 2-unit BFN operations 
through completion of the license renewal period. EPU and the addition 
of Unit 1 would increase effluent releases proportionally, however, the 
refined calculated doses are a small fraction of the applicable 
radiological dose limits and the total exposures to the public from 3-
unit operation at EPU are expected to remain a small fraction of the 
regulatory dose limits.
    Under the alternative selected with best management practices 
implemented, impacts of modifications on surface waters and aquatic 
ecological resources are expected to be insignificant. Restart and 
operation of Unit 1 would require upgrading of the cooling tower system 
and an increase of intake flow rates by approximately 10 percent. 
Thermal impacts to aquatic life would be insignificant because the 
plant would be operated to ensure that the maximum discharge 
temperature and the temperature rise between intake and discharge 
remain within approved regulatory limits. Use of cooling towers would 
increase, and on rare occasions when the cooling towers are unable to 
meet thermal limits, the plant would be derated to remain in 
compliance. Although significant impacts are not anticipated, TVA will 
also confirm expected levels of impingement and entrainment resulting 
from increased intake flow rates by monitoring under current 2-unit 
operation and following return of Unit 1 to service.
    Under the selected alternative, modifications associated with Unit 
1 recovery would result in impacts on population, employment and income 
over a span of about 5.5 years. The total number of workers involved in 
the modification phase would peak at about 3,000, although not all 
these are likely to be located at the plant site. Modifications could 
result in some scattered, short-term strain on community services, 
including police and emergency services, schools and housing market. 
Operation of Unit 1 in addition to current operation of Units 2 and 3 
will require an increase in employment of about 150 permanent workers, 
which would be a small addition to the local economy.
    Under the alternative selected, decommissioning of the units would 
be delayed by the 20-year license renewal period, providing an 
opportunity for decommissioning technology (including more advanced 
robotics) and the licensing framework to evolve and mature. In addition 
it becomes more likely that a permanent spent fuel repository would be 
available prior to completion of decommissioning.

Response to Comments on Final EIS

    Although not required, TVA provided 30 days for the public to 
comment on the FSEIS. During this period, comments regarding the FSEIS 
were received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), and a member of 
the public who supported the proposed actions. TVA considered all 
comments received on both the draft and final SEIS in completing the 
NEPA process and reaching its decision. Discussed below are a number of 
the more important comments on the FSEIS.
    Based upon review of the FSEIS, EPA had five concerns: (1) TVA's 
stated preference for Alternative 2 with its 2D cooling option appeared 
to EPA to be inconclusively presented in the FSEIS; (2) cooling option 
2D selected in the FSEIS was not presented in the DSEIS (but EPA 
correctly noted that this was very similar to the cooling option in 
Alternative 1); (3) cooling capacity and thermal discharge modeling was 
preliminary at the DSEIS stage and specifically for 2D was not included 
until the FSEIS; (4) the proposed action would likely contribute to the 
thermal load of the downstream 303(d) segment of the Tennessee River 
listed for temperature and other pollutants of concern, and (5) cooling 
option 2D provides the lowest capacity cooling of

[[Page 41568]]

the four presented cooling tower options and therefore would allow the 
hottest average thermal discharge.
    ADEM commented that: the proposed action would likely contribute to 
the thermal loading of a 10 mile segment of the Tennessee River 
downstream of the BFN facility near the mouth of the Elk River and 
above Wheeler Dam. This segment has been identified as ``impaired'' on 
Alabama's 1998 and draft 2000 303(d) lists. One of the listed 
pollutants of concern for that segment is temperature. ADEM comments 
that because the segment is listed for temperature impairment, no 
additional thermal loading can be permitted until such time that a TMDL 
is developed or the stream is de-listed for temperature.
    ADEM additionally noted that the current NPDES permit contains 
temperature limits based on a 316(a) demonstration that EPA approved in 
June 1977. This allows the plant to meet a relaxed temperature limit. 
ADEM commented that the NPDES permit can be re-opened and modified in 
the event ADEM determines through biological and/or water quality 
monitoring that more stringent limitations and/or monitoring 
requirements are necessary to ensure the protection and propagation of 
aquatic life in the Tennessee River.
    ADEM stated that the impaired segment of the Tennessee River will 
be re-evaluated to determine whether the segment is impaired due to 
temperature and if so determined, then a TMDL will be developed. To 
facilitate that evaluation, ADEM expressed interest in receiving copies 
of TVA's water quality data, if not previously provided, as well as 
water quality models conducted as part of the Final SEIS.
    With regard to the first EPA comment, the FSEIS stated on page 2-55 
under the heading, The Preferred Alternative, that Alternative 2 was 
preferred by TVA and that sub-alternative 2D was the preferred option 
for additional cooling tower capacity.
    At the time of release, the DSEIS presented a summary of 
preliminary modeling results indicating that opportunities existed to 
allow a reduced amount of additional cooling capacity and/or cooling 
tower operation in an environmentally acceptable manner. Given TVA's 
compliance with current thermal limits of the NPDES permit for BFN, 
there is no material difference between the potential thermal impacts 
to the environment among those cooling tower sub-alternatives presented 
in the DSEIS and Alternative 2D. In the event that thermal limits could 
not be maintained by operation of cooling towers (see further 
discussion below), compliance would typically be maintained by derating 
the plant.
    As indicated in both the DSEIS and FSEIS, two-dimensional modeling 
analyses conducted to assess the potential thermal effects under worst 
case scenarios to the reservoir and 303(d) reach under the current 
NPDES permit conditions, do indicate a slight increase (0.4 deg.F) in 
average reservoir water temperature in the 303(d) listed reach of 
Wheeler Reservoir for the proposed 3-unit operation (at uprated power 
levels) relative to the originally approved 3-unit operation. As 
discussed in the FSEIS, the impact of this projected worst case change 
on water resources in Wheeler Reservoir is expected to be 
insignificant. With the use of cooling towers and plant derates, if 
necessary, temperature effects are expected to be less in years of more 
typical hydrology and meteorology. ADEM intends to evaluate new 
information to determine if the listed section is still an impaired 
water body and, as appropriate, to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load 
(TMDL) for that section of the river. TVA will supply the data and 
information requested by ADEM and cooperate with ADEM regarding 
monitoring, evaluation of the listed stream reach and, if appropriate, 
development of a TMDL.
    Currently, TVA operates cooling towers at BFN only when the water 
temperature of discharges approaches and presents the potential for 
exceeding an NPDES thermal limit. When this situation occurs, not all 
cooling towers are necessarily placed in service. To maximize the net 
generation of the plant, only those towers necessary to keep the water 
temperature below the thermal limits are operated. Thus, as long as 
derating is part of the operational strategy for maintaining the NPDES 
limits, there is no significant difference in the hottest average 
thermal discharge for any of the cooling tower sub-alternatives. 
Additionally, TVA is working towards improving its methods of 
predicting water temperatures in Wheeler Reservoir and optimizing the 
operation of the cooling system provided at BFN.
    EPA also requested further clarification of the expected increase 
in intake flows necessary for Alternative 2 as reported in the DSEIS 
and the FSEIS. Further analyses of flow changes associated with the 
proposed actions following release of the DSEIS are as indicated in 
section 2.2.2 of the FSEIS; the expected increase in intake flows 
needed for Alternative 2 is 10 percent.
    EPA requested clarification in the ROD concerning two noise related 
issues, i.e., (1) whether or not the 24-hour DNL for noise is also less 
than the EPA target of 55 DNL for Alternative 2D, as it was for 
Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C; and (2) whether or not the 24-hour DNLs 
for Alternative 2D are within FICON guidance (and therefore considered 
insignificant). If not, EPA suggested further consideration of using 
cooling fans with reduced noise emissions until consistent with FICON.
    Table 4.3.19-1 of the FSEIS indicates Alternative 2D (the selected 
sub-alternative) has a 24-hour DNL of 53 dBA which produces an annual 
average DNL that is less than both HUD and EPA 24-hour DNL annual 
average guidelines even with the probable priority-of-use configuration 
for cooling towers. The 24-hour DNL for Alternative 2D is 1 dBA more 
than the 24-hour DNL for current operation and the increase is 
insignificant based on FICON recommendations. There are no significant 
noise consequences from Alternative 2D. However, paragraph 4.3.19.4 of 
the FSEIS would present a clearer picture if it first stated which 
alternatives are within FICON guidelines (2A, 2B, and 2D) and then 
discussed 2C which does not meet FICON guidelines for Paradise Shores.

Decision

    On May 16, 2002, the TVA Board of Directors decided to adopt the 
preferred alternative (Alternative 2) to refurbish and restart BFN Unit 
1, and to proceed with NRC license extensions for all three units at 
BFN. This decision took into account environmental considerations 
together with economic and technical aspects of the project. Proceeding 
with license extensions and Unit 1 restart is the best business 
decision for TVA and the Tennessee Valley in terms of power supply, 
power price, generation mix, return on investment, and avoidance of 
environmental impacts. This decision has the three-fold benefits of 
assuring future power supplies without the environmental effects 
resulting from operation of fossil fuel generating plants (including 
increased emissions of greenhouse gases), avoiding the even larger 
capital outlays associated with new construction, and avoiding the 
environmental impacts resulting from siting and construction of new 
power generating facilities. Additionally, TVA's Detailed Scoping, 
Estimating, and Planning project and the Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement conclude that Browns Ferry Unit 1 can be 
returned to safe operation in a well-controlled modifications effort 
and that operating the unit will have no significant, adverse impacts 
on the environment.

[[Page 41569]]

    With regard to cooling tower sub-alternatives, sub-alternative 2D 
was selected as the cooling tower option that was both protective of 
the environment and best supported by economic analyses. This decision 
regarding cooling tower capacity was reached on the basis of 
consideration of current regulatory thermal limits for BFN, cooling 
capacities of the various tower sub-alternatives, computer modeling of 
the effects of cooling tower options on ability to meet those thermal 
limits, and estimated amounts and cost of plant derates required for 
each sub-alternative.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    TVA has concluded that Alternative 2 is the environmentally 
preferable alternative. This alternative has the benefits of assuring 
future power supplies without relying upon fossil fuel generation and 
its associated environmental impacts, avoiding the environmental 
impacts resulting from siting and construction of new power generating 
facilities, and providing an opportunity for decommissioning technology 
(including more advanced robotics) and the licensing framework to 
evolve and mature. With regard to sub-alternatives for thermal cooling 
capacity, cooling towers are operated only as necessary to meet thermal 
discharge temperature limits. Given TVA's compliance with current 
thermal limits of the NPDES permit for BFN, and because of the way the 
plant operates when near the thermal limits, there is no material 
environmental difference between cooling tower alternatives, and one 
alternative is not clearly environmentally preferable compared to the 
other alternatives. Having greater cooling tower capacity would be 
environmentally preferable in the event of any extraordinary 
circumstances in which the permit limits could not be maintained.

Environmental Commitments

    The FSEIS identifies appropriate measures to minimize or mitigate 
environmental impacts and these are being adopted here. These measures 
are generally of two types, i.e., physical changes incorporated during 
project design, modifications or construction, and programs and 
environmental controls initiated to meet regulatory standards.
     Mitigation measures to minimize potential air pollutant 
emissions during construction activities for the new Administration 
Building, the Modifications Fabrication Building, the dry cask storage 
facility, and the new cooling tower would be the best management 
practices that TVA uses for construction of any new facilities. These 
would include such measures as wetting ground surfaces as appropriate 
to reduce fugitive dust, requiring equipment and trucks to be well 
maintained and tuned for efficient fuel combustion, covering fuels and 
fueling connections to minimize evaporative losses and requiring 
contractors to adhere to such policies.
     TVA will confirm the expected levels of impingement and 
entrainment of fish by monitoring under current 2-unit operation and 
following return of Unit 1 to service. Although not expected, if based 
upon these monitoring studies it is determined that the location, 
design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake 
structure are causing unacceptable environmental impact, TVA will 
assess reasonable available/achievable technologies, operational 
measures and restoration measures to further minimize the adverse 
impact at the BFN site and institute those measures which in 
consultation with the permitting agencies are determined to be 
appropriate.
     The archaeological site identified in Spoils Disposal Area 
1, along with an adequate buffer zone, would be excluded from the 
disposal area or Phase II testing would be conducted to confirm the 
significance of the site.
     TVA will further analyze several options for mitigating 
the potential noise increase at Paradise Shores prior to accepting the 
final design for the additional cooling tower from the selected vendor. 
Options include, but are not limited to: using low noise fans on the 
new cooling tower; instituting operational instructions to reduce 
noise; and soliciting other noise reduction options from the cooling 
tower vendor.

    Dated: May 24, 2002.
John A. Scalice,
Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President, TVA Nuclear.
[FR Doc. 02-15276 Filed 6-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P