[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 214 (Monday, November 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65009-65017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18623]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296]
Tennessee Valley Authority, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1,
2 and 3; Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the
Maximum Reactor Power Level
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[[Page 65010]]
ACTION: Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a
draft Environmental Assessment (EA) as its evaluation of a request by
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for license amendments to increase
the maximum thermal power at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) from 3458
megawatts-thermal (MWt) to 3952 MWt for Units 2 and 3 and from 3293 MWt
to 3952 MWt for Unit 1. These represent power increases of
approximately 15 percent for BFN Units 2 and 3 and a total of 20
percent for BFN Unit 1. As stated in the NRC staff's position paper
dated February 8, 1996, on the Boiling-Water Reactor Extended Power
Uprate (EPU) Program, the NRC staff would prepare an environmental
impact statement if it believes a power uprate would have a significant
impact on the human environment. The NRC staff did not identify any
significant impact from the information provided in the licensee's EPU
applications for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, or from the NRC staff's
independent review; therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its
environmental review in an EA. Also, in accordance with the position
paper, the draft EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are being
published in the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment period.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs:
BFN is located on approximately 340 ha (840 ac) of Federally owned
land that is under the custody of the TVA in Limestone County, Alabama.
The EPU would apply to facilities at the BFN site, which is located in
northern Alabama on the northern shore of Wheeler Reservoir, an
impoundment of the Tennessee River, at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294.
The BFN site is approximately 16 km (10 mi) south of Athens, Alabama;
16 km (10 mi) northwest of Decatur, Alabama; and 48 km (30 mi) west of
Huntsville, Alabama.
Land in the vicinity of BFN is used primarily for agriculture.
Population densities are low, with no population centers of
significance within 16 km (10 mi) of the plant. The site is surrounded
to the north and east by rural countryside. It includes open pasture
lands, scattered farmsteads, few residents, and little industry within
several miles. The terrain is gently rolling with open views to higher
elevations to the north. The southern and western sides of the plant
site abut the Wheeler Reservoir, which is a wide expanse of open river
used for a variety of recreational purposes. The reservoir in the
vicinity of the plant site is moderately used by recreational boaters
and fishermen. There are no homes within the foreground viewing
distance to the north and east. However, adjacent to the plant site
several developments have partial views of the site--a small
residential development is sited to the northwest and another across
the Wheeler Reservoir to the southwest, and the Mallard Creek public
use area is directly across the reservoir. A berm, graded during the
initial construction of the plant site and containing approximately 2.5
million m3 (3.3 million yd3) of earth excavated
to make cooling water channels, lies adjacent to the cooling tower
complex and blocks views of the northern and eastern plant areas. Two
wildlife management areas--Swan Creek State Wildlife Management Area
and Mallard-Fox Creek State Wildlife Management Area--are within 5 km
(3 mi) of the BFN site. The Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area
includes 1232 ha (3045 ac) of land and 2357 ha (5825 ac) of water
surrounded by numerous industrial facilities. The Mallard-Fox Creek
State Wildlife Management Area encompasses approximately 593 ha (1483
ac) and is used primarily for small game hunting. The Round Island
Recreation Area, a site on the Central Loop of the North Alabama
Birding Trail, is located approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) upstream of BFN
on the northern side of the Tennessee River and provides birding
opportunities and boat access.
BFN has two active nuclear reactor units (Units 2 and 3) and one
currently inactive unit (Unit 1). Each unit includes a boiling-water
reactor and a steam-driven turbine generator manufactured by General
Electric Company. Each unit originally was licensed for an output of
3293 megawatts-thermal (MWt), with a design net electric rating of 1065
megawatts-electric (MWe). Major construction on BFN, TVA's first
nuclear power plant, began in 1967. Commercial operation began in 1974
for Unit 1, in 1975 for Unit 2, and in 1977 for Unit 3. All three units
were shut down in 1985 during a review of the TVA nuclear power
program. Unit 2 returned to service in May 1991, and Unit 3 resumed
operation in November 1995. Work began in 2002 to bring Unit 1 up to
current standards, and the reactor is currently scheduled to restart in
2007.
Wheeler Reservoir on the Tennessee River is the source for cooling
water and most of the auxiliary water systems for BFN. The intake
forebay is separated from Wheeler Reservoir by a structure with three
bays each with a gate that can be raised or lowered depending on the
operational requirements of the plant. Beyond the forebay are 18 intake
pumping station bays (6 per reactor unit) each with traveling screens.
The BFN units are normally cooled by pumping water from Wheeler
Reservoir into the turbine generator condensers and discharging it back
to the reservoir via three large submerged diffuser pipes that are
perforated to maximize uniform mixing into the flow stream. This
straight-through flow path is known as ``open cycle'' or ``open mode''
operation. As originally designed, the maximum thermal discharge from
the once-through cooling water system is directed into the Wheeler
Reservoir, with a temperature increase across the intake and discharge
of 13.9 [deg]C (25 [deg]F). The flow exits the diffusers and mixes with
the reservoir flow. At the edge of the discharge mixing zone, the water
temperature is required to be less than 5.6 [deg]C (10 [deg]F) above
ambient water temperature.
Through various gates, some of this cooling water can also be
directed through cooling towers to reduce its temperature as necessary
to comply with environmental regulations. This flow path is known as
the ``helper mode'' operation.
The capability also exists to recycle cooling water from the
cooling towers directly back to the intake structure without being
discharged to the reservoir. This flow path, known as the ``closed
mode'' of operation, has not been used since the restart of Units 2 and
3 because of difficulties in meeting temperature limits in summer
months and problems with equipment reliability. TVA does not anticipate
using this mode in the future, and no procedures for operating in this
mode currently exist.
In recent years, only Units 2 and 3 have been operated, but because
of a combination of system upgrades and improved flow calibrations, the
measured total per-unit condenser cooling water (CCW) flow rate in open
mode (with three CCW pumps per unit) has increased. The condenser tubes
were replaced with stainless steel tubing that has a larger internal
diameter and lower flow resistance. This modification increased flow
through the condenser by approximately 6 percent. TVA estimates total
intake for three-unit operation in open mode to be 139 m3/s
(4907 cfs) or 12,000 m3/d (3171 million gallons per day
[MGD]).
Because of various system limitations, BFN cannot pass all the CCW
through the cooling towers when operating in the helper mode. The
fraction of cooling
[[Page 65011]]
water that cannot be passed through the cooling towers is routed
directly to the river. Also, almost all of the cooling water that
passes through the cooling towers is returned to the river, but a small
amount is lost to the atmosphere during operation. If cooling tower
capacity is increased due to the EPU, this consumptive use could
increase proportionally. The cooling towers are only operated when
necessary, typically a few weeks during the hottest part of the summer
(typically July and August), to meet thermal discharge temperature
limits specified in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit issued by the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management.
The residual heat removal service water (RHRSW) system consists of
four pairs of pumps located on the intake structure for pumping river
water to the heat exchangers in the RHRSW system and four additional
pumps for supplying water to the emergency equipment cooling water
(EECW) system. The EECW system distributes cooling water supplied by
the RHRSW system to essential equipment during normal and accident
conditions.
Identification of the Proposed Action:
By letters dated June 25, 2004 and June 28, 2004, TVA proposed
amendments to the operating licenses for BFN Units 2 and 3 and for BFN
Unit 1, respectively, to increase the maximum thermal power level by
approximately 15 percent for Units 2 and 3, from 3458 MWt to 3952 MWt,
and by approximately 20 percent for Unit 1, from 3293 MWt to 3952 MWt.
The change is considered an EPU because it would raise the reactor core
power levels more than 7 percent above the originally licensed maximum
power levels. This amendment would allow the heat output of the
reactors to increase, which would increase the flow of steam to the
turbines. This would increase production of electricity and the amount
of waste heat delivered to the condensers, and increase the temperature
of the water being discharged into the Wheeler Reservoir. On September
8, 1998, the NRC approved license amendments for power uprates of 5
percent for BFN Units 2 and 3. BFN Units 2 and 3 are currently
operating at 105 percent of their originally licensed thermal power (an
increase from 3293 MWt to 3458 MWt). Therefore, the proposed EPUs
analyzed in this EA are 15 percent for Units 2 and 3 and 20 percent for
Unit 1, which is currently licensed to operate at 100 percent of its
originally licensed thermal power (3293 MWt).
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would meet the increasing demand for bulk power
resulting from the economic growth in the TVA service area. Such
economic growth is forecasted to continue in the Tennessee Valley
region resulting in an estimated average annual increase of 1.6 percent
in the regional energy demand over the next 20 years. Such demand
increases would exceed TVA's capacity to generate electricity for its
customers. The proposed EPUs would add approximately 600 MWe to the
historical generating capacity of BFN; such additional capacity should
provide a cost-effective means of meeting the projected increased
demand. The EPUs can be implemented without substantial capital
investment and would not cause the environmental impacts that would
occur if construction of a new power-generation facility was sought to
meet the region's electricity needs.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
At the time of issuance of the operating licenses for BFN, the NRC
staff noted that any activity authorized by the licenses would be
encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental
Statement (FES) for the operation of BFN that was issued in September
1972. Additionally, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
Units 1, 2 and 3 (NUREG-1437, Supplement 21) Final Report evaluating
license renewal for BFN assumes operation of all three units operating
at 120 percent of the originally licensed power level because it was
assumed that the EPU would be approved before the renewed license terms
begin. This EA summarizes the non-radiological and radiological impacts
in the environment that may result from the proposed action of the EPU.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
The potential impacts associated with land use for the proposed
action include effects from construction and plant modifications. While
some plant components would be modified, all plant changes related to
the EPUs would occur within existing structures, buildings, and fenced
equipment yards housing the major unit components. Also, the EPU would
use existing parking lots, road access, lay-down areas, offices,
workshops, warehouses, and restrooms. Therefore, no land use would
change at BFN. Also, no land use would change along transmission lines
(no new lines would be required for EPU), transmission corridors,
switch yards, or substations.
According to the SEIS for license renewal of BFN, the only
significant cultural resources in the proximity of BFN are site 1Li535
and the Cox Cemetery, which was moved to accommodate original
construction of the plant. TVA has procedures in place to ensure that
the operation of BFN would protect undiscovered historic or
archaeological resources, and the proposed action would not change such
procedures.
The EPUs and continued operation of BFN Units 1, 2, and 3 would
remain in the scope of the original FES, and therefore, the staff
concludes potential impacts to land use and to historic and
archaeological resources from the proposed action are bounded by the
impacts previously evaluated in the FES.
Cooling Tower Impacts
In support of the EPUs, operation frequency of the cooling towers
would likely increase to approximately 7.2 percent of the time to meet
thermal discharge requirements of the NPDES permit. The potential
impacts from increased use of the cooling towers would be negligible to
minor. The impacts would be increased noise directly proportional to
the increased usage frequency. The towers may produce more noise and
longer periods of noise due to the increased cooling tower operation,
but other background noise, such as traffic, insects, frogs, and air
conditioners, dominated TVA's June 2001 background noise survey. There
are two neighborhoods in close proximity to BFN. The estimated
background noise in the two neighborhoods, Paradise Shores and
Lakeview, with six cooling towers operating would be approximately 52
and 48 decibels, respectively. These values are below the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) recommended level of 55
decibels for the annual equivalent sound level day/night. Therefore,
noise increases are not expected to have a noticeable effect on nearby
residents.
Conclusions reached in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), apply to the
proposed action regarding cooling tower impacts on crops, ornamental
vegetation, and native plants. The conclusions state that salt drift,
icing, fogging, or increased humidity resulting from cooling tower
operation would not be significant. These same conclusions
[[Page 65012]]
apply for the period of operation prior to entry into the renewed
operating license period. Additionally, as stated in the SEIS, the BFN
cooling towers would be operated as helper towers and, therefore, would
be operated less frequently than at plants with continuous cooling
tower operation. However, since the publication of the NRC's SEIS, TVA
has proposed a design change for the future sixth cooling tower, which
would result in slightly increased frequency of cooling tower operation
than the originally planned 20-cell tower. Nonetheless, cooling tower
operation at BFN with all three units operating at EPU levels would
still be operated less frequently than at plants with continuous
cooling tower operation.
Likewise, the conclusion reached in the GEIS regarding aesthetics
of cooling tower operation applies to the BFN helper towers. In
addition to increased noise, increased operation of cooling towers may
have an aesthetic effect in that a visible plume would be detectable
more days of the year. However, the conclusions in the GEIS state that
continuously operated cooling towers would not have significant effects
on visible and audible aesthetics; therefore, the proposed action,
including the increased use of helper towers, would not significantly
affect aesthetics. This conclusion also applies to operation both prior
to the renewed operating license period and during the renewed
operating license period.
The proposed EPU would increase the number of days of operation of
the cooling towers, which may increase the number of days experiencing
background noise, fogging, icing, increased humidity, and a visible
plume. Although the frequency of cooling tower operation would
increase, the helper towers would be used only intermittently.
Therefore, the staff concludes impacts of operating cooling towers
would not be significant for the proposed action.
Transmission Facility Impacts
The potential impacts associated with transmission facilities for
the proposed action include changes in transmission line corridor
right-of-way maintenance and electric shock hazards due to increased
current. No change in right-of-way maintenance, including vegetative
management, would occur as a result of the EPU. The proposed EPU would
increase the current, which would affect the electromagnetic field, but
would not increase the voltage. Because the voltage would not change,
there would be no change in the potential for electric shock.
The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) provides design criteria
that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits the
short-circuit current to the ground to less than 5 mA. There would be
an increase in current passing through the transmission lines
associated with the increased power level of the proposed EPU. The
increased electrical current passing through the transmission lines
would cause an increase in electromagnetic field strength. Transmission
lines would continue to meet applicable shock prevention provisions of
the NESC. Although the United States has no guidelines for exposure to
power frequency electromagnetic fields, Florida and New York have
guidelines based on maximum load-carrying conditions. Under conditions
of increased EPU currents, TVA transmission lines would continue to
meet such guidelines. No data exist to suggest that higher
electromagnetic fields adversely affect human health or flora and
fauna.
The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the
proposed action would not change significantly relative to the impacts
from current plant operation. There would be no physical modifications
to the transmission lines, transmission line right-of-way maintenance
practices would not change, there would be no changes to transmission
line rights-of-way or vertical clearances, and electric current passing
through the transmission lines would increase only slightly. Therefore,
the staff concludes there would be no significant impacts associated
with transmission lines for the proposed action.
Water Use Impacts
Potential water use impacts from the proposed action include
hydrological alterations to the Wheeler Reservoir on the Tennessee
River and changes to plant water supply. No changes to the plant intake
system are expected due to the proposed action; therefore, the volume
of intake water would not change. Therefore, the staff concludes that
there would be no significant alteration of the hydrology of the
Wheeler Reservoir or the plant's water supply.
In addition to the once-through cooling system, BFN has five
mechanical draft cooling towers that operate during helper mode. In
conjunction with the restart of Unit 1, TVA has committed to building a
replacement for the sixth cooling tower; the replacement tower would
have a heat removal capacity greater than or equal to that of existing
cooling tower 3. BFN typically enters helper mode during the
hot summer months, and the cooling towers are operated only when
necessary to meet the NPDES permit's thermal discharge limits. With the
restart of Unit 1, if more than six circulating water pumps are
operating, some flow must bypass the cooling towers and enter the river
directly due to system limitations. Only about 2 percent of the cooling
tower flow is not returned to the river due to evaporation and drift.
BFN's consumptive water use consists of a negligible, unquantifiable
amount that would not change detectably as a result of the EPU.
Therefore, the staff concludes there would be no significant impacts to
water use in the Wheeler Reservoir or the Tennessee River for the
proposed action.
Discharge Impacts
Potential impacts to the Wheeler Reservoir from the BFN discharge
include increased turbidity, scouring, erosion, and sedimentation.
These discharge-related impacts apply to open-cycle flow due to the
large volume of water discharged to the reservoir. However, since the
EPU at BFN would not alter the intake volume of water, no significant
change in discharge volume is anticipated. Therefore, no significant
impacts from increased turbidity, scouring, erosion, and sedimentation
are expected.
Surface runoff and wastewater discharges at BFN are regulated by
the State of Alabama via a NPDES permit (NPDES No. AL0022080). The
permit is periodically reviewed and renewed by the Alabama Department
of Environmental Management. With the exception of discharge
temperature, the EPU would not be expected to alter any other
effluents, such as yard drainage, station sumps, and sewage treatment.
Increase in discharge temperature in the Wheeler Reservoir would remain
within the NPDES permit limits due to the implementation of cooling
towers in helping mode or derating the units during hot summer months.
BFN's current NPDES permit limits thermal discharge, as detected at
a depth of 5 feet at the end of a 2400-foot mixing zone downstream of
the discharge diffusers, to a maximum 1-hour average of 93[deg]F, a
maximum 24-hour average of 90[deg]F, and a maximum increase of 10[deg]F
over ambient temperatures. Currently, with Units 2 and 3 operating at
105 percent of the originally licensed maximum power level in open
mode, the approximate temperature increase at the end of the mixing
zone is 5.3[deg]F. Operation of all three units at 120 percent power is
[[Page 65013]]
predicted to increase the mean water temperature at the end of the
mixing zone by about 0.5[deg]F compared to current operations and only
0.3[deg]F when compared to all three units operating at their original
power level as assessed in the FES. Increase in discharge temperature
beyond the NPDES limits would trigger operation of the cooling towers
in helper mode. If operation of the cooling towers is insufficient to
reduce discharge temperature enough to remain within the NPDES
compliance, the units would be derated so that the discharge
temperature does not exceed the permit's limits. It is estimated that
three-unit operation with the EPU would increase cooling-tower-
operation frequency to about 7.2 percent and would result in derating
approximately 0.29 percent of the time. It is expected that such
operational controls would maintain compliance with the NPDES permit.
When the plant is operating within the permit limits, it is expected
that thermal discharge would not have significant individual or
cumulative effects on reservoir stratification, dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and eutrophication.
The proposed EPU would not result in changes in any other
effluents, which are currently within permit limits. Therefore, the
staff concludes that the proposed action would not result in any
significant impacts on the Wheeler Reservoir or the Tennessee River
from BFN discharge.
Impacts on Aquatic Biota
The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed action
include impingement, entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and
impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The BFN has
intake and discharge structures on the Wheeler Reservoir. The aquatic
species evaluated in this EA are those in the vicinity of the intake
and discharge structures.
Entrainment and impingement of aquatic species at BFN are limited
by the NPDES permit. TVA conducted a pre-operational and operational
study to collect data describing ichthyoplankton populations in the
Wheeler Reservoir from 1971 through 1979. The results of the study
indicated that, under open-cycle, three-unit operation, entrainment
would not increase mortality significantly beyond the expected levels
of natural mortality of fish eggs and larvae and that impingement would
not adversely affect the fish community in the Wheeler Reservoir. TVA
also conducted flow studies at BFN; the studies indicated that most
entrained water originates on the eastern side of the main river
channel. This area has lower densities of fish larvae than in overbank
areas. Fish eggs (mostly from freshwater drum [Aplodinotus grunniens])
are found in the main channel at higher densities, but abundance of
freshwater drum has not decreased noticeably. With the return of three-
unit operation at 120 percent power for each unit, entrainment and
impingement would increase slightly due to the increased flow rate of
CCW. TVA's Vital Signs monitoring program currently being conducted
would continue after the return of three-unit operation. In addition to
assessing impacts from entrainment and impingement of fish populations
in the Wheeler Reservoir, the monitoring program addresses effects on
fish population dynamics and commercial and recreational fisheries as
needed. The staff has determined that slight increases in entrainment
and impingement as a result of the proposed action would not have
significant impacts on species abundance or on the Wheeler Reservoir
fish community.
On July 9, 2004, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register
(69 FR 41575) addressing cooling water intake structures at existing
power plants whose flow levels exceed a minimum threshold value of 50
MGD. The rule is Phase II in EPA's development of 316(b) regulations
that establish national requirements applicable to the location,
design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures
at existing facilities that exceed the threshold value for water
withdrawals. The national requirements, which are imposed with NPDES
permits, minimize the adverse environmental impacts associated with the
continued use of the intake systems. Licensees are required to
demonstrate compliance with the Phase II performance standards to renew
their NPDES permits. TVA is currently conducting entrainment and
impingement studies at BFN in compliance with the Phase II rule.
Fish have the ability to detect thermal changes and actively avoid
areas with elevated water temperature near the BFN diffusers. Thermal
modeling shows that the bank opposite the BFN diffusers would not be
affected by the thermal plume and, therefore, would allow passage for
migrating fish. Known fish hosts for the protected freshwater mussels
(see section below describing impacts on threatened and endangered
species) are common in the Wheeler Reservoir. Most fish host species in
the reservoir have upper lethal temperature limits that are higher than
the BFN thermal variance of 90 [deg]F. Studies on the least thermally
tolerant species, sauger (Stizostedion vitreum) and yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), showed that BFN had no significant, adverse impacts on
reproduction of either species or on the annual sauger migration past
BFN for spawning. Most larvae and eggs drifting past BFN are demersal
and would have very little exposure to the thermal plume due to rapid
mixing with the ambient surface water and rising of the heated water.
Therefore, the thermal plume associated with the proposed EPU is not
expected to affect adversely any life history stages of freshwater
mussels or their host species.
The NPDES permit limits the amount of heat discharged to the
Wheeler Reservoir from the operation of BFN. The thermal limits
specified in the NPDES permit (as discussed above in discharge impacts
section) would not change with implementation of the EPU. Because TVA
would continue to meet the thermal limits set in the NPDES permit,
whether in open cycle, in helper mode, or via power derating, the
proposed action is not expected to result in additional thermal
discharge effects on aquatic species in the Wheeler Reservoir.
As discussed in the transmission facility impacts section of this
EA, transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices would not
change for the proposed action. Therefore, the staff concludes that
there would be no significant impacts to aquatic species associated
with transmission line right-of-way maintenance for the proposed
action.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
The proposed action would not include any new land disturbance or
changes in transmission line right-of-way maintenance. Most areas at
BFN are not pristine and continue to provide habitat only for species
with widespread distributions; the wildlife diversity at BFN is not
great. No rare terrestrial species occur in the vicinity of BFN.
Although wetlands do occur at the BFN site (25 acres according to the
National Wetlands Inventory and 12 acres according to the Federal
jurisdictional criteria), none of the wetlands would be affected by the
proposed action. Therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no
significant impacts to terrestrial species or their habitat associated
with the proposed action, including transmission line right-of-way
maintenance.
Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the
proposed action include the impacts assessed in
[[Page 65014]]
the aquatic and terrestrial biota sections of this environmental
assessment. These impacts include impingement, entrainment, thermal
discharge effects, and impacts due to transmission line right-of-way
maintenance for aquatic and terrestrial species.
There are seven species listed as threatened or endangered under
the Federal Endangered Species Act that occur within Limestone County,
Alabama. The listed terrestrial species include the endangered gray bat
(Myotis grisescens) and the endangered Indiana bat (M. sodalis). These
two species are not known to occur within three miles of BFN. As no
significant impacts are expected to terrestrial species or their
habitat, the proposed action would not have significant impacts on the
gray or Indiana bats or their habitats.
There are five Federally endangered aquatic species that occur
within the vicinity of BFN. The rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) and
the pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) are freshwater mussels that have
been reported to occur in areas upstream from BFN. It is unlikely that
these species would occur in areas near the thermal plume or downstream
of BFN; therefore, effects on the rough pigtoe, the pink mucket, their
habitats, or their fish host species (see aquatic biota section above
describing impacts on host species) are not expected to result from the
proposed action. The three other Federally listed aquatic species are
endangered snails: Armored snail (Pyrgulopsis pachyta), slender
campeloma (Campeloma decampi), and Anthony's river snail (Athearnia
anthonyi). All three Federally endangered aquatic snails are found only
in tributaries to the Wheeler Reservoir that are located upstream of
BFN; therefore, no significant impacts on these snails are expected
from the proposed action. No Federally listed fish species or critical
habitat are known to occur within the vicinity of BFN. TVA's Vital
Signs monitoring program and Regional Natural Heritage Program would
continue acting as tools for identification of protected species and
habitat at BFN. The staff concludes that there would be no significant
effects on Federally threatened or endangered species as a result of
the proposed action.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential social and economic impacts due to the proposed action
include changes in the payments in lieu of taxes for Limestone County
and changes in the size of the workforce at BFN. The NRC staff has
reviewed the information provided by the licensee regarding
socioeconomic impacts. Because BFN changes in conjunction with the
proposed action would occur during a planned outage, the proposed
action would not result in any additional changes in the workforce. For
all planned outages, which typically last about 35 days, employment at
BFN would increase by about 1000 people at most. Due to the short-term
need for increased employment, it is not expected that workers would
move into the local area for such temporary employment. The maximum
employment during an outage would be about 3.1 percent of Limestone
County's current labor force, which was about 32,690 in 2003. For the
primary labor market area, which includes Huntsville, Decatur, and
Florence, BFN outages would employ about 0.3 percent of the labor
force, which was about 318,800 in 2003. Therefore, the proposed EPU
would not affect significantly the size of the BFN labor force as the
modifications would occur during planned outages and would not increase
the size of permanent employment at BFN. Accordingly, the proposed
action would not have measurable effects on annual earnings and income
in Limestone County or on community services due to the very small and
insignificant impact on the local population.
The Limestone County population is about 17.6 percent minority,
which is well below both the state and national minority populations,
29.7 and 30.9 percent, respectively. The labor market minority
population is about 22.1 percent. The poverty rates in Limestone County
and the labor market area are 12.3 percent and 12.1 percent,
respectively, which are lower than the state's average of 16.1 percent
and about the same as the nation's average of 12.4 percent. Therefore,
due to the low minority population, low poverty rate, and lack of
significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action,
the proposed EPU would not have disproportionate negative impacts to
minority and low-income populations.
In compliance with Section 13 of the TVA Act, TVA makes payments in
lieu of property taxes to states and counties in which its power
operations occur and in which its acquired properties were subject to
state and county taxation previous to their acquisition by TVA. For
such payments, TVA pays 5 percent of its gross power revenues to
appropriate states and counties, with most of the money paid to the
states, which redistribute the payments to local governments. The
proposed action would affect the in-lieu-of-tax payments because the
total amount of money to be distributed increases as power generation
increases and because the EPU would increase BFN's value, thus
resulting in a larger allocation of the payment to Limestone County.
Because the proposed EPU would increase the economic viability of BFN,
the probability of early plant retirement would be reduced. Early plant
retirement would be expected to have negative impacts on the local
economy and the community by reducing in-lieu-of-tax payments and
limiting local employment opportunities for the long term.
While the proposed action would not affect the labor force
significantly, there would be no disproportionate impacts on minority
or low-income populations. Additionally, the proposed EPU would
increase the in-lieu-of-tax payments received by Limestone County,
increase the book value of BFN, and increase the long-term viability of
BFN. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no
significant socioeconomic impacts associated with the proposed action.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not result in a significant change in non-
radiological impacts in the areas of land use, cooling tower operation,
transmission facility operation, water use, waste discharges, aquatic
and terrestrial biota, or socioeconomic factors. No other non-
radiological impacts were identified or would be expected. Table 1
summarizes the non-radiological environmental impacts of the proposed
EPU at BFN.
Table 1.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..................... No significant land-use modifications.
Cooling Tower................ No significant aesthetic impacts;
slightly larger visible plume and
increased noise due to more frequent
operation; no significant fogging or
icing.
Transmission Facilities...... No physical modifications to transmission
lines; lines meet shock safety
requirements; no changes to right-of-
ways; small increase in electrical
current would cause small increase in
electromagnetic field around
transmission lines; no changes to
voltage.
[[Page 65015]]
Water Use.................... No configuration change to intake
structure; no increased volume of water
withdrawal; increase in flow rate of
condenser cooling water; slight increase
in consumptive use due to evaporation;
no water use conflicts.
Discharge.................... Increase in discharge water temperature;
no increases in other effluents;
discharge would remain within NPDES
permit limits due to cooling tower
operation and derating as necessary.
Aquatic Biota................ Entrainment and impingement would
increase slightly but are not expected
to affect the fish community in Wheeler
Reservoir.
Terrestrial Biota............ No land disturbance or changes to
transmission line right-of-way
maintenance are expected; therefore,
there would be no significant effects on
terrestrial species or their habitat.
Threatened and Endangered As for aquatic and terrestrial biota, no
Species. significant impacts are expected on
protected species or their habitat.
Socioeconomics............... No significant change in size of BFN
labor force required for plant operation
or for planned outages; proposed EPU
would increase in-lieu-of-tax payments
to Limestone County and book value of
BFN; minority and low-income populations
would not be disproportionately
affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Waste Stream Impacts
BFN uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process, and
dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that might contain
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner such that
discharges are in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Part 20 (10 CFR Part 20), ``Standards for
Protection Against Radiation,'' and 10 CFR Part 50, ``Domestic
Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,'' Appendix I.
Although there may be a small increase in the volume of radioactive
waste and spent fuel, the proposed EPU would not result in changes in
the operation or design of equipment in the gaseous, liquid, or solid
waste systems.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
During normal operation, the gaseous effluent treatment systems
process and control the release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the
environment, including small quantities of noble gases, halogens,
tritium, and particulate material. The gaseous waste management systems
include the offgas system and various building ventilation systems. The
proposed EPU is expected to result in a 15-20 percent increase in
gaseous effluents, which is still well within regulatory limits of
Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Therefore, the increase in offsite dose
due to gaseous effluent release following the EPU would not be
significant.
Liquid Radioactive Waste and Offsite Doses
During normal operation, the liquid effluent treatment systems
process and control the release of liquid radioactive effluents to the
environment, such that the doses to individuals offsite are maintained
within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The
liquid radioactive waste systems are designed to process the waste and
then recycle it within the plant as condensate, reprocess it through
the radioactive waste system for further purification, or discharge it
to the environment as liquid radioactive waste effluent in accordance
with State and Federal regulations. Although no changes to the liquid
radioactive waste processing and disposition at BFN are expected to
occur with the EPU, TVA does expect a small increase in the volume to
be processed. The projected liquid effluents would be well within the
regulatory limits under the proposed action. Therefore, there would not
be a significant environmental impact from the additional volume of
liquid radioactive waste generated following the EPU.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
The solid radioactive waste system collects, processes, packages,
and temporarily stores radioactive dry and wet solid wastes prior to
shipment offsite and permanent disposal. The proposed EPU would
generate 15-20 percent more radioactive resin resulting from the
increased condensate demineralizer flow. Such an increase would not
exceed BFN's capacity for radioactive waste treatment and storage.
Modifications associated with the proposed action would generate a
small amount of dry radioactive waste, which would remain within the
range of solid waste currently generated and would not impact waste
generation goals.
The proposed action would increase the average batch size of fuel
assemblies for refueling, but it would not affect BFN's schedule for
spent fuel storage expansion. The number of dry storage casks required
with the proposed EPU would increase by about 7 percent. Therefore, the
increase in solid radioactive waste under the proposed action would not
have a significant environmental impact.
In-Plant Radiation Doses
The proposed EPU would result in the production of more radioactive
material and higher radiation dose rates in some areas at BFN. The
annual average occupational radiation dose to an individual for BFN
during the 1991-to-2000 period was 0.198 rem. The predicted
occupational radiation dose for BFN with the proposed EPU could
increase to almost 0.24 rem, which is about 5 percent of the 10 CFR
Part 20 limit for adult whole body occupational radiation dose. This
estimate does not account for potential further reductions in dose due
to As Low As Reasonably Achievable program initiatives and
administrative dose level controls. Therefore, the proposed action is
not expected to impact significantly the in-plant radiation doses.
Direct Radiation Doses Offsite
Direct radiation from radionuclides (mainly nitrogen-16) in the
reactor water and the turbine building would increase linearly with the
EPU. Such increase in radiation would be monitored at the on-site
environmental thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) stations at BFN. In the
past, data from BFN's TLD stations have not indicated that any
measurable nitrogen-16 radiation could be detected offsite. Therefore,
it is unlikely that the small increase in radiation associated with the
EPU would result in any measurable dose to the public.
The annual whole body dose equivalent for liquid effluents to a
member of the public beyond the site boundary is limited to 25 mrem
(0.25 mSv) by 40 CFR Part 190. The projected maximum direct radiation
dose offsite at BFN with the EPU is 0.065 mrem, which is only about 0.3
percent of the limit in 40 CFR 190. The liquid effluent dose limit for
any organ is projected to be 0.94 mrem/year, which is only 0.4 percent
of the 40 CFR 190 limit. Projected gaseous limits with the EPU would
also remain well within limits, with each dose type reaching less than
0.2 percent of the limit. The licensee would continue to perform
surveys as the EPU is implemented to ensure continued compliance with
40 CFR 190.
[[Page 65016]]
Therefore, the direct radiation dose offsite at BFN with the EPU would
not be significant and is not expected to affect human health.
Postulated Accident Doses
As a result of implementation of the proposed EPU, there is an
increase in the source term used in the evaluation of some of the
postulated accidents in the FES. The inventory of radionuclides in the
reactor core is dependent upon power level; therefore, the core
inventory of radionuclides could increase by as much as 20 percent. The
concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also increase
by as much as 20 percent; however, this concentration is limited by the
BFN Technical Specifications. Therefore, the reactor coolant
concentration of radionuclides would not be expected to increase
significantly. This coolant concentration is part of the source term
considered in some of the postulated accident analyses. Some of the
radioactive waste streams and storage systems evaluated for postulated
accidents may contain slightly higher quantities of radionuclides.
In 2002, TVA requested a license amendment to allow the use of
Alternate Source Term (AST) methodology for design basis accident
analyses for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3. TVA conducted full-scope AST
analyses, which considered the core isotopic values for the current and
future vendor products under EPU conditions. TVA concluded that the
calculated post-accident offsite doses for the EPU using AST
methodologies meet all the applicable acceptance criteria of 10 CFR
50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183. The NRC staff is reviewing the
licensee's analyses and performing confirmatory calculations to verify
the acceptability of the licensee's calculated doses under accident
conditions. The results of the NRC staff's calculations will be
presented in the safety evaluation to be issued with the license
amendment, and the EPU would not be approved by NRC unless the NRC
staff's independent review of dose calculations under postulated
accident conditions determines that dose is within regulatory limits.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the EPU would not significantly
increase the consequences of accidents and would not result in a
significant increase in the radiological environmental impact of BFN
from postulated accidents.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
The environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of
fuels and wastes are described in Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51
and 10 CFR 51.52, respectively. An additional NRC generic EA (53 FR
30355, dated August 11, 1988, as corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August
24, 1988) evaluated the applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to higher
burn-up cycle and concluded that there is no significant change in
environmental impact from the parameters evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-
4 for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 5 weight percent
uranium-235 and burn-ups less than 60,000 megawatt (thermal) days per
metric ton of uranium-235 (MWd/MTU). Resulting from an interagency
agreement in 2001 between TVA and the Department of Energy, 33 metric
tons of highly enriched uranium will be obtained and blended down to
allow use of the low enriched uranium as nuclear reactor fuel for BFN.
With the use of blended low enriched uranium fuel, a higher percentage
of uranium-236 exists. As a neutron poison, uranium-236 requires
greater enrichment to compensate for reactivity loss. The number of
fuel assemblies to be shipped would increase as would the associated
handling doses. However, the burn-up limit and the uranium enrichment
limit would stay within the 5 percent and the 60,000 MWd/MTU limits.
Therefore, the environmental impacts of the EPU would remain bounded by
the impacts in Tables S-3 and S-4 and would not be significant.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not significantly increase the consequences
of accidents, would not result in a significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure, and would not result in
significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly,
the Commission concludes that there would be no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Table 2 summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the
proposed EPU at BFN.
Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous Effluents and Doses.. Slight increase (by about 15-20 percent)
in dose due to gaseous effluents; doses
to individuals offsite would remain
within NRC limits.
Liquid Effluents and Doses... Volume of liquid effluent generated and
amount of radioactivity in the effluent
are expected to increase slightly;
discharges of liquid effluents would
remain within NRC limits; however, no
routine discharge of liquid effluent is
expected.
Solid Radioactive Waste...... Volume of solid waste expected to
increase slightly due to more frequent
change of demineralizer resins; increase
in amount of spent fuel assemblies.
In-plant Dose................ Occupational dose could increase by 20
percent overall; occupational doses
would remain well within NRC limits.
Direct Radiation Dose........ Up to 20 percent increase in production
of nitrogen-16; however, dose rate at
site boundary due to skyshine is not
expected to increase significantly and
would remain within NRC and EPA limits.
Postulated Accidents......... Licensee using AST; doses would remain
within NRC limits.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts in Tables S-3 and S-4 in 10 CFR
51, ``ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING AND
RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTION'' are
bounding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives to Proposed Action:
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in the current
environmental impacts. However, if the EPU were not approved, other
agencies and electric power organizations may be required to pursue
other means of providing electric generation capacity to offset future
demand. Fossil fuel plants routinely emit atmospheric pollutants,
causing impacts in air quality that are larger than if BFN were to
provide the same amount of electric generation. Construction and
operation of a fossil fuel plant also create impacts in land use and
waste management. Other alternatives, such as purchased electrical
power, wind power, and hydropower, were considered during the NRC's
review for the BFN license renewal. The proposed EPU, like license
renewal, would incur fewer environmental costs than the alternatives
considered. While the EPU would produce additional spent fuel, the
additional amount of spent fuel
[[Page 65017]]
would be stored in a new dry cask storage facility, which would be
constructed even if the EPU were not approved. Therefore, the proposed
EPU would not have significant environmental impacts.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the SEIS (NRC 2005).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 7, 2006, the NRC
staff consulted with the Alabama State official, Mr. Kirk Whatley, of
the Office of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental impacts of
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, the Commission concludes that the proposed
action would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's applications dated June 25 and June 28, 2004, as
supplemented by letters dated August 23, 2004, February 23, April 25,
June 6, and December 19, 2005, February 1 and 28, March 7, 9, 23, and
31, April 13, May 5 and 11, June 12, 15, 23 and 27, and July 21, 2006.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC
Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not
have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
DATES: The comment period expires December 6, 2006. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is only able to assure consideration of comments received on
or before December 6, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives
Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mail Stop T-6D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Written comments may also
be delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland,
20852 from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of
written comments received will be electronically available at the NRC's
Public Electronic Reading Room link, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, on the NRC Web site or at the NRC's Public Document Room
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737,
or by e-mail to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC is considering issuance of
amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-
68 issued to TVA for operation of BFN Units 1, 2, and 3 located in
Limestone County, Alabama.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Margaret Chernoff, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-8G9A, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-2315, or
by e-mail at [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of October 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-18623 Filed 11-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P