[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9308-9315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4441]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-439; NRC-2009-0093]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units
1 and 2, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared this
Environmental Assessment (EA) associated with a request by the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to reinstate the construction permits
(CPs) CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 for the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN),
Units 1 and 2, respectively. Based on information provided in TVA's
letters, dated August 26, September 25, and November 24, 2008, and the
NRC staff's independent review of references, the NRC staff did not
identify any significant impact associated with the reinstatement of
the BLN Units 1 and 2 CPs and the return of the facility to a
terminated plant status. The NRC staff is documenting its environmental
review in this EA.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
BLN Units 1 and 2 are pressurized-water reactor sites that have
been partially completed. The units are located on a peninsula between
Town Creek and the Tennessee River at River Mile 392 on the west shore
of Guntersville Reservoir near Hollywood, Alabama. Most of the 1600
acres of the site have been previously impacted by the near completion
of both BLN Units 1 and 2.
Identification of the Proposed Action
TVA requests reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2. The
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC now, the NRC) issued the Final
Environmental Statement (FES) in June 1974 for BLN Units 1 and 2. On
December 12, 1974, CPs were issued by the NRC. Much of the construction
work for BLN Units 1 and 2 was subsequently completed. On April 6,
2006, TVA submitted a request to withdraw the CPs for BLN Units 1 and
2. On September 14, 2006, the NRC staff withdrew the CPs for BLN Units
1 and 2 based on the request. Subsequently, TVA submitted a request on
August 26, 2008, as supplemented by letters dated September 25, 2008,
and November 24, 2008, to reinstate the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 and the return to a
[[Page 9309]]
terminated plant status may subsequently enable TVA to complete
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This EA summarizes the radiological and nonradiological impacts to
the environment that may result from the proposed reinstatement of the
CPs.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Land use and aesthetic impacts from the proposed reinstatement of
the CPs include impacts from completing the construction of BLN Units 1
and 2. TVA states in its letter of August 26, 2008, that BLN Units 1
and 2 are 90 percent and 58 percent complete in construction,
respectively, with most of the infrastructure work completed.
Remaining construction-related activities at BLN Units 1 and 2
include: The potential realignment of the southern entrance road 1200
feet east of its existing location; the construction of the Unit 2
startup and recirculation equipment building on previously disturbed
land near the Unit 2 auxiliary building; the installation of a new
power stores building; and some changes to the gatehouse and protected
area fencing. Additionally, clay borrow pits would be dug in wooded
areas immediately east of the main buildings.
In response to an NRC staff's request for additional information
(RAI), TVA noted in its November 24, 2008, letter that few facilities
would cause further land disturbance, and that previously disturbed
land, existing parking lots, access road, offices, workshops, and
warehouses at BLN would be used during the completion of construction.
Onsite land use conditions at BLN, including conditions along existing
transmission lines corridors (no new lines would be required to
complete the two units), switch yards, and substations, would not
change. The applicant concluded that any impacts to natural resources
from projected site construction activities would remain bounded by the
original 1974 FES assessment.
Based on the information provided by TVA, the NRC staff concludes
that there would be no significant impact on land use and aesthetic
resources in the vicinity of BLN Units 1 and 2. The majority of
construction activities have already occurred and the impacts have been
assessed and documented in the original 1974 FES.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal
agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic
properties. Historic properties are defined as resources that are
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), under Title 36, ``Parks, Forests, and Public
Property,'' Part 60, Section 4, ``Criteria for Evaluation'' (36 CFR
60.4). The historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the
NHPA) is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation in Title 36, ``Parks, Forests, and Public
Property,'' Part 800, ``Protection of Historic Properties'' (36 CFR
Part 800). Reinstatement of the BLN CPs and completion of construction
at the BLN sites is a Federal action that could possibly affect either
known or undiscovered historic properties located on or near the plant
site and its associated transmission lines. In accordance with the
provisions of the NHPA, the NRC makes a reasonable effort to identify
historic properties in the area of potential effect. The area of
potential effect for this action is the plant site and the immediate
environs.
To assess the environmental impacts to historic and archaeological
resources, the NRC staff reviewed information provided by TVA in its
1974 FES, along with supplemental information provided by letters to
the NRC dated August 26, 2002, and November 24, 2008. Additional site
details were also obtained from reviewing the Environmental Report in
TVA's October 30, 2007, application for a Combined License (COL ER) for
Bellefonte Units 3 and 4.
In 1936, archaeological salvage excavations were conducted at the
Bellefonte site associated with the construction of Guntersville
Reservoir. In 1972, TVA funded an archaeological reconnaissance
investigation at the Bellefonte site to locate any historic and
archaeological sites that would be adversely impacted by the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. The 1972 survey identified three new
prehistoric sites (1JA300-302), and located two sites (1JA978 and
1JA112) that were previously recorded during the pre-inundation survey
of Guntersville Lake according to the FES 1974. Site 1JA978 was noted
in the riverbank and contained both Archaic and Woodland artifacts.
Site 1JA112 was primarily inundated; therefore, cultural affiliation
could not be determined for this site. A 2006 survey conducted by TVA
determined that sites 1JA978 and 1JA112 are located outside of BLN's
property boundary. Analysis of artifacts recovered at 1JA300 reveal
that the site was occupied during the Archaic, Woodland, and
Mississippian cultural periods. Since 1JA300 was going to be adversely
impacted by the construction of the plant intake structure and access
road, data recovery excavations were conducted on site 1JA300 in 1973
and 1974 by the University of Alabama. Information provided by TVA in
its COL ER indicated that a total of 22 features and 9 burials were
excavated from the site. One of these features consisted of a small
structure footprint, which is indicative of village-level habitation.
The human remains are located at the University of Alabama. By letter
dated November 24, 2008, TVA stated that additional archaeological
surveys have been conducted. In 2006, TVA conducted a survey to
document and evaluate all archaeological resources at BLN. During this
survey, it was determined that site 1JA300 was destroyed during
construction of the intake structure, and therefore, is no longer
eligible for the NRHP.
Site 1JA301 was recorded during the 1972 reconnaissance survey as
surficial remains (lithic debris) dating to the Archaic period.
Analysis of the lithic debris from this site suggests that it was an
intermittent campsite. It was recommended that any further excavation
of this site would be unproductive. The 1972 report notes that site
1JA301 was heavily disturbed and reduced to plow zone scatter of
prehistoric materials. Additional testing conducted determined that
site 1JA301 was destroyed during construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 and
is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP according to the COL ER.
Site 1JA302 was purported to be remotely located to the
construction area according to the FES 1974. Artifacts recovered from
1JA302 dated the site to the Woodland period. Limited excavation was
proposed, however, further excavations were not conducted. Site 1JA302
lies outside the BLN property boundary. Site 1JA302 was determined to
be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
Site 1JA111 is an undefined prehistoric occupation site. Additional
testing was conducted at the site during the 2006 survey. A total of 93
artifacts were recovered, however, no diagnostic lithic artifacts were
recovered to date from the site according to the COL ER. However, a
small number of ceramics dating to the Mississippian period were
recovered. Based upon the stratigraphic profiles and patterns of
artifact recovery, TVA indicated that site 1JA111 appears to contain
buried, intact archaeological deposits and has the potential to
[[Page 9310]]
contribute significant scientific and archaeological information
regarding the prehistory of the Guntersville Basin according to the TVA
report dated October 2007. Site 1JA111 remains potentially eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP. TVA has indicated that the site will be fenced
off, and marked on BLN site drawings as an area to be avoided by any
future ground disturbing activities according to the TVA letters dated
August 26, September 25, and November 24, 2008.
Site 1JA113 is another undefined prehistoric occupation site.
Additional testing was conducted at the site in 2006 and yielded a
single prehistoric lithic flake, however, site 1JA113 does not meet the
criteria of eligibility for the NRHP according to the TVA letters dated
August 26, September 25, and November 24, 2008.
One historic site was identified during the 2006 survey. Site
1JA1103 consists of a collapsed structure and associated outbuilding
according to the COL ER. The 2006 survey revealed that this site was
used as a temporary storage and weather shelter during the construction
of BLN Units 1 and 2 according to the TVA letters dated August 26,
September 25, and November 24, 2008. Site 1JA1103 has had its
archaeological integrity altered by the construction of BLN Units 1 and
2; therefore, the site is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Regardless of the site's eligibility, TVA has indicated that the site
will be avoided.
Adjacent to the BLN site was the Town of Bellefonte the former
Jackson County seat. The Town of Bellefonte is listed in the Alabama
Statewide Plan of Historic Preservation and was determined eligible for
inclusion on the NRHP. Among the former town buildings was a tavern
that dated to 1845 according to the 1974 FES. This building and other
structures associated with the Bellefonte town site were moved in 1974.
The town site is not on TVA property, and the buildings were removed by
the owners according to the TVA letter dated August 26, 2002.
The BLN site was heavily disturbed by the construction of BLN Units
1 and 2, which began in the 1970s. Reinstatement of the CPs and
completing construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 would involve some ground
disturbing activities in previously undisturbed areas of the site. The
NRC staff anticipates that for areas not previously surveyed, an
archaeological investigation would be conducted by a qualified
archaeologist prior to any ground disturbing activities by TVA.
Additionally, since TVA is a Federal agency, an NHPA Section 106 review
and consultation with the Alabama Historical Commission would be
initiated for such activities.
Based on the information provided in the 1974 FES, and TVA's
subsequent responses to the NRC staff's RAIs in letters dated August
26, 2002, and November 24, 2008, the NRC staff finds that the potential
impacts of reinstating the CPs and completing construction of BLN Units
1 and 2 would have no adverse effect on historic and archaeological
resources.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Socioeconomic impacts from the proposed reinstatement of the CPs
and completing the construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 include an
increase in the size of the workforce at BLN and associated increased
demand for public services and housing in the region.
In its August 26, 2002, response to an RAI, TVA estimated that the
number of workers needed to complete the construction of BLN Units 1
and 2 could peak at about 4600 workers; comprised of approximately 2600
construction workers, 900 engineers, 850 plant staff, and 250 start-up
testing staff. Most construction workers would relocate temporarily to
Jackson County resulting in a short-term increase in population along
with increased demands for public services and housing. TVA confirmed
this estimate in a letter to the NRC dated November 24, 2008, and
provided additional demographic information. Because construction work
would be short-term, most construction workers would stay in rental
homes, apartments, mobile homes, and camper-trailers. According to 2000
Census information, there were over 46,000 vacant housing units in the
50-mile radius of BLN, including over 2500 vacant housing units in
Jackson County, that could potentially ease the demand for local rental
housing should construction activities resume.
TVA has acknowledged in its November 24, 2008, letter that
completing the construction activities of BLN Units 1 and 2 may require
greater than anticipated numbers of construction workers, which could
significantly affect the availability of public services (i.e.,
schools, transportation, police and fire services, road infrastructure,
water supplies, etc.). Reinstatement of the CPs and completing the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 could, therefore, result in greater
socioeconomic impacts than those projected in the 1974 FES. However,
these impacts would have a relatively short duration. TVA has also
committed to monitor the situation and work with local and state
officials to mitigate any unacceptable adverse socioeconomic impacts
that might result according to the TVA letter dated November 24, 2008.
Based on a review of the information provided by TVA and relevant
census data, the NRC staff concludes that reinstating the CPs and
completing the construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 would not result in
adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Environmental Justice
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
reinstating the CPs and completing the construction of BLN Units 1 and
2. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of
fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health.
Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when
the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority
or low-income population is significant and exceeds the risk or
exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate
comparison group. A disproportionately high environmental impact that
is significant refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural
or physical environment in a low-income or minority community that
appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community.
Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic,
or social impacts. Some of these potential effects have been identified
in resource areas discussed in this EA. For example, increased demand
for rental housing during construction could disproportionately affect
low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations are subsets
of the general public residing around BLN, and all are exposed to the
same health and environmental effects generated from construction
activities at BLN.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of BLN--According to 2000
census data, 18.9 percent of the population (approximately 1,083,000
individuals) residing within a 50-mile radius of BLN identified
themselves as minority individuals. The largest minority group was
Black or African American (157,000 persons or 14.5 percent), followed
by Hispanic or Latino of any race (24,000 or about 2.2 percent). About
8.1 percent of the Jackson County population identified themselves as
minorities, with Black or African American the largest minority group
(3.7 percent)
[[Page 9311]]
followed by Hispanic or Latino (1.1 percent) according to the U.S.
Census Bureau (USCB). According to USCB census data estimates for 2006,
the minority population of Jackson County, as a percent of total
population, had increased to 9.2 percent.
Low-Income Populations in the Vicinity of BLN--According to 2000
census data, approximately 32,000 families and 143,000 individuals
(approximately 10.5 and 13.2 percent, respectively) residing within a
50-mile radius of BLN were identified as living below the Federal
poverty threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal poverty threshold was
$17,029 for a family of four.
According to census data, the median household income for Alabama
in 2004 was $37,062, while 16.1 percent of the state population was
determined to be living below the Federal poverty threshold. Jackson
County had a lower median household income ($33,733) and a lower
percentage (15.3 percent) of individuals living below the poverty
level.
Impact Analysis--Potential impacts to minority and low-income
populations due to the reinstatement of the CPs and completing the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 would mostly consist of environmental
and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and
housing impacts).
Since most of the construction work at BLN has been completed,
noise and dust impacts would be short-term and limited to onsite
activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site
access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during
shift changes. As employment increases at BLN during completion of BLN
Units 1 and 2, employment opportunities for minority and low-income
populations may also increase. Increased demand for rental housing
during peak construction could disproportionately affect low-income
populations. However, according to the latest census information, there
were over 46,000 vacant housing units in the 50-mile radius of BLN,
including over 2500 vacant housing units in Jackson County.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this EA, there would be no
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income
populations from the reinstatement of the CPs and completing the
construction of the BLN Units 1 and 2.
Impacts on Water Resources
Water resource impacts due to reinstating BLN Units 1 and 2 CPs
would be relatively small. Water discharges are governed by the plant's
current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
and waste streams controlled by the current Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) permit; these permits remain active. TVA would
continue to purchase drinking water from the City of Hollywood,
Alabama, which is a community public water system that is regulated by
the State of Alabama. TVA would continue to route waste water from the
BLN Units 1 and 2 to the Hollywood Sewer System.
By letter dated November 24, 2008, TVA confirmed that almost all
environmental disturbances related to construction have already
occurred, and that any impacts to natural resources, including water
resources, would remain bounded by its assessment in the 1974 FES.
Based on the information provided, the staff expects that there
would be little or no impact to aquatic resources because the majority
of construction activities have already been completed.
Impacts on Air Quality
Main sources for the potential impacts on air quality due to
reinstatement of the CPs for BLN would be fugitive dust from
construction activities, associated with the project and exhaust
emissions from the motorized equipment and vehicles of workers. The
1990 Clean Air Act amendments include a provision that no Federal
agency shall support any activity that does not conform to a state
implementation plan designed to achieve the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate matter less than
10 in diameter). On November 30, 1993, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule (58 FR 63214) implementing
the new statutory requirements, effective January 31, 1994. The final
rule requires that Federal agencies prepare a written conformity
analysis and determination for each pollutant where the total of direct
and indirect emissions caused by proposed federal action \1\ would
exceed established threshold emission levels in a nonattainment \2\ or
maintenance area.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal action means any activity engaged in by a
department, agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, or
any activity that a department, agency or instrumentality of the
Federal Government supports in any way, provides financial
assistance for, licenses, permits, or approves, other than
activities related to transportation plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded, or approved under title 23 U.S.C or the Federal
Transit Act (49 U.S.C 1601 et seq.). (40 CFR 51.852)
\2\ An area is designated ``nonattainment'' for a criteria
pollutant if it does not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for the pollutant.
\3\ A maintenance area has been redesignated by a State from
nonattainment to attainment; the State must submit to EPA a plan for
maintaining NAAQS as a revision to its State Implementation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction activities are known to cause localized temporary
increases in atmospheric concentrations of nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and
particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5 as a result of
exhaust emissions of worker's vehicles, diesel generators, and
construction equipment. In accordance with the Clean Air Act, Federal
agencies are prohibited from issuing a license for any activity that
does not conform to an applicable implementation plan (40 CFR Parts 51
and 93). Since the plant is located in a PM2.5 nonattainment
area, BLN must show conformity to applicable Alabama State
Implementation Plans by analyzing vehicles exhaust emissions (using an
approved EPA model) that will occur during construction of BLN Units 1
and 2.
During potential construction of BLN Units 1 and 2, some ground-
clearing, grading, excavation, and movement of materials and machinery
are expected to occur. Ground-clearing, grading, and excavation
activities will raise dust, as will the movement of materials and
machinery. Fugitive dust may also rise from cleared areas during windy
periods. If any open burning is planned then the applicable permits
would need to be obtained from the Air Division of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management. Normally, construction
activities take place for a limited duration; if reinstated, the
expiration completion date for BLN Unit 1 CP is October 1, 2011, and
the expiration completion date for BLN Unit 2 CP is October 1, 2014, as
specified in an NRC Order dated March 4, 2003. Any impacts on air
quality that might occur would be temporary.
Because the NRC staff expects that any potential construction
activities at BLN Units 1 and 2 would conform to the Alabama
Implementation plans, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of
construction activities on air quality would then be low. For such
activities, the NRC staff notes a variety of mitigation measures, such
as wetting of unpaved roads and construction areas during dry periods
and seeding or mulching bare areas, inspection and
[[Page 9312]]
maintenance of the gasoline or diesel fuel fired construction equipment
to prevent excessive exhaust emissions and shift changes for workforce
to reduce the number of vehicles on the road at any given time, that
could mitigate potential air quality impacts resulting from the
potential reinstatement and construction completion at BLN Units 1 and
2.
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
In a TVA letter dated September 25, 2008, TVA indicates that TVA
proposes ``no new ground disturbance,'' possibly a small amount of
earthwork adjacent to existing building to support air compressors, and
possibly ``reintroduction'' of small amounts of lubricating oil. The
TVA letter dated September 25, 2008, does not indicate that the
reinstatement of the CPs and construction would result in any
activities involving transmission lines, such as maintenance, nor does
it indicate any on-site activities other than those listed above. The
activities described in the TVA letter, would be of such limited
geographic extent and of such removal from aquatic habitats that the
NRC staff expects that there would be little to no impact to aquatic
resources.
By letter dated November 24, 2008, TVA provided additional
information to confirm that most site disturbance has already occurred,
and that any impacts to natural resources, including aquatic resources,
would remain bounded by the impacts discussed in the 1974 FES.
Based on the information provided, the NRC staff expects that there
would be little to no impact to aquatic resources based on the limited
geographic extent and area affected.
Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species
By letter dated November 24, 2008, TVA updated the list of
threatened or endangered species and concluded that except for the gray
bat, none of the federally listed species are known to occur at or
adjacent to the BLN site. Although threatened and endangered aquatic
species are listed as occurring in Jackson County, the NRC staff
confirmed with the Alabama State Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (DCNR) that there were no aquatic species listed as
threatened or endangered in the immediate vicinity of BLN.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
Since most of the construction has been completed, limited impacts
may occur to terrestrial biota related to the potential realignment by
1200 feet (370 meters) of the southern entrance to the plant and by the
excavation of borrow pits in a wooded area east of the existing main
power plant buildings. Reinstating the CPs and completing construction
of the BLN Units 1 and 2 would remain within the scope of the 1974 FES,
assuming that TVA implements the preconstruction and construction
monitoring program for both aquatic and terrestrial resources as
described in the 1974 FES. This would also cover potential impacts to
terrestrial biota from transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The
1974 FES considered all potential impacts associated with the
transmission line and noted that TVA's transmission line maintenance
and construction methods, particularly overspray during herbicide
applications, had resulted in damage to trees located outside of the
transmission line corridor. However, current best management practices
(BMPs) employed by most industries today would mitigate such
environmental impacts from pesticide or herbicide applications.
Assuming that these practices for transmission line right-of-way
would be in place if the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 were reinstated, the
NRC staff anticipates little to no impact on terrestrial biota,
including wetland areas. By letter dated November 24, 2008, TVA
confirmed that impacts to terrestrial resources would remain bounded by
the assessment in the 1974 FES.
Endangered Terrestrial Species
In a NRC EA dated January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3571), for extension of
expiration dates of the BLN CPs, the NRC staff found that the
endangered Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) is the only species on the
Federal list of endangered species known to occur in the vicinity of
the Bellefonte site or within its transmission line corridors. The Gray
Bat uses the sloughs and main channel of the Tennessee River near the
BLN site to forage according to the NRC EA, dated January 24, 2003, and
an Alabama State DCNR letter, dated October 15, 2008. The NRC EA, dated
January 24, 2003, found that construction activities planned at that
time would not be expected to cause any adverse impacts to the Grey Bat
or its habitat.
There is a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest located less
than 2 miles (3 kilometers) northeast of the BLN site, but the Bald
Eagle was recently removed from the Federal list of threatened and
endangered species. However, the Bald Eagle is still protected under
the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
According to the NRC EA, dated January 24, 2003, population levels
of Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) have been increasing on Guntersville
Lake, and several nests have been observed in the vicinity of Coon and
Crow Creeks. Ospreys would use shoreline habitats fronting the BLN site
for foraging. While not a species listed as threatened or endangered,
the Osprey is protected along with the Bald Eagle under the Alabama
State Nongame Species Regulation according to Alabama State DCNR
letter, dated October 15, 2008.
Based on this information, and TVA's response to the RAI dated
November 24, 2008, the NRC staff concludes that resumption of
construction activities at the BLN site are not likely to have any
significant adverse effect on any listed species or other species
mentioned above, because the majority of ground or river disturbance
from construction activities have already been completed.
Nonradiological Impacts Summary
Reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 would not result in
a significant change in nonradiological impacts in the areas of land
use, water use, waste discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota,
transmission facility operation, social and economic factors, and
environmental justice related to resumption of construction operations
at the power plants. No other nonradiological impacts were identified
or would be expected. Table 1 summarizes the nonradiological
environmental impacts of the proposed reinstatement of the CPs for BLN
Units 1 and 2.
Table 1--Summary of Nonradiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land use..................... No impact to land use conditions and
aesthetic resources in the vicinity of
BLN.
Historic and Archaeological No impact to historic and archaeological
Resources. resources in the vicinity of BLN.
Socioeconomics............... Workforce required to complete BLN could
have a profound effect on the
availability of public services and
rental housing in the vicinity of the
plant. TVA is committed to monitoring
the situation and to working with local
and state officials to mitigate any
unacceptable adverse socioeconomic
conditions.
[[Page 9313]]
Environmental Justice........ There would be no disproportionately high
and adverse impact on minority and low-
income populations in the vicinity of
BLN.
Water Use.................... Water use during completion of
construction would be relatively minor.
No changes from previous impact
evaluations are expected.
Air Quality.................. Temporary impacts from fugitive dust
related to construction and vehicle
emissions related to construction
workers traveling to and from BLN.
Aquatic Resources............ Little to no impact to listed species
since most external construction is
completed.
Terrestrial Biota............ Little to no impact to listed species
since most external construction is
completed.
Threatened and Endangered Little to no impact to listed species
Species. since most external construction is
completed.
Transmission Facilities...... Little to no impact to terrestrial and
aquatic resources if current BMPs are
incorporated into management plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Effluent and Solid Waste Impacts
Nuclear power plants use 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
10 CFR Part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation'', and 10
CFR Part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities'', Appendix I.
Since construction activities will not involve any radioactive
effluent and solid waste, the staff determined that reinstatement of
the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 would not result in any
radiological effluent and solid waste since the BLN Units 1 and 2 would
not be operating. Disposal of essentially all of the hazardous
chemicals used at nuclear power plants is also regulated by RCRA or
NPDES permits.
Occupational Radiation Doses
Occupational exposures to plant workers conducting activities
involving radioactively contaminated systems or working in radiation
areas can be exposed to radiation. However, reinstatement of the CPs
and construction activities will not involve any radioactive material;
the NRC staff determined that occupational doses can be maintained
within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 for the reinstatement of the CPs
and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Public Radiation Doses
Since construction activities will not involve any radioactive
material, the staff determined that public radiation doses can be
maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 100 for the reinstatement
of the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Postulated Accident Doses
Since construction activities will not involve operation of BLN
Units 1 and 2, the staff determined that there will be no postulated
accident doses for the reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN
Units 1 and 2.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
Since construction activities will not involve operation of BLN
Units 1 and 2, the staff determined that there would be no
environmental impact of the fuel cycle and transportation of fuels and
wastes for the reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1
and 2.
Radiological Impacts Summary
The proposed reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN Units
1 and 2 would not result in an impact associated with radiological
effluent and solid waste, or occupational and public radiation
exposure, or the uranium fuel cycle and transportation. In addition,
TVA confirmed in its response to the RAI dated November 24, 2008, that
there are no changes or updates related to radiological impacts, beyond
those assessed in the 1974 FES, associated with the proposed
reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no adverse
impacts associated with the proposed reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. Table 2 summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Radiation Doses..... No adverse impacts.
Public Radiation Doses........... No adverse impacts.
Postulated Accident Doses........ No adverse impacts.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and No adverse impacts.
Transportation Impacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact is defined in Council of Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR 1508.7) as ``an impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions.'' The NRC staff has considered past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions in this review for cumulative impacts on the
environment. Should TVA receive approval by the NRC and decide to
construct one or two new nuclear power plant units at the Bellefonte
site (BLN Unit 1 and/or Unit 2), the cumulative impact would result
from construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the site.
The NRC staff has conducted a review of past, present, and the
foreseeable future action of reinstatement of the CPs and construction
for BLN Unit 1 and 2. The NRC staff determined runoff from the land
area around the main construction site drains into an unnamed
tributary, wetland, and the intake. Topographical flow gradient is
following the natural elevation not planned for land excavation or
disturbance. Cumulative impacts of normal construction of the proposed
facilities for BLN Units 1 and 2 were evaluated for water resources,
air quality, health and safety, waste
[[Page 9314]]
generation, resource use, and environmental justice including
cumulative impacts for water quality, geologic resources, ecological
resources, aesthetic resources. These were explicitly addressed and the
NRC staff notes direct and indirect impacts to these resources are
expected to be negligible. Cumulative impacts from proposed facility
construction reinstatement of the CPs and construction activities are
not expected to be significant. In addition, the cumulative impacts of
the proposed facilities to land development, electricity usage, and
water usage would be quite small.
If construction resumes, TVA plans to eventually move (re-route)
the first half mile of the south entrance road such that it would still
join Jackson County Highway 33, but to an intersection that is about
1200 feet east of the current connection point. This change would
improve traffic visibility and, thereby, increase commuter safety. Some
new ground would be disturbed for this road but there are no associated
significant environmental impacts.
If construction resumes, some new backfill borrow pits may be
required to obtain clay. These would likely be made in undisturbed
ground east of the main site power plant buildings. The topsoil would
be removed temporarily and replaced to restore the sites after clay
removal. Tree cover would be removed in this process.
Meteorological monitoring requirements have changed, which might
necessitate construction of a new environmental data station. This new
facility could possibly be sited on undisturbed soil.
Construction of the startup and recirculation equipment building
for Unit 2 has not been initiated; however, the site for this building
is disturbed ground very close to the south side of the Unit 2
auxiliary building. Other potential construction activities on
disturbed ground include increasing the size of the construction and
administration building (CAB); additional fire protection tanks by the
CAB; additional waste tanks adjacent to the Unit 1 reactor building;
and completion of the auxiliary feedwater pipe trench near the Unit 2
reactor building. The power stores building may be enlarged, and new
plant security requirements may necessitate changes to the gatehouse.
If the CPs are reinstated, the expiration completion date for BLN
Unit 1 CP is October 1, 2011, and the expiration completion date for
BLN Unit 2 CP is October 1, 2014, as specified in a NRC Order dated
March 4, 2003.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the potential cumulative impacts
from reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2
would be small and no mitigation would be required.
One of the considered actions involves an application to build two
new nuclear units at the Bellefonte site (BLN Units 3 and 4). By letter
dated October 30, 2007, TVA submitted its application for a Combined
License (COL) for Bellefonte Units 3 and 4; this application is
currently under review by the Office of New Reactors.
On August 27, 2008, TVA legal counsel notified Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board Panel, reviewing the matter of BLN 3 and 4, that TVA
has requested to reinstate the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 in a letter
dated August 26, 2008.
At this juncture, the TVA request that the NRC reinstate the CPs
for BLN Units 1 and 2 does not constitute a ``proposal'' that is
interdependent with the BLN Units 3 and 4 COL application that is
before the agency. The TVA request to reinstate the CP for BLN Units 1
and 2 fails to constitute a ``proposal'' of the type that would trigger
a NEPA cumulative impact analysis regarding Units 1 and 2 in the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for proposed BLN
Units 3 and 4. If construction activities resume for BLN Units 1 and 2,
TVA would need to assess the BLN Units 1 and 2 construction impacts
relative to BLN Units 3 and 4.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
There are four possibilities for reinstatement of the CPs and
construction: (1) Both BLN Units 1 and 2 (the proposed action, which
bounds possibilities 2 and 3), (2) BLN Unit 1 only, (3) BLN Unit 2
only, and (4) neither BLN Unit 1 or Unit 2.
A possible alternative to the proposed action of reinstatement of
the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 would be to reinstate only one CP; this
alternative is bounded by the proposed action.
Another possible alternative to the proposed action of
reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 would be to deny the
request of reinstatement of the CPs. This option would not eliminate
the environmental impacts of construction that have already occurred,
and would only limit the additional construction that has been
determined to have little to no impact on aquatic and terrestrial
resources including endangered species, to hydrology, archaeology, land
use, and transmission line maintenance, and temporary air impacts from
fugitive dust and emissions from construction workers traveling to and
from the site. If the request was denied, there would be no adverse
socioeconomic impacts; there could be an increase in the availability
of public services and rental housing in the vicinity of the plant. If
the request was denied, there would be no adverse impacts to
environmental justice; the environmental justice impact analysis
evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations
that could result from completing the construction of BLN Units 1 and
2.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the original FES for construction.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 15, 2008, the NRC
staff consulted with the Alabama State officials, Mr. Keith Hudson and
Ms. Ashley Peters, of the Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed
action. The state officials had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, the Commission concludes that the proposed
action will 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 letters, dated August 16, 2006, September 25, 2008, and
November 24, 2008. 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 20852.
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].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24 day of February 2008.
[[Page 9315]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-4441 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P