[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54961-54965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22413]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Single Nuclear 
Unit at the Bellefonte Plant Site, Jackson County, TN

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision (ROD)

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

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and 
TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). A notice of availability (NOA) of the Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement for a Single Nuclear Unit at the 
Bellefonte Plant Site (final SEIS) was published in the Federal 
Register on May 21, 2010. TVA prepared the final SEIS to update the 
extensive environmental information and analyses that exist respecting 
the Bellefonte site and the construction and operation of a nuclear 
power plant on that site. On August 20, 2010, the TVA Board of 
Directors (TVA Board) approved the expenditure of $248 million for 
additional engineering, design, and licensing activities, as well as 
the procurement of long lead-time components for the partially complete 
Bellefonte Unit 1. This decision will help maintain Unit 1 as a viable 
alternative to meet the projected need for base load generation on the 
TVA system in 2018-2020. Bellefonte Unit 1 is a 1,260-megawatt (MW) 
Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) -designed pressurized light water reactor. It 
is anticipated that the TVA Board will be asked to approve completion 
and operation of Unit 1 next year, depending on the results of a new 
TVA Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which is scheduled for completion 
in spring 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Horton, Senior NEPA Specialist, 
Environmental Permits and Compliance, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 
West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499; 
telephone (865) 632-3719 or e-mail [email protected]. Thomas Spink, 
Bellefonte AP1000 Licensing Manager, Nuclear Generation, Development, 
and Construction, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, LP 
5A, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801; telephone (423) 751-7062 or e-
mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With almost 37,000 MW of net dependable 
summer generating capacity, TVA operates the nation's largest public 
power system, producing 4 percent of all the electricity in the nation. 
TVA provides electricity to most of Tennessee and parts of Virginia, 
North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. It serves 
about 9 million people in this seven-state region through 155 power 
distributors and 56 directly served large industries and Federal 
facilities. The TVA Act requires the TVA power system to be self-
supporting and operated on a nonprofit basis and directs TVA to sell 
power at rates as low as are feasible. TVA power is supplied by three 
nuclear plants, 11 coal-fired plants, 12 gas-fired plants, 29 
hydroelectric dams, a pumped-storage facility, a wind farm, a methane-
gas cofiring facility, and several small solar photovoltaic facilities 
and through several power purchase agreements. TVA transmits 
electricity from these facilities over almost 16,000 miles of 
transmission lines.
    This final SEIS supplements and updates the original TVA Final 
Environmental Statement for Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (May 
1974), hereafter referred to as the 1974 FES; the TVA Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Bellefonte Conversion Project 
(October 1997); the U.S. Department of Energy's Final Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light 
Water Reactor (March 1999), which TVA adopted; and the TVA Bellefonte 
Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application Part 3, 
Environmental Report, Revision 1 (October 2008), hereafter referred to 
as the COLA ER. Where pertinent, the final SEIS incorporates by 
reference, utilizes, tiers from, and updates information from this 
substantial environmental record.
    The final SEIS also tiers from and incorporates by reference two 
TVA programmatic reviews, Energy Vision 2020 Integrated Resource Plan 
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (December 1995) and 
Reservoir Operations Study Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement (May 2004). In June 2009, TVA began work on a new IRP for 
meeting future demand on the TVA power system over the next 20 years. 
The new IRP is scheduled to be completed in spring 2011.

Background

    The Bellefonte site is located on a 1,600-acre peninsula on the 
western shore of Guntersville Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile 392, 
near the town of Hollywood, Alabama. After completing an environmental 
statement for the project and receiving approval to begin construction 
from the Atomic Energy Commission, now the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC), TVA commenced construction of two B&W pressurized-
water reactors at the Bellefonte site in 1974. TVA halted construction 
in 1988 when forecasted load growth began to decrease. Currently, Units 
1 and 2 are in ``deferred'' plant status, a designation by the NRC that 
construction permits for the facility exist, but construction is not 
currently active.
    In 2006, TVA joined NuStart Energy Development LLC to participate 
in a demonstration of NRC's new combined licensing process. Using the 
Bellefonte site, TVA submitted a Combined License Application (COLA) to 
the NRC for two AP1000 units (designated as Bellefonte Units 3 and 4) 
in October 2007. This application is pending. TVA

[[Page 54962]]

has not proposed to construct these advanced reactors at the Bellefonte 
site or elsewhere.

Public Involvement

    TVA published a notice of intent to prepare an SEIS in the Federal 
Register on August 10, 2009. The NOA of the draft SEIS was published in 
the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(USEPA) on November 13, 2009. TVA accepted comments on the draft SEIS 
until December 28, 2009. Approximately 50 people attended a public 
meeting on December 7, 2009, in Scottsboro, Alabama. Comments were 
received from 35 individuals and four Federal and State agencies. Some 
commenters supported the development of nuclear power generation, while 
others stated opposition. Many comments were focused on the age of 
existing structures, water quality, reactor design, the safety of 
nuclear power, air quality and climate change, spent fuel, radwaste, 
the need for power and alternative sources of energy, and socioeconomic 
impacts.
    After considering and responding to all substantive comments, TVA 
completed and issued the final SEIS, which identifies Alternative B, 
Completion and Operation of Bellefonte Unit 1, as TVA's preferred 
alternative. The NOA of the final SEIS was published in the Federal 
Register on May 21, 2010.
    Although not required, TVA invited comments on the Final SEIS 
during a 30-day period from May 21, 2010, through June 21, 2010. 
Comments were received from nine individuals, one State agency, and one 
Federal agency. These comments have been considered. Compared to the 
information and analysis in the final SEIS, none raised significant new 
issues or provided significant new information.

Alternatives Considered

    TVA considered numerous alternatives to constructing and operating 
Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 in its 1974 FES, including various sources of 
base load generation and eight alternative plant locations. As part of 
the COLA process for Units 3 and 4 (see background, above), TVA 
evaluated the construction and operation of two Westinghouse AP1000 
units at the Bellefonte site, including alternative sites and energy 
resource options.
    In the present final SEIS, TVA evaluates three generation 
alternatives and two transmission alternatives. The power generation 
alternatives include Alternative A--No Action, Alternative B--
Completion and Operation of a B&W Pressurized Light Water Reactor, and 
Alternative C--Construction and Operation of an AP1000 Advanced Passive 
Pressurized Light Water Reactor. The transmission alternatives were No 
Action and Action.
    Under Alternative A, No Action, TVA would continue to maintain the 
construction permits for Units 1 and 2 in deferred status, which would 
involve routine maintenance of select plant systems and other 
regulatory compliance activities. Major buildings and plant components 
would remain intact, but some investment recovery activities would 
continue.
    Under Alternative B, TVA would complete construction of either the 
B&W designed Unit 1 or Unit 2. Units 1 and 2 are approximately 55 
percent and 35 percent complete, respectively. However, all major plant 
structures, including the plant cooling towers and the reactor, 
auxiliary, control, turbine, office, and service buildings have been 
completed and remain intact for both units. New construction would 
consist of support buildings, laydown areas and parking, minor offices, 
warehouses, security upgrades, and auxiliary buildings within the 
previously disturbed plant footprint. The majority of completion 
activities would take place inside existing buildings. Existing plant 
systems, facilities, and operational components continue to be 
evaluated to better determine their need for replacement or 
refurbishment under NRC guidelines. Major construction activities would 
not be required to complete either unit.
    In addition to this final SEIS, TVA has completed a detailed 
scoping, estimating, and planning (DSEP) study for Units 1 and 2 to 
develop a licensing strategy, determine the material condition of Units 
1 and 2, define the schedule and cost for completion and startup, and 
assess project risk. The DSEP determined that seismic Category 1 
structures (e.g., safety-related structures designed and built to 
withstand the maximum potential regional earthquake stresses) for Units 
1 and 2 are intact and require only minor maintenance to meet current 
requirements.
    Under Alternative C, TVA would construct and operate a single 
1,100-MW AP1000 advanced passive pressurized light water reactor at the 
Bellefonte site, designated Unit 3. New construction would consist of 
the power block composed of five principal structures: Nuclear island 
(containments, shield and auxiliary buildings), diesel generator, 
turbine, annex buildings, and radwaste buildings. The AP1000 would use 
the existing natural draft cooling towers, water intake channel and 
pumping station, blowdown discharge structure, transmission lines and 
switchyards, and several other supporting facilities. Construction of 
the new power block would entail blasting, excavation, and grading of 
previously disturbed ground and the clearing of 50 acres of forest 
within the original site footprint. As a modular design, half of the 
major components would be constructed elsewhere, then transported and 
assembled at the Bellefonte site. Natural features of the site would be 
preserved as much as possible, and landscaping would be designed to 
help visually blend the buildings with the surroundings. The existing 
turbine and office and service buildings would be removed.
    The transmission system for Units 1 and 2 was completed in the 
1980s. Much of this system, except two pairs of 500-kilovolt (kV) lines 
connecting the plant site to the TVA system and the associated 
switchyard, has been in use since that time. Based on an 
interconnection system impact study conducted in 2009, TVA determined 
that no new transmission lines would be needed for either Action 
Alternative. However, due to routine system growth, some transmission 
upgrades would be needed to accommodate the delivery of power produced 
by a single nuclear unit on the Bellefonte site.
    Two transmission alternatives were considered, Action and No 
Action. Under the No Action transmission alternative, current line 
operation and maintenance activity would be continued, but the existing 
transmission system could not support operation of a nuclear unit at 
the Bellefonte site. Under the Action Alternative, TVA would refurbish 
and reenergize the 500-kV switchyard and the two pairs of connecting 
500-kV transmission lines. Additionally, approximately 100 miles of 
existing transmission lines would be uprated (i.e., retensioned), and 
121 miles of line would be reconductored (i.e., lines would be upgraded 
to a higher carrying capacity). The affected lines include nine 
transmission lines in Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia. All work would 
occur in existing rights-of-way.
    Other energy alternatives and sites were also considered in the 
final SEIS. TVA considered whether power needs could be met using power 
purchases, repowering of electrical generation plants, energy 
conservation, fossil fuel energy sources, and renewable energy 
resources including wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower. All of these 
energy resources have a place in TVA's plans for providing affordable, 
reliable

[[Page 54963]]

power in the future. However, TVA's need for power analysis indicates 
that even with substantial energy replacement through conservation 
measures, TVA must still add new base load generation to balance 
resources with the projected load requirements. Neither coal-fired nor 
natural gas-fired power was found to be environmentally preferable to 
nuclear power, and renewable energy sources were not found sufficient 
to meet power needs in the required timeframe.
    The 2008 COLA ER updated information about potential alternative 
sites. No obviously superior alternatives to the Bellefonte site were 
found among five candidate sites.

Need for Power

    To provide the most up-to-date information, TVA adjusted the need 
for power analysis between the draft SEIS and final SEIS. Adjustments 
include updates to reserve requirements, forecasted hydropower 
production, fuel and emissions' allowance prices, and the load 
forecast. New power purchase agreements for wind energy were taken into 
account, as were anticipated layups of some amount of coal-fired 
generation by 2015. Plans for TVA's Energy Efficiency and Demand 
Response (EEDR) program were also updated.
    Since 1990, TVA's net system requirements have grown at an average 
rate of 2.3 percent. The current medium-load (or expected) forecast 
shows a 1.3 percent average annual growth from 2010 through 2030. The 
high forecast projects load growth of only 2.0 percent, and the low 
forecast projects 0.3 percent. The final SEIS analysis shows overall 
needs increase approximately 7,500 MW in capacity by 2019 in the 
medium-load case, based in part on the projected decrease in generation 
from existing coal-fired units. TVA anticipates using a mix of 
resources, including EEDR programs, renewable resources, natural gas-
fired generation, and nuclear generation to provide the additional 
future needs. In TVA's base-case analysis, the EEDR portion of total 
energy capacity increases from 1 percent in 2010 to 6 percent in 2019. 
Renewable resources decrease slightly, from 15 percent in 2010 to 14 
percent in 2019, because the forecasted peak load also grows.

Environmental Consequences

    The environmental consequences of constructing and operating 
Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 were addressed comprehensively in the 1974 
FES. Subsequent environmental reviews by TVA and NRC have updated that 
analysis. By 1988, when construction of Units 1 and 2 was halted, most 
of the construction effects had already occurred. Completing either of 
these units would use structures that already exist, and most of the 
work required for completion would occur inside of those buildings. 
Land disturbances proposed for the construction of new support 
facilities would be within the current plant footprint.
    The environmental effects of constructing and operating two AP1000 
units were addressed in the 2008 COLA ER. This final SEIS updates and 
supplements information provided in that COLA ER. Although more site 
preparation and construction would be necessary under Alternative C, 
this would be offset by the somewhat simpler design and modern modular 
construction techniques used to construct the AP1000 unit. As a result, 
the construction duration and site construction labor force for an 
AP1000 unit is comparable to the estimated duration and labor 
requirements for Alternative B.
    This final SEIS updates analyses of the following resources that 
could be effected construction and operation of a nuclear unit: Surface 
water and groundwater, floodplain/flood risk, wetlands, aquatic 
ecology, terrestrial ecology, endangered and threatened species, 
natural areas, recreation, archaeological resources and historic 
structures, visual, noise, socioeconomics and environmental justice, 
solid and hazardous waste, seismology, climatology, meteorology, air 
quality, global climate change, radiological effects of normal 
operations, uranium fuel use effects, nuclear plant safety, and 
security and plant decommissioning.
    Ignoring the impacts from constructing alternative base load 
generation, virtually no impacts would result at the Bellefonte site 
from implementation of the No Action Alternative. Most of the impacts 
that would occur under the two Action Alternatives would be minor to 
moderate. Thermal water effects from plant operations would be similar, 
although impacts from operation of an AP1000 unit would be slightly 
less than impacts from a B&W unit due to the smaller amount of water 
withdrawal and blowdown discharge. However, a B&W unit would consume a 
smaller amount of the water withdrawn than an AP1000 unit. Under either 
Action Alternative, derates are possible during periods of excessive 
heat and drought. Alternative B would require the removal of about 10 
percent more material from the intake channel than Alternative C, and 
dredging from the main river channel is not required for Alternative C. 
Impacts from the intake dredges would be minor. Dredging of the barge 
unloading area for an AP1000 unit and towing of barges during 
construction for either alternative could impact the endangered pink 
mucket pearlymussel (hereafter referred to as pink mucket). Plant 
operations under Alternative B or C could also impact the pink mucket.
    Under Alternative C, 50 acres of forest and native grassland, 
including 12 acres of wetlands, would be lost. For both Action 
Alternatives, one archaeological site outside the site footprint would 
be marked to ensure avoidance. There could be temporary periods of 
moderate noise impacts during construction for both Action 
Alternatives. Some minor to moderate socioeconomic impacts are 
expected, primarily during construction, for either Action Alternative 
including housing availability, demand for schools, and increased 
traffic. No disproportionate impacts to low-income or minority 
populations are expected.
    The final SEIS also considered the environmental consequences of 
the proposed transmission system improvements on surface water and 
groundwater, aquatic and terrestrial ecology, threatened and endangered 
species, wetlands, floodplains, natural and recreation areas, land use, 
visual and archaeological resources and historic structures, 
socioeconomics and environmental justice, as well as operational 
impacts such as electric and magnetic fields and lightning strike 
hazard. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on these resources 
from the transmission Action Alternative would be none to minor with 
the use of standard TVA right-of-way vegetation management guidelines 
and environmental quality protection specifications for transmission 
line construction.
    During the course of the SEIS preparation, TVA consulted with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State Historic 
Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia, as 
well as interested tribes. On January 21, 2010, USFWS concluded that 
only the pink mucket could be affected by the proposed nuclear plant 
construction and operation. In a biological opinion issued April 15, 
2010, USFWS issued an incidental take permit for the pink mucket under 
either Action Alternative. TVA committed to providing $30,000 to be 
used for research and recovery of the pink mucket should either of the 
Action Alternatives be selected.
    In a September 9, 2009, letter, the Alabama SHPO concurred with 
TVA's finding of no effects on historic

[[Page 54964]]

properties associated with construction and operation of a nuclear unit 
on the Bellefonte site. TVA completed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) 
with the Georgia SHPO on April 28, 2010, and with the Alabama SHPO on 
June 1, 2010, for the treatment of potential impacts to historic 
properties from transmission system improvements on existing rights-of-
way. Instead of entering into an MOA, in a May 20, 2010, letter, the 
Tennessee SHPO requested TVA follow procedures to conduct a phased 
identification and evaluation of historic properties pursuant to 36 CFR 
Part 900.4(b)(2).

Comments on the Final SEIS

    TVA received comments on the final SEIS from 11 persons or 
entities, including letters from four individuals, five citizen groups, 
the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Water Supply 
(TDEC Water Supply), and the USEPA.
    Three of the four individuals expressed support for the project and 
interest in jobs at the plant site. One agreed that a plant was needed 
but expressed concern that spent fuel and radwaste storage issues 
should be addressed. The citizen groups included Southern Alliance for 
Clean Energy, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and its local 
affiliate Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation/Bellefonte 
Efficiency and Sustainability Team, Citizen's Task Force, and Citizens 
to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee. These groups preferred the No 
Action Alternative due to their perception of the high cost and safety 
risks associated with nuclear power, along with perceived uncertainties 
about fuel availability and spent fuel storage. They preferred that TVA 
implement an aggressive program to reduce demand for electricity by 
promoting EEDR programs as well as increasing renewable energy 
capacity. These organizations also commented on TVA's power forecast, 
completing the IRP before making this decision, the viability of both 
technologies under consideration, flooding, earthquakes, and climate 
change. No new issues were raised in these comments, and similar 
comments were addressed in the final SEIS.
    TDEC Water Supply's comments focused on source water protection, 
including water wells and underground injection control, during the 
proposed transmission improvements. Currently, no new right-of-way is 
planned, and TVA has no plans to fill sinkholes or disturb wells. 
However, TVA will consider TDEC's guidance in planning these 
improvements.
    USEPA reiterated its preference for Alternative C, commenting that 
an AP1000 unit would operate more efficiently and be safer due to the 
use of passive safety features. USEPA expressed concern about the age 
of the partially completed B&W plant and the cost effectiveness of 
completing one of the B&W units versus new construction over the life 
of the plant. However, USEPA also gave deference to the NRC licensing 
process regarding the identification of the appropriate reactor 
technology for the site. TVA was commended for pursuing energy 
technology options that would reduce air emissions.
    In response to USEPA's comment on environmental justice, TVA has 
examined U.S. Census data for neighboring block groups. TVA found that 
seven block groups surround the Bellefonte site block group. Of these, 
five block groups had minority populations greater than the county 
average, but well below the state and national averages. These groups 
are not expected to be disproportionately affected by construction and 
operation of a nuclear plant. The in-depth analysis of the impacts on 
low-income or minority populations conducted in 2008, referenced in the 
final SEIS, includes information regarding specific outreach strategies 
used for data collection in the COLA ER. The final SEIS acknowledges 
the need to provide ongoing outreach to all affected populations. The 
final SEIS also acknowledges the potential for housing issues related 
to the construction workforce and the need for mitigation. TVA has 
undertaken an in-depth housing study to better identify the extent and 
location of housing impacts and to develop a strategy for addressing 
those concerns. This study, to be completed in fall 2010, will be 
available for consideration when TVA makes its final decision about 
plant construction. Any additional mitigation that might be identified 
because of the housing study will be incorporated into a second ROD 
described below. Material was added to the final SEIS stating what 
actions TVA would take under both Alternatives B and C to prevent and 
monitor tritium leaks to groundwater, based on industry and NRC 
guidance. USEPA also asked whether TVA planned to fill wetlands on the 
rights-of-way for the transmission system serving the site. TVA has no 
plans to fill wetlands in existing rights-of-way. Final SEIS Table E-3 
includes information requested by USEPA regarding a comparison of 
effluent temperatures for the B&W and AP1000 units. The effluent 
temperature from a B&W unit would be the same as for an AP1000 unit, 
and no adverse thermal effects are expected beyond the mixing zone.

Decision

    TVA has chosen a phased decision-making approach for the Bellefonte 
project. As stated in the final SEIS, TVA's preferred alternative is 
completion and operation of Bellefonte Unit 1. On August 20, 2010, the 
TVA Board approved a budget allocation of $248 million in support of 
continued engineering, design, and regulatory-basis development, as 
well as the procurement of long-lead components such as steam 
generators for Unit 1 in order to preserve the completion option on a 
timely basis. This will help ensure that Unit 1 continues to be a 
viable alternative for meeting base load power needs in the 2018-2020 
time frame. Based on the results of TVA's new IRP, scheduled to be 
completed in spring 2011, the TVA Board will be asked to approve the 
completion and operation of Unit 1. TVA will issue a second ROD to 
document that decision.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    Under the No Action Alternative, TVA would continue to maintain the 
construction permits for Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 in deferred status. 
There would be little change to the Bellefonte site and minimal direct 
environmental impacts. Under this alternative, TVA would have to pursue 
other means of meeting the need for power. Although energy conservation 
is expected to substantially reduce future demand growth on the TVA 
system, TVA's analyses indicate that it would still need more base load 
generation. Because Bellefonte Unit 1 has been partially constructed 
and any major disturbance of the Bellefonte site has already occurred, 
constructing a new base load plant would likely result in greater 
environmental impacts than completing and operating Unit 1.
    The environmental impacts of the two Action Alternatives are very 
similar. The B&W unit (Alternative B) would withdraw more water from 
the reservoir than would the AP1000 plant (Alternative C), but due to 
increased evaporative losses, the AP1000 would consume more water. 
Under both Action Alternatives, the proportion of average river flow 
withdrawn and discharged is very small, and impacts from thermal 
discharges and on water supply are similar and minor. Slightly more 
dredging of the reservoir would be required for the B&W unit, but 
dredging for the AP1000 unit at the barge unloading dock could impact 
the pink

[[Page 54965]]

mucket mussel. Operation of either facility could impact the pink 
mucket in the mixing zone.
    Overall, potential impacts to water quality and aquatic ecology of 
Alternative B are slightly higher than Alternative C, but both would be 
insignificant. Because part of the Alternative C facility would be 
constructed on a mostly forested site, it would result in greater 
impacts to wildlife, vegetation, and wetlands. Neither Action 
Alternative would clearly result in lower socioeconomic impacts. While 
both alternatives would employ the same number of construction workers, 
the construction period for the AP1000 unit would be about 30 percent 
longer. The AP1000, however, would require about 20 percent fewer 
employees to operate the plant. More solid waste would be produced 
during AP1000 construction, while the B&W construction would produce 
more hazardous waste. The B&W unit would generate about 5 percent more 
spent fuel during its operating lifetime. However, when standardized by 
the amount of energy generated, spent fuel generation is similar. The 
amount of radioactive waste produced by each reactor type would also be 
similar when standardized by the amount of energy generated. The safety 
effects of the two reactor types are not materially different.
    Based on this comparison, TVA has determined that neither Action 
Alternative would be environmentally preferable to the other. However, 
either Action Alternative likely would be environmentally preferable to 
the No Action Alternative, assuming TVA has to build new base load 
generation.

Mitigation Measures

    Recommencement of construction activities on the Bellefonte site 
would not occur until the TVA Board authorizes construction and TVA 
formally notifies NRC of its intent to reactivate construction. The 
preliminary activities authorized by the TVA Board on August 20 do not 
have the potential environmental impacts from constructing and 
operating a nuclear unit at the Bellefonte site that were identified in 
the final SEIS. Accordingly, no actions are necessary at this time to 
mitigate potential environmental impacts.

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
Ashok S. Bhatnagar,
Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Development and Construction.
[FR Doc. 2010-22413 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P