[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58050-58057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23966]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-438; NRC-2009-0093]
Tennessee Valley Authority, Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
1; 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 extend the construction permit (CP)
CPPR-122 for the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN), Unit 1 pursuant to
Title 10 of Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.55(b). Based on
information provided in TVA's letter, dated October 8, 2010 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML102870233), and the NRC staff's independent review of references, the
NRC staff did not identify any significant impact associated with the
extension of the BLN Unit 1 CP. The NRC staff is documenting its
environmental review in this EA.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
BLN Unit 1 is a pressurized-water reactor site that has been
partially completed. The unit is 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 1,600 acres
of the site have been previously impacted by construction for both BLN
Units 1 and 2.
Identification of the Proposed Action
TVA has requested extension of the CP for BLN Unit 1 from October
1, 2011, to October 1, 2020. The Atomic Energy Commission (now the NRC)
issued the Final Environmental Statement (FES) in June 1974 for BLN
Units 1 and 2 (1974 FES). On December 24, 1974, CPs were issued by the
NRC. Much of the construction work for BLN Units 1 and 2 was
subsequently completed.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The extension of the CP for BLN Unit 1 would enable TVA to complete
construction of BLN Unit 1.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This EA summarizes the radiological and nonradiological impacts to
the environment that may result from the proposed extension of the CP
for BLN Unit 1. Operational impacts are addressed in the TVA's May 2010
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, ``Single Nuclear
Unit at the Bellefonte Plant Site'' (2010 FSEIS), attached to its
letter of October 8, 2010. Therefore, operational impacts are not
further discussed in this EA for the purposes of evaluating TVA's CP
extension request.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Land use and aesthetic impacts from the proposed extension of the
CP include impacts from completing the construction of BLN Unit 1. TVA
states in its 2010 FSEIS that BLN Unit 1 is estimated to be 55-percent
complete with most of the plant physical infrastructure work completed.
Remaining construction- and refurbishment-related activities at BLN
Unit 1 include the need to: Rebuild the power stores warehouse
building; replace the auxiliary boiler building; replace auxiliary
boiler; replace two steam generators; replace the existing analog and
solid state instrumentation and controls systems with digital
technology; replace the turbine rotating assemblies; replace major
pumps, motors, heat exchangers, tanks, and piping; refurbish major
equipment, such as reactor coolant pumps, diesel generators, and plant
electrical breakers; upgrade plant barge unloading dock; remove silt
from the intake structure; replace electric transmission system
equipment utilized for plant operation; upgrade a cooling tower; update
the plant control room; build a new simulator; install an intrusion
barrier for the intake pumping station and intake channel; construct
security upgrades; construct nonplant-related administrative building;
construct maintenance building; build construction building; construct
fabrication building; construct training building; and to potentially
realign the southern entrance road to a point 1,200 feet east of its
existing location. Additionally, clay borrow pits may be dug in wooded
areas immediately east of the main buildings. The above construction
and refurbishment activities would not involve significant new land
disturbing work. The work would largely be done within existing
buildings and land areas previously disturbed during initial
construction for the BLN units. The construction activities would use
best management practices to limit the impacts from excavation
including air pollutant emissions from earthwork (i.e., fugitive dust),
construction equipment, and workers' vehicles.
Based on the available information, the NRC concludes that there
would be no significant impact on land use and aesthetic resources in
the vicinity of BLN Unit 1. Land use would not change and additional
work to complete BLN Unit 1 would either be confined to, or occur
adjacent to, areas previously disturbed by construction activities. The
majority of these impacts were assessed and documented in the 1974 FES.
Impacts on Air Quality
Main sources of potential air quality impacts from extension of the
CP for BLN Unit 1 would be fugitive dust from construction activities,
including exhaust emissions from motorized equipment and workers'
vehicles commuting to and from the BLN site. The 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments include a provision that no Federal agency shall support any
activity that does not conform to a state
[[Page 58051]]
implementation plan (SIP) designed to achieve the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate matter). On
November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214), the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) first issued a final rule implementing the new statutory
requirements, effective January 31, 1994. The final rule required 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\ In 2010, EPA issued revised General Conformity
Regulations in a final rule, and effective July 6, 2010 (75 FR 17254).
The latest rule, in part, adds and revises definitions relating to
assessing the conformity of Federal actions with SIPs, amends 40 CFR
part 51, Subpart W, and specifically identifies tribal agencies as
stakeholders in the conformity process. The latest final rule still
requires that Federal agencies prepare a written conformity
determination for proposed actions in NAAQS nonattainment or
maintenance areas for which the total of the action's direct and
indirect emissions of criteria pollutants would exceed the threshold
(de minimis) levels in 40 CFR 93.153(b) and which are not otherwise
exempt, ``presumed to conform,'' or included in the existing emissions
budget of the SIP or Tribal Implementation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.). Where the Federal action is a
permit, license, or other approval for some aspect of a non-Federal
undertaking, the relevant activity is the part, portion, or phase of
the non-Federal undertaking that requires the Federal permit,
license, or approval (40 CFR 93.152).
\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 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 workers' 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. Since the plant is located in proximity
to a PM2.5 nonattainment area that encompasses part of
Jackson County, Alabama, TVA must show conformity with applicable
Alabama SIPs by evaluating vehicle and equipment emissions that would
occur during completion of BLN Unit 1.
During potential construction of BLN Unit 1, earthwork including
some ground-clearing, grading, excavation, and movement of materials
and machinery are expected to occur. These activities will raise dust.
Applicable permits would need to be obtained from the Air Division of
the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). Normally,
construction activities take place for a limited duration, and any
impacts on air quality would not be significant.
Because the NRC staff expects that construction activities at BLN
Unit 1 would conform to the Alabama SIPs, the NRC staff concludes that
the impacts of construction activities on air quality would not be
significant. 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 cleared areas,
inspection and maintenance of the gasoline or diesel fuel fired
construction equipment to prevent excessive exhaust emissions, and
managing shift changes for the site 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 extension and
construction completion at BLN Unit 1.
Impacts on Water Resources
Discharges to surface waters are governed by the site's current
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and
waste streams are 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 wastewater from the
BLN Unit 1 to the Hollywood Sewer System.
BLN Unit 1 construction activities would incorporate existing
facilities and structures and use previously disturbed ground where
possible. After refurbishment, BLN Unit 1 would use the existing intake
channel and refurbished pumping station, cooling towers, blowdown
discharge diffuser, barge unloading dock, switchyard, and transmission
system.
To complete construction for BLN Unit 1, dredging would occur in
the intake channel from the intake pumping station to the shoreline (a
distance of approximately 1,200 feet) and would result in removal of
approximately 10,000 cubic yards of dredged material. Additionally,
from the shoreline boom to the main river channel (a distance of
approximately 760 feet), approximately 1,100 cubic yards of dredged
material would be removed for completion of construction of BLN Unit 1.
No dredging in the area of the barge unloading dock would be required.
Dredged material would be disposed of in an on-site spoils area above
the 500-year flood elevation by TVA. During the dredging operation,
temporary increases in turbidity are expected in the immediate
vicinity. TVA would obtain all appropriate permits prior to dredging.
The NRC staff does not expect significant or long-term water quality
impacts due to the dredging. The BLN Unit 1 steam generator replacement
process could entail hydrodemolition using a high-pressure water jet to
remove concrete. According to TVA, the process would use approximately
450,000 gallons of water, likely from the local municipal source, and
would produce a water and concrete slurry. TVA states that this one-
time generation of wastewater would be captured, sampled, treated, and
released through an approved NPDES discharge point. In addition,
because TVA obtains water from the local municipality, no significant
impacts are expected to groundwater hydrology or local groundwater
users. All safety-related structures are located above the probable
maximum flood and probable maximum precipitation drainage levels or are
flood-proofed to the resulting levels. Also, because disturbance of
wetland areas during BLN completion would be avoided or minimized and
wastewater would be released in accordance with the limits specified in
the NPDES permit, no significant impacts to wetlands are projected to
occur.
Based on the information provided, the NRC staff expects that the
impact to water resources would not be significant.
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
As indicated in the 2010 FSEIS, there would be temporary and small
impacts to surface water from construction. For completion of BLN Unit
1, new
[[Page 58052]]
construction is not expected to occur near the banks of the reservoir
because intake and discharge structures are already in place. According
to TVA, accidental discharge and storm water runoff are managed under
the construction storm water pollution prevention plan and a site-
specific spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, which are
implemented prior to construction. Proposed refurbishment of the barge
unloading dock would be performed in compliance with ADEM and
applicable Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(ADCNR) and US Army Corps of Engineers permits. As previously noted,
dredging of the intake channel between the intake structure and the
main river channel would be performed. The intake channel was surveyed
for native mussels and snails by TVA in 2009, as noted in the 2010,
FSEIS. Only common species were encountered within the intake channel.
TVA concluded that dredging would be expected to result in minor direct
and indirect effects on aquatic communities; such communities would be
expected to return to their pre-existing conditions as benthic
communities recolonize the area and suspended solids settle out of the
water column.
Based on the information provided, the NRC staff concludes that
impacts to aquatic resources would not be significant.
Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species
The pink mucket pearlymussel (Lampsilis abrupta--federally listed
as endangered and hereafter referred to as pink mucket) and sheepnose
mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus--federal candidate) were identified in the
TVA Biological Assessment (BA) as occurring in areas potentially
affected by construction activities at the BLN Unit 1 site, by barge
deliveries during completion, or by subsequent operation of the
facility. As specifically noted in the 2010 FSEIS, mussel and snail
surveys in Guntersville Reservoir immediately adjacent to the site in
1995, 2007, and 2009, discovered one live pink mucket and one empty
pink mucket valve. No other federally listed mussel or snail species
were encountered. Habitat that could support the federal candidate
sheepnose mussel was identified during this survey. On this basis, it
is assumed that the sheepnose mussel, as well as pink mucket, is
present within areas affected by BLN site development. Specifically,
dredging the intake channel could impact the pink mucket and other
mussel species in areas of better habitat downstream of the dredge
area, or be affected by silting from barge towing activities. The 2010
FSEIS notes that few individuals would likely be directly harmed, but
would be indirectly affected by turbulence and the suspension and
deposition of fine sediments. Thus, TVA conducted formal consultation
with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine reasonable
and prudent measures designed to avoid or minimize take of the two
mussel species that would occur in completing construction of BLN Unit
1. TVA transmitted a BA to USFWS on November 14, 2009. USFWS (Daphne,
Alabama, field office) acknowledged receipt of the BA in a December 7,
2009, letter. A followup letter from the USFWS (Daphne, Alabama, field
office) dated January 21, 2010, stated that only the pink mucket could
be affected by the project and that there would be no effect on the
federal candidate species sheepnose mussel.
USFWS issued a biological opinion (BO) for this project by letter
dated April 15, 2010. The BO contains a ``take'' permit that allows for
impacts to the federally listed pink mucket from completion of
construction of BLN Unit 1. Due to the poor habitat quality and low
densities of mussels present in the project area, and the minimal
effects on pink mucket identified in the BA, TVA has committed to
providing a total of $30,000 to be used for research and recovery of
pink mucket, as described in the 2010 FSEIS.
Impacts on Terrestrial Resources
Although significant site construction and disturbance has been
completed, limited additional impacts could occur to terrestrial
vegetation and biota related to the potential realignment of 1,200 feet
of the southern entrance road to the plant, and by the excavation of
backfill borrow pits in a wooded area east of the existing main plant
buildings. Overall, the NRC staff concludes that any additional impacts
to terrestrial resources would not be significant.
Extending the CP and completing construction of the BLN Unit 1
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 resources from
transmission line right-of-way maintenance and upgrades. 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. The use of best management practices (BMPs) would mitigate
potential environmental impacts from pesticide or herbicide
applications.
Assuming that these practices for transmission line right-of-way
would be in place if the CP for BLN Unit 1 is extended, the NRC staff
concludes there would not be a significant impact on terrestrial
resources, including wetland areas from transmission line maintenance
and upgrade activities. By letter dated December 8, 2010, TVA confirmed
that impacts to terrestrial resources would remain bounded by the
assessment in the 1974 FES.
Endangered Terrestrial Species
Populations of two federally-listed endangered species, the gray
bat (Myotis grisescens) and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), are
reported from the region but have not been documented on or within 3
miles of the BLN project area as noted and described in the 2010 FSEIS.
Gray bats roost in several caves in the county and routinely forage
over Guntersville Reservoir near the BLN site. No suitable roosting
habitat for this species (caves) exists on the BLN property.
Small colonies of Indiana bats hibernate in caves in Jackson
County. No caves occur within the project boundary; however, suitable
summer roosting habitat exists in forested portions of the property
within the BLN project area. Suitable habitat in the project area was
examined in 2008 to assess the quality of this potential habitat for
Indiana bats. Although a few moderate-quality roost trees were present,
the overall habitat quality for Indiana bats was low because the
subcanopy is relatively dense, and the site lacks multiple trees
suitable for Indiana bat roosts. Indiana bat habitats typically roost
in multiple trees having varying exposure to sunlight.
Additionally, bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which are
federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,
occur near BLN. Prior to 2009, the species was reported nesting
approximately 1.4 miles east of the BLN project area.
Several Alabama state-listed species are reported from Jackson
County. Of these, ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are the only state-listed
terrestrial animal species known from the BLN project area. Osprey
nests are present on transmission line structures within the proposed
project area.
Eastern big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) are reported from
Jackson
[[Page 58053]]
County. The species has rarely been observed in recent years despite
numerous cave and bat surveys performed by TVA and the ADCNR. Forested
habitat within the BLN project area was examined in 2008. No potential
roost trees suitable for big-eared bats (large hollow trees) were found
on the site. Because big-eared bats often roost in man-made structures,
an old water storage and pump facility on the property was examined for
signs of bat use; no evidence of bats was identified. The closest
suitable habitat for this species exists at wetlands on Bellefonte
Island (mature hollow trees) in the Tennessee River and along the
extensive sandstone escarpment of Sand Mountain located south and
across the river from BLN.
Construction activities proposed for BLN Unit 1 are not expected to
negatively affect federally- or state-listed wildlife. No suitable
roosting habitat for gray bats exists on the BLN property. The proposed
actions would not result in adverse impacts to roosting or foraging
gray bats. Habitat potentially suitable for roosting Indiana bats would
not be affected by completion of BLN Unit 1. Given the overall lack of
suitable roost trees, caves, or sandstone outcrops and no evidence of
bat use at the water pump facility, eastern big-eared bats are unlikely
to be present, and no impacts to that species are expected.
The distance between the project area and the single known bald
eagle nest is greater than the recommended nesting buffer zone (660
feet) established by National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to
protect bald eagles. Therefore, construction activities at BLN Unit 1
are not expected to have a significant impact to bald eagles. Noise is
not expected to carry to nearby forested tracts that contain potential
foraging habitat for some species. Infrequent activities occurring near
these forested areas may cause species to leave the area temporarily,
but no long-term effects on individuals or nearby populations are
anticipated.
The use of habitats at BLN by federally listed and state-listed
terrestrial animals is limited. Activities proposed to complete BLN
Unit 1 are not expected to result in adverse direct, indirect, or
cumulative impacts to federally- or state-listed terrestrial species or
their habitats.
Based on this information, the NRC staff concludes that resumption
of construction activities at the BLN Unit 1 site would not have a
significant impact on any listed species or other species mentioned
above.
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). Extension of the BLN Unit 1 CP and completion of
construction at BLN Unit 1 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 letter to the
NRC dated October 8, 2010. Additional site details were also obtained
from reviewing the Environmental Report in TVA's October 30, 2007,
application for a Combined License (2007 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 1974 FES. 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 the BLN
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 2007 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 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 2007 COL ER.
Site 1JA302 was purported in the 1974 FES to be remotely located
relative to the construction area. 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 TVA survey. A total
of 93 artifacts were recovered; however, no diagnostic lithic artifacts
were recovered to date from the site according to the 2007 COL ER. A
small number of ceramics dating to the Mississippian period were
recovered. Based upon the stratigraphic profiles and patterns of
[[Page 58054]]
artifact recovery, TVA indicated that site 1JA111 appears to contain
buried, intact archaeological deposits and has the potential to
contribute significant scientific and archaeological information
regarding the prehistory of the Guntersville Basin. 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
TVA's 2010 FSEIS.
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 2007 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. Extension of the CP and completing
construction of BLN Unit 1 could involve some excavation and
construction in previously undisturbed areas of the site. NRC staff
expects that for areas not previously surveyed, an archaeological
investigation would be conducted by a qualified archaeologist prior to
performing any ground-disturbing activities. Additionally, since TVA is
a Federal agency, 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, 2010 FSEIS, and
TVA's subsequent responses to the NRC's requests for additional
information (RAIs) in letters dated August 26,2002, and November 24,
2008, the NRC staff finds that the potential impacts of extending the
CP and completing construction of BLN Unit 1 would not have a
significant impact on historic and archaeological resources.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Socioeconomic impacts from the proposed extension of the CP and
completing the construction of BLN Unit 1 include an increase in the
size of the workforce at BLN and associated increased demand for public
services and housing in the region.
In the 2010 FSEIS, TVA estimated that the workforce needed to
complete the construction of BLN Unit 1 could peak at about 3,000
workers; comprised of approximately 1,900 construction workers, and the
remaining 1,100 workers including engineering operations, testing, and
security workforce. Most construction workers would relocate
temporarily to Jackson County resulting in a small, short-term increase
in population along with increased demands for public services and
housing.
Because construction work would be short-term (approximately 56
months), most construction workers would likely stay in rental homes,
apartments, mobile homes, and camper-trailers. According to U.S. Census
Bureau (USCB) American Community Survey 3-year estimate (2007-2009)
data, there were 3,539 vacant housing units in Jackson County, up from
2,553 based on the 2000 Census. Based on a review of the information
provided by TVA and relevant census data, the NRC staff concludes that
extending the CP and completing the construction of BLN Unit 1 would
not result in a significant adverse socioeconomic impact.
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
extending the CP and completing the construction of BLN Unit 1. 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). In
2000, about 8.8 percent of the Jackson County population identified
themselves as minorities, with Black or African American the largest
minority group (3.7 percent) followed by American Indian and Alaskan
Native (1.7 percent) and Hispanic or Latino (1.9 percent) based on 2010
USCB data. According to USCB American Community Survey 3-year estimate
(2007-2009) data, the minority population of Jackson County, as a
percent of total population, had increased to 9.8 percent.
Low-income populations in the vicinity of BLN--Using 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.
Based on USCB 3-year estimate data, the median household income for
Alabama spanning 2007-2009 was $41,458, while 16.7 percent of the state
population and 12.7 percent of families were determined to be living
below the Federal poverty threshold. Jackson County had a lower median
household
[[Page 58055]]
income ($34,310) and a slightly lower percentage (16.2 percent) of
individuals but a higher percentage of families (13.4 percent) living
below the poverty level.
Impact Analysis--Potential impacts to minority and low-income
populations due to the extension of the CP and completing the
construction of BLN Unit 1 would mostly consist of environmental and
socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment changes,
and housing impacts).
Since much 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 and truck
traffic during shift changes. As employment increases at BLN during
completion of BLN Unit 1, 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 available USCB
information (2007-2009 estimates), there were some 3,500 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 extension of the CP and completing construction of
BLN Unit 1.
Nonradiological Impacts Summary
Extension of the CP for BLN Unit 1 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 BLN site. No other nonradiological impacts were identified or
would be expected. Table 1 summarizes the nonradiological environmental
impacts of the proposed extension of the CP and construction completion
for BLN Unit 1.
Table 1--Summary of Nonradiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..................... No changes in land use conditions or
significant impacts on aesthetic
resources in the vicinity of BLN.
Air Quality.................. No significant impacts from vehicular and
equipment emissions, and impacts are
expected to be controlled within
applicable regulatory requirements.
Water Resources.............. No significant impacts from construction
due to dredging and water use.
Aquatic Resources............ No significant impact from site runoff to
benthic communities or from intake
channel dredging.
Terrestrial Resources........ Vegetation clearing and ground
disturbance in previously undisturbed
areas would not have a significant
impact.
Threatened and Endangered No significant direct, indirect, and
Species. cumulative impacts to the pink mucket
mussel from dredging and towing barges.
Transmission Line Maintenance No significant impact to terrestrial and
aquatic resources based on the use of
BMPs.
Historic and Archaeological No significant impact to historic and
Resources. archaeological resources in the vicinity
of BLN. Historic site 1JA111 would be
marked and avoided.
Socioeconomics............... No significant impacts from construction.
Environmental Justice........ There would be no disproportionately high
and adverse impact on minority and low-
income populations in the vicinity of
BLN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 the generation of
radioactive effluent and solid waste, the staff determined that
extension of the CP and construction of BLN Unit 1 would not result in
any radiological effluent and solid waste since BLN Unit 1 would not be
operating. As previously discussed, disposal of hazardous chemicals
used at nuclear power plants are regulated by RCRA or NPDES permits.
Occupational Radiation Doses
Plant workers conducting activities involving radioactively
contaminated systems or working in radiation areas can be exposed to
radiation. However, extension of the CP and construction activities for
BLN Unit 1 will not involve any radioactive material; the NRC staff
determined that occupational doses would be maintained within the
limits of 10 CFR part 20 for the extension of the CPs and construction
of BLN Unit 1.
Public Radiation Doses
Since construction activities will not involve any radioactive
material, the staff determined that public radiation doses would be
maintained within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 for the extension of the
CP and construction of BLN Unit 1.
Postulated Accident Doses
Since construction activities will not involve any radioactive
material or operation of BLN Unit 1, the staff concludes that there
would be no postulated accident doses for the extension of the CP and
construction of BLN Unit 1.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
Since construction activities will not involve radioactive material
or operation of BLN Unit 1, the NRC staff concluded that there would be
no environmental impact of the fuel cycle and transportation of fuels
and wastes for the extension of the CP and construction of BLN Unit 1.
Radiological Impacts Summary
The proposed extension of the CP and construction of BLN Unit 1
would not result in a significant impact associated with radiological
effluents and solid waste, occupational and public radiation exposure,
or the uranium fuel cycle and transportation.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no significant
impacts associated with the proposed extension of the CP and
construction of BLN Unit 1. Table 2 summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
[[Page 58056]]
extension of the CP and construction of BLN Unit 1.
Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Radiation Doses...... No significant impacts.
Public Radiation Doses............ No significant impacts.
Postulated Accident Doses......... No significant impacts.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and No significant impacts.
Transportation Impacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact is defined in Council on 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 more 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 extension of the CP and construction for
BLN Unit 1. Cumulative impacts associated with the completion of
construction of BLN Unit 1 were evaluated for each resource area with
the following noteworthy findings. No significant direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts are expected to the pink mucket mussel from dredging
and towing barges. USFWS issued a BO for BLN Unit 1 by letter dated
April 15, 2010. The BO contains a ``take'' permit that allows for
impacts to the federally listed pink mucket under construction of BLN
Unit 1. Due to the poor habitat quality and low densities of mussels
present in the project area, and the minimal effects on pink mucket
identified in the BA, TVA has committed to providing a total of $30,000
to be used for research and recovery of pink mucket.
Several other actions contemplated by TVA may contribute to
cumulative impacts in conjunction with BLN Unit 1, as described in
TVA's responses to NRC's RAIs in letters dated August 26, 2002, and
November 24, 2008. If construction resumes, TVA may eventually move
(relocate) 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 1,200 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.
In addition, new clay backfill borrow pits may be required to
support the completion of BLN Unit 1. These would likely be excavated
in undisturbed ground east of the main 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.
Other foreseeable potential construction activities on disturbed
ground include installing additional waste tanks adjacent to the Unit 1
reactor building and constructing a new power stores building. Also,
new plant security requirements would necessitate changes to the
gatehouse and protected area fencing.
Based on the above, it is anticipated that potential cumulative
impacts from extension of the CP and construction of BLN Unit 1 would
not be significant.
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.
On September 29, 2010, TVA requested that the NRC defer its COL
review efforts for BLN Units 3 and 4.
At this juncture, the extension of the CP and construction
completion of BLN Unit 1 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 extend the CP for BLN Unit 1
fails to constitute a ``proposal'' of the type that would trigger a
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cumulative impact analysis
regarding Unit 1 in the NEPA analysis for proposed BLN Units 3 and 4.
If construction activities resume for BLN Unit 1, TVA would need to
assess the BLN Unit 1 construction impacts relative to BLN Units 3 and
4.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
An alternative to the proposed action of extending the CP for BLN
Unit 1 would be to deny the request of extending the CP. 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 largely have no significant incremental
environmental impacts on affected resources, including land use, air
quality, water resources, aquatic and terrestrial resources including
endangered species, socioeconomic conditions, minority and low-income
populations, and human health.
Another alternative to the proposed action of extending the CP for
BLN Unit 1 to October 1, 2020, would be to issue a CP extension for a
shorter duration. This option is not feasible due to procurement of
long-lead components, engineering, design, and construction.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the original FES for construction.
TVA considered a number of alternatives to constructing and
operating BLN Units 1 and 2 in its 1974 FES, including various sources
of base load generation and alternative plant locations. TVA considered
alternatives to nuclear generation, including energy sources not
requiring new generating capacity, alternatives requiring new
generating capacity, and combinations of alternatives. Alternative
sites for additional nuclear generation were also considered.
TVA considered several alternatives that could potentially replace
new generating capacity, such as power purchases, repowering electrical
generating plants, and energy conservation.
TVA also considered whether building new nonnuclear capacity would
address the need for new capacity, such as fossil fuel, wind, solar,
biomass, and hydropower.
Combining alternatives could achieve an energy profile similar to
base load operation. Combinations can utilize
[[Page 58057]]
storage technology with wind or solar technology or augment the
variability of wind and solar power with the dispatchability of fossil
generation (coal and gas) or biomass generation.
TVA concluded that constructing BLN Unit 1 is the preferred option.
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 letter, dated October 8, 2010. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, (first floor), 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at 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 9th day of September 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen J. Campbell,
Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-23966 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P