[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86732-86749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28865]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296; NRC-2016-0244]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1,
2, and 3
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Draft environmental assessment and draft finding of no
significant impact; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-
33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 issued to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the
licensee) for operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and
3 (BFN) located in Limestone County, Alabama. The proposed amendments
would increase the maximum licensed thermal power level for each
reactor from 3,458 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,952 MWt. This change,
referred to as an extended power uprate (EPU), represents an increase
of approximately 14.3 percent above the current licensed thermal power
limit. The NRC is issuing a draft environmental assessment (EA) and
draft finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for public comment
associated with the proposed EPU.
DATES: Submit comments by January 3, 2017. The NRC can only ensure that
its staff considers comments received on or before this date. Comments
received after this date will be considered if it is practicable to do
so.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0244. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Siva P. Lingam, telephone: 301-415-
1564; email: [email protected]; or Briana Grange, telephone: 301-415-
1042; email: [email protected]. Both are staff members of the
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0244 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0244.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the NRC
Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this notice (if
it is available in ADAMS) is provided in a table in the section of this
notice entitled, ``Availability of Documents.''
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0244 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Introduction
The NRC is considering issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 issued to TVA for
operation of BFN located in Limestone County, Alabama. The licensee
submitted its license amendment request in accordance with section
50.90 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), by
letter dated September 21, 2015 (TVA 2015a). The licensee subsequently
supplemented its application as described under ``Description of the
Proposed Action'' in Section III of this document. If approved, the
license amendments would increase the maximum thermal power level at
each of the three BFN units from 3,458 MWt to 3,952 MWt. The NRC staff
prepared a draft EA for comment to document its findings related to the
proposed EPU in accordance with 10 CFR 51.21. Based on the results of
the draft EA contained in Section III of this document, the NRC did not
identify any significant
[[Page 86733]]
environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments and has,
therefore, prepared a FONSI in accordance with 10 CFR 51.32. The NRC
staff is issuing its FONSI as a draft for public review and comment in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.33. The draft EA and draft FONSI are being
published in the Federal Register (FR) with a 30-day public comment
period ending January 3, 2017. Publishing these documents as drafts for
comment is in accordance with NRC Review Standard 001 (RS-001),
Revision 0, ``Review Standard for Extended Power Uprates'' (NRC 2003).
III. Draft Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
The BFN site encompasses 840 acres (ac) (340 hectares (ha)) of
Federally owned land that is under the custody of TVA in Limestone
County, Alabama. The site lies on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir
at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 and is situated approximately 10
miles (mi) (16 kilometers [km]) south of Athens, Alabama, 10 mi (16 km)
northwest of Decatur, Alabama, and 30 mi (48 km) west of Huntsville,
Alabama.
Each of BFN's three nuclear units is a General Electric boiling-
water reactor that produces steam to turn turbine to generate
electricity. The BFN uses a once-through (open-cycle) condenser
circulating water system with seven helper cooling towers to dissipate
waste heat. Four of the original six cooling towers that serve BFN have
undergone replacement, and TVA plans to replace the remaining two
towers in fiscal years 2018 and 2019. Additionally, TVA constructed a
seventh cooling tower in May 2012 (TVA 2016a).
Wheeler Reservoir serves as the source of water for condenser
cooling and for most of BFN's auxiliary water systems. Pumps and
related equipment to supply water to plant systems are housed in BFN's
intake structure on Wheeler Reservoir. The reservoir is formed by
Wheeler Dam, which is owned and operated by TVA, and it extends from
Guntersville Dam at TRM 349.0 downstream to Wheeler Dam at TRM 274.9.
Wheeler Reservoir has an area of 67,070 ac (27,140 ha) and a volume of
1,050,000 acre-feet (1,233 cubic meters) at its normal summer pool
elevation of 556 feet (ft) (169 meters (m)) above mean sea level (TVA
2016a).
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
establishes beneficial uses of waters of the State and has classified
the majority of the reservoir for use as a public water supply, for
recreational use, and as a fish and wildlife resource. The reservoir is
currently included on the State of Alabama's Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (i.e., Clean Water Act (CWA)) of 1972, as amended, Section
303(d) list of impaired waters as partially supporting its designated
uses due to excess nutrients from agricultural sources. The CWA Section
303(d) requires states to identify all ``impaired'' waters for which
effluent limitations and pollution control activities are not
sufficient to attain water quality standards. The 303(d) list includes
those water quality-limited bodies that require the development of
maximum pollutant loads to assure future compliance with water quality
standards (ADEM 2016; TVA 2016a). Water temperature in Wheeler
Reservoir naturally varies from around 35 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)
(1.6 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) in January, to 88 to 90[emsp14][deg]F
(31 to 32 [deg]C) in July and August, and temperature patterns near BFN
are typically well mixed or exhibit weak thermal stratification (TVA
2016a).
The BFN intake structure draws water from Wheeler Reservoir at TRM
294.3. The intake forebay includes a 20-feet (6-meters)-high gate
structure that can be raised or lowered depending on the operational
requirements of the plant. The flow velocity through the openings
varies depending on the gate position. When the gates are in a full
open position and the plant is operating in either open or helper
modes, the average flow velocity through the openings is about 0.2
meters per second (m/s) (0.6 feet per second (fps)) for the operation
of one unit, 0.34m/s (1.1 fps) for the operation of two units, and 0.52
m/s (1.7 fps) for the operation of all three units assuming a water
withdrawal rate of approximately 734,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (46.3
cubic meters per second (m\3\/s)) per unit, for a total withdrawal of
about 2,202,000 gpm (4,906 cubic feet per second (cfs); 138.6 m\3\/s)
of water for all three units (NRC 2005; TVA 2016b). BFN's total per-
unit condenser circulating water system flow is generally higher than
the original design values due to system upgrades that included the
refit of the condensers with larger diameter and lower resistance tubes
(NRC 2005; TVA 2016a, 2016b).
The licensee maintains a Certificate of Use (Certificate No.
1058.0, issued December 5, 2005) for its surface water withdrawals. The
Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Office of Water
Resources issues this certificate to register large water users (i.e.,
those with a water withdrawal capacity of 100,000 gallons per day (380
cubic meters)) within the State. The licensee periodically notifies the
Office of Water Resources of facility data updates and submits annual
water use reports for BFN as specified under the Certificate of Use as
part of TVA's efforts to voluntarily cooperate with the State of
Alabama's water management programs. The licensee most recently
submitted an application to renew BFN's Certificate of Use in September
2015. Based on the staff's review of BFN water use reports submitted by
TVA to the State for the period of 2011 through 2015, BFN's total water
withdrawals from Wheeler Reservoir have averaged 1,848,000 gpm (4,117
cfs; 116.3 m\3\/s). For 2015, BFN's total surface water withdrawal rate
averaged 1,991,200 gpm (4,437 cfs; 125 m\3\/s) (TVA 2016b).
Once withdrawn water has passed through the condensers for cooling,
it is discharged back to Wheeler Reservoir via three large submerged
diffuser pipes. The pipes range in diameter from 5.2 to 6.2 m (17 to
20.5 ft) and are perforated to maximize mixing into the water column.
Water exits the pipes through 7,800 individual 5-centimeter (2-inch)
ports. This straight-through flow path is called ``open mode.'' As
originally designed, the maximum thermal discharge back to the
reservoir from the once-through condenser circulating water system
operated in open mode is 25[emsp14][deg]F (13.9 [deg]C) above the
intake temperature (NRC 2005). Some of the heated water can also be
directed through cooling towers to reduce its temperature, as necessary
to comply with State environmental regulations and BFN's ADEM-issued
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.
AL0022080 (ADEM 2012), in what is called ``helper mode.'' The plant
design also allows for a closed mode of operation in which water from
the cooling towers is recycled directly back to the intake structure
without discharge to the reservoir. However, TVA has not used this mode
for many years due to the difficulty in maintaining temperature limits
in the summer months (NRC 2005).
To operate BFN, TVA must comply with the CWA, including associated
requirements imposed by the State as part of the NPDES permitting
system under CWA Section 402. The BFN NPDES permit (ADEM 2012)
specifies that at the downstream end of the mixing zone, which lies
2,400 ft (732 m) downstream of the diffusers, operation of the plant
shall not cause the:
Measured 1-hour average temperature to exceed
93[emsp14][deg]F (33.9 [deg]C),
measured daily average temperature to exceed
90[emsp14][deg]F (32.2 [deg]C), or
measured daily average temperature rise relative to
ambient to exceed 10[emsp14][deg]F (5.6 [deg]C).
[[Page 86734]]
In cases where the daily average ambient temperature of the
Tennessee River as measured 3.8 mi (6.1 km) upstream of BFN exceeds
90[emsp14][deg]F (32.2 [deg]C), the daily average downstream
temperature may equal, but not exceed, the upstream value. In
connection with such a scenario, if the daily average upstream ambient
river temperature begins to cool at a rate of 0.5[emsp14][deg]F (0.3
[deg]C) or more per day, the downstream temperature is allowed to
exceed the upstream value for that day.
When plant operating conditions create a river temperature
approaching one of the NPDES limits specified in the preceding
paragraphs, TVA shifts BFN from open mode to helper mode. The three
units can be placed in helper mode individually or collectively. Thus,
the amount of water diverted to the cooling towers in helper mode
depends on the amount of cooling needed for the plant to remain in
compliance with the NPDES permit limits. If helper mode operation is
not sufficient to avoid the river temperature approaching the NPDES
permit limits, TVA reduces (i.e., derates) the thermal power of one or
more of the units to maintain regulatory compliance (TVA 2016a).
The licensee performed hydrothermal modeling to compare the impacts
of BFN operations at the current licensed thermal power level (i.e.,
105 percent of the original licensed thermal power, or 3,458 MWt) to
120 percent original licensed thermal power as requested under the
proposed EPU. Under current operations and based on river flow,
meteorological, and ambient river temperature data for the 6-year
period 2007 through 2012, the modeling results indicate that the
temperature of water exiting the diffusers and entering Wheeler
Reservoir is an average of 86.9[emsp14][deg]F (30.5 [deg]C) during warm
summer conditions. The river temperature at the NPDES compliance depth
at the downstream end of the mixing zone is an average of
70.8[emsp14][deg]F (21.6 [deg]C) with a 1-hour average temperature
maximum of 92.1[emsp14][deg]F (33.4 [deg]C) and a daily average
temperature maximum of 89.4[emsp14][deg]F (31.9 [deg]C). On average,
TVA operates the cooling towers 66 days per year. The licensee derates
BFN approximately 1 in every 6 summers for a maximum of 185 hours in
order to maintain compliance with the NPDES permit (TVA 2016a). By
comparison, for the period 2011 through 2015, TVA operated BFN's
cooling towers an average of 73 days per year and had incurred derates
during two of the years (2011 and 2015) (TVA 2016b).
The BFN site, plant operations, and environs are described in
greater detail in Chapter 2 of NRC's June 2005 NUREG-1437, Supplement
21, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants: Regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and
3--Final Report (herein referred to as ``BFN FSEIS'') (NRC 2005).
Updated information that pertains to the plant site and environs and
that is relevant to the assessment of the environmental impacts of the
proposed EPU is included throughout this draft EA, as appropriate.
Power Uprate History
The BFN units were originally licensed to operate in 1973 (Unit 1),
1974 (Unit 2), and 1976 (Unit 3) at 3,293 MWt per unit. In 1997, TVA
submitted a license amendment request to the NRC for a stretch power
uprate (SPU) to increase the thermal output of Units 2 and 3 by 5
percent (to 3,458 MWt per unit). The NRC prepared an EA and FONSI for
the SPU, which was published in the FR on September 1, 1998 (NRC 1998,
63 FR 46491), and NRC subsequently issued the amendments later that
month.
In June 2004, TVA submitted license amendment requests for uprates
at all three units (TVA 2004a, 2004b). The licensee requested a 15
percent EPU at Units 2 and 3 and a 20 percent EPU at Unit 1 such that
if the proposed EPU was granted, each unit would operate at 3,952 MWt
(120 percent of the original licensed power level). In September 2006,
TVA submitted a supplement to the EPU application that requested
interim operation of Unit 1 at 3,458 MWt (the Units 2 and 3 SPU power
level) (TVA 2006). The NRC prepared a draft EA and FONSI, which were
published for public comment in the FR on November 6, 2006 (NRC 2006b,
71 FR 65009). The draft EA and FONSI addressed the impacts of operating
all three BFN units at EPU levels. The NRC received comments from TVA
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which the staff addressed
in the NRC's final EA and FONSI dated February 12, 2007 (NRC 2007a, 72
FR 6612). The NRC issued an amendment approving the SPU for Unit 1 in
March 2007 (NRC 2007b); the staff's 2007 final EPU EA was used to
support the SPU. Subsequently, in September 2014, TVA withdrew the 2004
EPU license amendment requests and stated that it would submit a new,
consolidated EPU request by October 2015 (TVA 2014).
Separately, on May 4, 2006, the NRC approved TVA's application for
renewal of the BFN operating licenses for an additional 20-year period
(NRC 2006a). As part of its environmental review of the license renewal
application, the NRC issued the BFN FSEIS (NRC 2005). In the BFN FSEIS,
the NRC staff analyzed the environmental impacts of license renewal,
the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal, and
mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding any adverse
impacts. Although the NRC did not evaluate impacts associated
specifically with the then-pending EPU in the BFN FSEIS, it performed
an evaluation of the impacts of license renewal assuming that all three
BFN units would operate at the EPU level of 3,952 MWt during the 20-
year period of extended operations.
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is the NRC's issuance of amendments to the BFN
operating licenses that would increase the maximum licensed thermal
power level for each reactor from 3,458 MWt to 3,952 MWt. This change,
referred to as an EPU, represents an increase of approximately 14.3
percent above the current licensed thermal power level and would result
in BFN operating at 120 percent of the original licensed thermal power
level (3,293 MWt). The proposed action is in accordance with TVA's
application dated September 21, 2015 (TVA 2015a) as supplemented by
letters, which affected the EA, dated November 13, 2015 (TVA 2015b),
December 15, 2015 (TVA 2015c), December 18, 2015 (TVA 2015d), April 22,
2016 (TVA 2016b), and May 27, 2016 (TVA 2016c).
Plant Modifications and Upgrades
An EPU usually requires significant modifications to major balance-
of-plant equipment. The proposed EPU for BFN would require the
modifications described in Attachment 47 to the licensee's application
entitled ``List and Status of Plant Modifications, Revision 1'' (TVA
2016e), which include replacement of the steam dryers, replacement of
the high pressure turbine rotors, replacement of reactor feedwater
pumps, installation of higher capacity condensate booster pumps and
motors, modifications to the condensate demineralizer system,
modifications to the feedwater heaters, and upgrade of miscellaneous
instrumentation, setpoint changes, and software modifications.
All onsite modifications associated with the proposed action would
be within the existing structures, buildings, and fenced equipment
yards. All deliveries of materials to support EPU-related modifications
and upgrades would be by truck, and equipment and materials would be
temporarily stored in existing storage buildings and laydown areas. The
licensee anticipates no changes in existing onsite land uses
[[Page 86735]]
or disturbance of previously undisturbed onsite land (TVA 2016a).
According to TVA's current schedule, modifications and upgrades
related to the proposed EPU would be completed at Unit 1 during the
fall 2018 refueling outage, at Unit 2 during the spring 2019 outage,
and at Unit 3 during the spring 2018 outage. If the NRC approves the
proposed EPU, TVA would begin operating each unit at the uprated power
level following these outages.
Cooling Tower Operation and Thermal Discharge
Operating BFN at the EPU power level of 3,952 MWt per unit would
increase the heat generated by the plant's steam turbines, which would
in turn increase the amount of waste heat that must be dissipated. The
licensee would increase its use of the cooling towers (i.e., operate in
helper mode) to dissipate some of this additional heat; the remaining
heat would be discharged to Wheeler Reservoir. If helper mode operation
were to be insufficient to keep the reservoir temperatures within BFN's
NPDES permit limits, TVA would reduce (i.e., derate) the thermal power
of one or more of the units to maintain regulatory compliance, a
practice which TVA currently employs at BFN as necessary. Currently,
TVA personnel examine forecast conditions for up to a week or more into
the future and determine when and for how long TVA might need to
operate BFN in helper mode operation and/or derate the BFN units to
ensure compliance with the NPDES permit. TVA would maintain this
process under EPU conditions.
The licensee simulated possible future discharge scenarios under
EPU conditions using river flows and meteorological data for the 6-year
period 2007 through 2012. This period included the warmest summer of
record (2010) as well as periods of extreme drought conditions (2007
and 2008). For years with warm summers, TVA predicts that the
temperature of water exiting the diffusers and entering Wheeler
Reservoir (assuming all BFN units are operating at the full EPU power
level) would be 2.6[emsp14][deg]F (1.4 [deg]C) warmer on average than
current operations. The river temperature at the NPDES compliance depth
at the downstream end of the mixing zone would be 0.6[emsp14][deg]F
(0.3 [deg]C) warmer on average. The licensee predicts that it would
operate the cooling towers in helper mode an additional 22 days per
year on average (88 days total) and that the most extreme years could
result in an additional 39 days per year of cooling tower helper mode
operation (121 days total).
Transmission System Upgrades
The EPU would require several upgrades to the transmission system
and the BFN main generator excitation system to ensure transmission
system stability at EPU power levels. The licensee performed a Revised
Interconnection System Impact Study in May 2016, which determined that
the EPU would require the following transmission upgrades: (1)
Replacement of six 500-kilovolt (kV) breaker failure relays, (2)
installation of 764 megavolt-ampere reactive (MVAR) capacitor banks in
five locations throughout TVA transmission system, and (3) modification
of the excitation system of all three BFN main generators (TVA 2016c).
These upgrades are described in more detail as follows.
Breaker Failure Relay Replacements
The licensee would replace the 500-kV breaker failure relays at BFN
for breakers 5204, 5208, 5254, 5258, 5274, and 5278 to mitigate
potential transmission system issues resulting from specific fault
events on the transmission system. The relays are located in panels in
the relay room inside the BFN control building, and physical work would
be limited to this area. TVA would complete the breaker failure relay
replacements prior to spring 2018 (TVA 2016c, 2016e).
MVAR Capacitor Bank Installations
The licensee would install 764 MVAR capacitor banks in five
locations throughout TVA service area to address MVAR deficiencies
associated with the additional power generation that would occur at EPU
power levels. The proposed locations are the Clayton Village 161-kV
Substation in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi; Holly Springs 161-kV
Substation in Marshall County, Mississippi; Corinth 161-kV Substation
in Alcorn County, Mississippi; East Point 161-kV Substation in Cullman
County, Alabama; and Wilson 500-kV Substation in Wilson County,
Tennessee. Two of the five capacitor bank installations (Clayton
Village and East Point substations) would be within existing substation
boundaries, while three installations (Holly Springs, Corinth, and
Wilson substations) would require expansion of the existing substation
footprint and additional grading and clearing. The licensee expects to
purchase approximately 2.5 ac (1 ha) of land and disturb 2.25 ac (0.9
ha) of land for the Holly Springs Substation expansion. For the Corinth
Substation expansion, TVA would purchase 3.5 ac (1.4 ha) of land and
disturb 3 ac (1.2 ha) of land. For the Wilson Substation expansion, TVA
owns the land that would be required for expansion, and TVA anticipates
disturbing a total of 5 ac (2 ha). The licensee would complete the MVAR
capacitor bank installations by spring 2019, although TVA's
transmission system operator does not preclude BFN from operating at
EPU levels during the capacitor bank installations (TVA 2016c, 2016e).
BFN Main Generator Excitation System Modifications
The licensee would replace the BFN main generator Alterrex
excitation system with a bus-fed static excitation system consisting of
a 3-phase power potential transformer, an automatic voltage regulator,
and a power section. Physical work to complete these modifications
would be performed within existing BFN structures and would not involve
any previously undisturbed land. The licensee is in the preliminary
phase of the design change notice development for these modifications;
therefore, TVA has not yet developed a specific timeline for
implementation of the main generator excitation system modifications.
However, TVA projects that these upgrades would be completed by 2020
(Unit 1), 2023 (Unit 2), and 2024 (Unit 3) (TVA 2016c, 2016e).
The Need for the Proposed Action
As stated by the licensee in its application, the proposed action
would allow TVA to meet the increasing power demand forecasted in TVA
service area. The licensee estimates that energy consumption in this
area will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 1.2 percent
until 2020 with additional moderate growth continuing after 2020.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This section addresses the radiological and non-radiological
impacts of the proposed EPU. Separate from this EA, the NRC staff is
evaluating the potential radiological consequences of an accident that
may result from the proposed action. The results of the NRC staff's
safety analysis will be documented in a safety evaluation, which will
be issued with the license amendment package approving the license
amendment, if granted.
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste
The BFN's waste treatment systems collect, process, recycle, and
dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain radioactive
material in a safe
[[Page 86736]]
and controlled manner within the NRC and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) radiation safety standards. Although there may be a small
increase in the volume of radioactive waste and spent fuel, the
proposed EPU would not result in changes in the operation or design of
equipment in the gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents
The Gaseous Waste Management System manages radioactive gases
generated during the nuclear fission process. Radioactive gaseous
wastes are principally activation gases and fission product radioactive
noble gases resulting from process operations. The licensee's
evaluation submitted as part of TVA's EPU application determined that
implementation of the proposed EPU would not significantly increase the
inventory of carrier gases normally processed in the Gaseous Waste
Management System since plant system functions are not changing and the
volume inputs remain the same. The analysis showed that the proposed
EPU would result in an increase in radioiodines of approximately 5
percent and particulates by approximately 13 percent. The expected
increase in tritium is linear with the proposed power level increase
and is, therefore, estimated to increase by 14.3 percent (TVA 2016a).
The licensee's evaluation (TVA 2016a) concluded that the proposed
EPU would not change the radioactive gaseous waste system's design
function and reliability to safely control and process waste. The
projected gaseous release following implementation of the EPU would
remain bounded by the values given in the BFN FSEIS. The existing
equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive releases to the
environment would continue to be used to maintain radioactive gaseous
releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and the as low as is
reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR
part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the increase in
offsite dose due to gaseous effluent release following implementation
of the EPU would not be significant.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents
The Liquid Waste Management System collects, processes, and
prepares radioactive liquid waste for disposal. During normal
operation, the liquid effluent treatment systems process and control
the release of liquid radioactive effluents to the environment such
that the doses to individuals offsite are maintained within the limits
of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The Liquid Waste
Management System is designed to process the waste and then recycle it
within the plant as condensate, reprocess it through the radioactive
waste system for further purification, or discharge it to the
environment as liquid radioactive waste effluent in accordance with
State and Federal regulations. The licensee's evaluation shows that
implementation of the proposed EPU would increase the volume of liquid
waste effluents by approximately 3.44 percent due to increased flow in
the condensate demineralizers requiring more frequent backwashes. The
current Liquid Waste Management System would be able to process the
3.44 percent increase in the total volume of liquid radioactive waste
without any modifications. The licensee's evaluation determined that
implementation of the proposed EPU would result in an increase in
reactor coolant inventory of radioiodines of approximately 5 percent
and an increase in radionuclides with long half-lives of approximately
13 percent. The expected increase in tritium is linear with the
proposed power level increase and is, therefore, estimated to increase
by 15 percent (TVA 2016a).
Since the composition of the radioactive material in the waste and
the volume of radioactive material processed through the system are not
expected to significantly change, the current design and operation of
the Liquid Waste Management System would accommodate the effects of the
proposed EPU. The projected liquid effluent release following the EPU
would remain bounded by the values given in the BFN FSEIS. The existing
equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive releases to the
environment would continue to be used to maintain radioactive liquid
releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and ALARA dose
standards in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would not be a significant environmental impact
from the additional volume of liquid radioactive waste generated
following EPU implementation.
Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Radioactive solid wastes at BFN include solids from reactor coolant
systems, solids in contact with liquids or gases from reactor coolant
systems, and solids used in support of reactor coolant systems
operation. The licensee evaluated the potential effects of the proposed
EPU on the Solid Waste Management System. The low-level radioactive
waste (LLRW) consists of resins, filters and evaporator bottoms, dry
active waste, irradiated components, and other waste (combined
packages). The majority of BFN solid LLRW is shipped offsite as dry
active waste. This LLRW is generated from outages, special projects and
normal BFN operations. Normal operations at BFN are also a contributor
to solid LLRW shipments due to system cleanup activities. This is due
to resins from six waste phase separators and three reactor water
cleanup phase separators. The licensee states (TVA 2016a) that BFN has
approximately 29 spent resin shipments per year. The licensee's
evaluation determined that implementation of the proposed EPU would
result in an increase in activity of the solid wastes proportionate to
an increase of 5 to 13 percent in the activity of long-lived
radionuclides in the reactor coolant. The results of the licensee's
evaluation also determined that the proposed EPU would result in a 15
percent increase in the total volume of solid waste generated for
shipment offsite.
Since the composition and volume of the radioactive material in the
solid wastes are not expected to significantly change, they can be
handled by the current Solid Waste Management System without
modification. The equipment is designed and operated to process the
waste into a form that minimizes potential harm to the workers and the
environment. Waste processing areas are monitored for radiation, and
there are safety features to ensure worker doses are maintained within
regulatory limits. The proposed EPU would not generate a new type of
waste or create a new waste stream. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes
that the impact from the proposed EPU on the management of radioactive
solid waste would not be significant.
Occupational Radiation Dose at EPU Conditions
The licensee states (TVA 2016a) that in-plant radiation sources are
expected to increase approximately linearly with the proposed increase
in core power level of 14.3 percent. To protect the workers, the BFN
Radiation Protection Program monitors radiation levels throughout the
plant to establish appropriate work controls, training, temporary
shielding, and protective equipment requirements to minimize worker
doses.
Plant shielding is designed to provide for personnel access to the
plant to perform maintenance and carry out operational duties with
minimal personnel exposures. In-plant radiation levels and associated
doses are
[[Page 86737]]
controlled by the BFN Radiation Protection Program to ensure that
internal and external radiation exposures to station personnel, and the
general population exposure level would be ALARA, as required by 10 CFR
part 20. Access to radiation areas is strictly controlled by existing
Radiation Protection Program procedures. Furthermore, it is TVA policy
to maintain occupational doses to individuals and the sum of dose
equivalents received by all exposed workers ALARA.
Based on the preceding paragraphs, the NRC staff concludes that the
proposed EPU is not expected to significantly affect radiation levels
within BFN and, therefore, there would not be a significant
radiological impact to the workers.
Offsite Doses at EPU Conditions
The primary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from
BFN are radioactive gaseous, liquid effluents, and skyshine from
Nitrogen-16 (N-16). As previously discussed, operation under proposed
EPU conditions would not change the radioactive waste management
systems' abilities to perform their intended functions. Also, there
would be no change to the radiation monitoring system and procedures
used to control the release of radioactive effluents in accordance with
NRC radiation protection standards in 10 CFR part 20 and appendix I to
10 CFR part 50.
The licensee states (TVA 2016a) that the contribution of radiation
shine from the implementation of the proposed EPU from N-16 would
increase linearly with the EPU. The licensee estimates that this
increase could result in offsite doses up to 32 percent greater than
current operating levels. However, since current offsite doses due to
N-16 skyshine are on average less than 1 millirem, doses would still be
well within the 10 CFR 20.1301 and 40 CFR part 190 dose limits to
members of the public following implementation of the proposed EPU.
Further, any increase in radiation would be monitored at the on-site
environmental thermoluminescent dosimeter stations at BFN to make sure
offsite doses would remain in regulatory compliance (TVA 2016a).
Based on the preceding paragraphs, the NRC staff concludes that the
impact of offsite radiation dose to members of the public at EPU
conditions would continue to be within the NRC and EPA regulatory
limits and would not be significant.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent fuel from BFN is stored in the plant's spent fuel pool and in
dry casks in the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).
The licensee estimates that the impact on spent fuel storage from
operating at EPU conditions would increase the number of dry storage
casks necessary for storage by approximately 19 percent. The licensee
also states that the current ISFSI storage pad is projected to be
filled on or before 2022 prior to being loaded with EPU fuel. An
additional storage pad is anticipated to be required even if no EPU is
approved. Since BFN's initial ISFSI plans included sufficient room for
any necessary ISFSI expansion, the additional dry casks necessary for
spent fuel storage at EPU levels can be accommodated on site and,
therefore, would not have any significant environmental impact (TVA
2016a).
Approval of the proposed EPU would not increase the maximum fuel
enrichment above 5 percent by weight uranium-235. The average fuel
assembly discharge burnup for the proposed EPU is not expected to
exceed the maximum fuel rod burnup limit of 62,000 megawatt days per
metric ton of uranium. The licensee's fuel reload design goals would
maintain the fuel cycles within the limits bounded by the impacts
analyzed in 10 CFR part 51, Table S-3, ``Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle
Environmental Data,'' and Table S-4, ``Environmental Impact of
Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light Water-Cooled
Nuclear Power Reactor,'' as supplemented by the findings documented in
Section 6.3, ``Transportation,'' Table 9.1, ``Summary of findings on
NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] issues for license renewal of
nuclear power plants'' in NRC (1999). Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that the environmental impacts of the EPU would remain
bounded by the impacts in Tables S-3 and S-4, and would not be
significant.
Postulated Accident Doses
As a result of implementation of the proposed EPU, there would be
an increase in the source term used in the evaluation of some of the
postulated accidents in the BFN FSEIS. The inventory of radionuclides
in the reactor core is dependent upon power level; therefore, the core
inventory of radionuclides could increase by as much as 14.3 percent.
The concentration of radionuclides in the reactor coolant may also
increase by as much as 14.3 percent; however, this concentration is
limited by the BFN Technical Specifications. Therefore, the reactor
coolant concentration of radionuclides would not be expected to
increase significantly. This coolant concentration is part of the
source term considered in some of the postulated accident analyses.
Some of the radioactive waste streams and storage systems evaluated for
postulated accidents may contain slightly higher quantities of
radionuclides (TVA 2016a).
In 2002, TVA requested a license amendment to allow the use of
Alternate Source Term (AST) methodology for design basis accident
analyses for BFN. The licensee conducted full-scope AST analyses, which
considered the core isotopic values for the current and future vendor
products under EPU conditions. The licensee concluded that the
calculated post-accident offsite doses for the EPU using AST
methodologies meet all the applicable acceptance criteria of 10 CFR
50.67 and the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological
Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Reactors'' (NRC 2000). The NRC staff is reviewing the licensee's
analyses and performing confirmatory calculations to verify the
acceptability of the licensee's calculated doses under accident
conditions. The results of the NRC staff's calculations will be
presented in the safety evaluation to be issued with the license
amendment, if approved, and the EPU would not be approved by NRC unless
the NRC staff's independent review of dose calculations under
postulated accident conditions determines that dose is within
regulatory limits. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the EPU
would not significantly increase the consequences of accidents and
would not result in a significant increase in the radiological
environmental impact of BFN from postulated accidents.
Radiological Impacts Summary
The proposed EPU would not significantly increase the consequences
of accidents, would not result in a significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure, and would not result in
significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. Accordingly,
the NRC staff concludes that there would be no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
The potential impacts associated with land use for the proposed
action include
[[Page 86738]]
effects from onsite EPU-related modifications and upgrades that would
take place between spring 2018 and spring 2019 and impacts of the
transmission system upgrades previously described in the ``Description
of the Proposed Action'' section of this document.
The onsite plant modifications and upgrades would occur within
existing structures, buildings, and fenced equipment yards and would
use existing parking lots, road access, lay-down areas, offices,
workshops, warehouses, and restrooms in previously developed areas of
the BFN site. Thus, existing onsite land uses would not be affected by
onsite plant modifications and upgrades (TVA 2016a).
Regarding transmission system upgrades, the breaker failure relay
replacements and BFN main generator excitation system modifications
would occur within existing BFN structures and would not involve any
previously undisturbed land. The MVAR capacitor bank installations
would occur at five offsite locations throughout TVA service area as
described previously. Two of the capacitor bank installations would be
within existing substation boundaries and would, therefore, not affect
any previously undisturbed land or alter existing land uses (TVA
2016d). The remaining three capacitor bank installations would require
expansion of the existing substation footprints and would require
additional grading and clearing (TVA 2016d). TVA expects that the
expansions would disturb 2.25 ac (0.9 ha), 3 ac (1.2 ha), and 5 ac (2
ha) of land at the Holly Springs, Corinth, and Wilson substations,
respectively (TVA 2016d). The affected land currently contains
terrestrial habitat or other semi-maintained natural areas, but none of
the three land parcels contain wetlands, ecologically sensitive or
important habitats, prime or unique farmland, scenic areas, wildlife
management areas, recreational areas, greenways, or trails. TVA would
implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the duration of
soil exposure during clearing, grading, and construction (TVA 2016d).
TVA would also revegetate and mulch the disturbed areas as soon as
practicable after each disturbance (TVA 2016d). The NRC staff did not
identify any significant environmental impacts related to altering land
uses within the small parcels of land required for the capacitor bank
installations.
Following the necessary plant modifications and transmission system
upgrades, operation of BFN at the EPU power level would not affect
onsite or offsite land uses.
The NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU would not result in
significant impacts on onsite or offsite land use.
Visual Resource Impacts
No residential homes occur within foreground viewing distance of
the BFN site to the north and east. A small residential development
located to the northwest and another residential development located
across Wheeler Reservoir to the southwest have at least partial views
of the BFN site. Additionally, the site can be seen from the Mallard
Creek public use area directly across the reservoir. Two earthen berms
lie adjacent to the cooling tower complex that block views of the
northern and eastern plant areas. The berms, as well as portions of the
cooling tower complex, are visible to motorists traveling on Shaw Road
(TVA 2016b).
Plant modifications and upgrades associated with the proposed EPU
are unlikely to result in additional visual resource impacts beyond
those already occurring from ongoing operation of BFN for several
reasons. First, the BFN site is already an industrial-use site.
Therefore, the short-term, intensified use of the site that would be
required to implement EPU-related modifications and upgrades is
unlikely to be noticeable to members of the public within the site's
viewshed. Second, TVA would implement all EPU-related modifications and
upgrades during scheduled refueling outages when additional machinery
and heightened activity would already be occurring on the site.
Accordingly, the NRC staff does not expect that EPU-related
modifications and upgrades would result in significant impacts to
visual resources.
Regarding transmission system upgrades, the breaker failure relay
replacements and BFN main generator excitation system modifications
would occur within existing BFN structures and thus would not result in
visual impacts. The MVAR capacitor bank installations would result in
short-term visual impacts at the three sites for which substation
expansion would be required. However, these areas are industrial-use
sites, and use of machinery and equipment for ongoing maintenance and
upgrades is common.
Following the necessary plant modifications and transmission system
upgrades, operation of BFN at the EPU power level would not
significantly affect visual resources. The licensee estimates that the
EPU would require cooling tower operation 22 more days per year on
average, which would increase the number of days in which a plume would
be visible. However, given that the cooling towers are already operated
intermittently, the additional use of the cooling towers following the
EPU would not result in significantly different visual impacts that
those experienced during current operations.
The NRC staff concludes that the temporary visual impacts during
implementation of EPU modifications and upgrades and capacitor bank
installations would be minor and of short duration, and would not
result in significant impacts to visual resources. The additional
cooling tower operation following implementation of the EPU would also
result in minor and insignificant visual impacts.
Air Quality Impacts
Onsite non-radioactive air emissions from BFN are primarily from
operation of the emergency diesel generators. Emissions occur when
these generators are tested or are used to supply backup power. The
licensee (2016a) does not anticipate an increase in use of the
emergency diesel generators as a result of the proposed EPU, nor is it
planning to increase the frequency or duration of the emergency diesel
generator surveillance testing. Additionally, TVA (2016a) maintains a
Synthetic Minor Source Air Operating Permit for its diesel generators
issued and enforced by the ADEM, and TVA would continue to comply with
the requirements of this permit under EPU conditions. Accordingly, the
NRC staff does not expect that onsite emission sources attributable to
the EPU would result in significant impacts to air quality.
Offsite non-radioactive emissions related to the proposed EPU would
result primarily from personal vehicles of EPU-related workforce
members driving to and from the site and from work vehicles delivering
supplies and equipment to the site. The licensee (2016a) estimates that
of the additional workers that would be present on the site during each
of the refueling outages, 80 to 120 workers or less would be dedicated
to implementing EPU-related modifications and upgrades. The licensee
(2016a) generally ramps up outage staffing two to three weeks prior to
the outage start and ramps down staffing beginning 21 to 28 days from
the start of the outage. Major equipment and materials to support the
EPU-related modifications and upgrades would be transported to the site
well before the start of each outage period, and smaller EPU supplies
will be delivered on trucks that routinely supply similar tools and
materials to support BFN operations (TVA 2016a). The capacitor bank
installations
[[Page 86739]]
associated with the proposed EPU would result in additional minor air
quality impacts from construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust
from ground disturbance and vehicle travel on unpaved roads (TVA
2016d). These impacts would be temporary and controlled through TVA's
BMPs (TVA 2016d).
Following the necessary plant modifications and transmission system
upgrades, operation at EPU levels would result in no additional air
emissions as compared to operations at the current licensed power
levels.
The NRC staff concludes that the temporary increase in air
emissions during implementation of EPU modifications and upgrades and
capacitor bank installations would be minor and of short duration, and
would not result in significant impacts to air quality.
Noise Impacts
The potential noise impacts related to the proposed action would be
primarily confined to those resulting from the use of construction
equipment and machinery during the EPU outage periods. However,
implementation of EPU-related modifications and upgrades during these
periods is unlikely to result in additional noise impacts beyond those
already occurring from ongoing operation because the BFN site is
already an industrial-use site and because TVA would implement all EPU-
related modifications and upgrades during scheduled refueling outages
when additional machinery and heightened activity would already be
occurring on the site. Accordingly, the NRC staff does not expect that
EPU-related modifications and upgrades would result in significant
noise impacts.
Regarding transmission system upgrades, the breaker failure relay
replacements and BFN main generator excitation system modifications
would occur within existing BFN structures, and would, therefore, not
result in noise impacts. The MVAR capacitor bank installations would
result in short-term and temporary noise impacts associated with
construction equipment and machinery use at the three sites for which
substation expansion would be required. However, these areas are
industrial-use sites, and periodic noise impacts associated with
ongoing maintenance and upgrades are common.
Following the EPU outages, operation of BFN at EPU levels would
result in an average of 22 additional days per year of cooling tower
operation, which would slightly increase the duration for which
residents nearest the BFN site would experience cooling tower-related
noise during the warmer months. The NRC staff reviewed information
submitted by TVA (2016a) regarding an environmental sound pressure
level assessment performed in 2012 at the BFN site in 2012. The
assessment found that background noise levels without cooling tower
operation was 59.7 decibels A-weighted scale (dBA), and that the noise
levels with operation of six of the seven cooling towers was 61.9 dBA,
an increase of 2.2 dBA. The licensee compared this level with the
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise's (FICON) recommendation that a
3-dBA increase in noise indicates a possible impact and the need for
further analysis. Based on this criteria, TVA determined that the noise
level emitted by operation of the cooling towers is acceptable.
Additionally, TVA (2016c) is planning to conduct additional sound
monitoring following the replacement of Cooling Towers 1 and 2, which
are scheduled for replacement in fiscal years 2018 and FY 2019. The
licensee will continue to meet FICON guidelines by working with the
cooling tower vendor to ensure noise attenuating features, such as low-
noise fans, lower speed fans, and sound attenuators, are incorporated
as required to meet the guidelines. In the event that TVA (2016a) finds
that the resulting noise levels exceed the FICON guidelines, TVA would
develop and implement additional acoustical mitigation, such as
modifications to fans and motors or the installation of barriers. The
licensee will also continue to comply with Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations to protect worker health
onsite.
The NRC staff concludes that the implementation of EPU
modifications and upgrades, the capacitor bank installations, and
additional operation of the cooling towers following implementation of
the EPU would not result in significant noise impacts. Additionally,
TVA would continue to comply with FICON guidelines and OSHA regulations
regarding noise impacts, which would further ensure that future cooling
tower operation would not result in significant impacts on the acoustic
environment and human health.
Water Resources Impacts
As previously described, EPU-related modifications at BFN to
include replacement and upgrades of plant equipment would occur within
existing structures, buildings, and fenced equipment yards. The
licensee does not expect any impact on previously undisturbed land. Any
ground-disturbing activity would be subject to BFN's BMP Plan, which
TVA must maintain as a condition of the BFN site NPDES permit (ADEM
2012). The licensee must implement and maintain the BMP Plan to prevent
or minimize the potential for the release of pollutants in site runoff,
spills, and leaks to waters of the State from site activities and
operational areas. Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that onsite
EPU activities at BFN would have no significant effect on surface water
runoff and no impact on surface water or groundwater quality.
Implementation of the EPU would also require upgrades to TVA's
transmission system, including installation of 764 MVAR capacitor banks
at five sites throughout TVA service area (see ``MVAR Capacitor Bank
Installations'' under ``Description of the Proposed Action''). At two
of the substations, new equipment installation would take place
outdoors but within the confines of existing substation enclosures with
ground disturbance limited to previously disturbed areas. As
appropriate, TVA would use standard BMPs to minimize any potential
impacts to surface water and groundwater. The licensee's BMPs address
preventive measures such as use of proper containment, treatment, and
disposal of wastewaters, stormwater runoff, wastes, and other potential
pollutants. The BMPs would also address soil erosion and sediment
control and prevention and response to spills and leaks from
construction equipment that could potentially runoff or infiltrate to
underlying groundwater. After installation, the capacitor banks would
result in no wastewater discharges (TVA 2016d). Therefore, there would
be no operational impact on water resources.
Capacitor installation work at three substations (Holly Springs and
Corinth in Mississippi and Wilson in Tennessee) would require expansion
of the existing substation footprints and additional grading and
clearing. Projected new ground disturbance for these substation
expansions would range from approximately 2.25 ac (0.9 ha) of land for
the Holly Springs, Mississippi Substation to 5 ac (2 ha) at the Wilson,
Tennessee Substation. The substation expansion projects would have no
impact on perennial surface water features. A small portion of the
expanded footprint of the Wilson Substation lies within the 100-year
floodplain, but TVA proposes no construction activities in the
floodplain. At the Holly Springs substation, TVA staff identified an
ephemeral stream that may lie within the expansion footprint.
[[Page 86740]]
However, adherence by TVA to project specifications and application of
appropriate BMPs would ensure that there would be no impacts to
hydrologic features or conditions. The licensee would also conduct all
construction activities in accordance with standard BMPs as previously
described and would perform specific work elements as further discussed
below (TVA 2016d).
To support substation expansion work, water would be required for
such uses as potable and sanitary use by the construction workforce and
for concrete production, equipment washdown, dust suppression, and soil
compaction. The NRC staff assumes that the modest volumes of water
needed would be supplied from local sources and transported to the work
sites. Use of portable sanitary facilities, typically serviced offsite
by a commercial contractor, would serve to reduce the volume of water
required to meet the sanitary needs of the construction workforce.
The licensee would obtain any necessary construction fill material
from an approved borrow pit, and TVA would place any spoils generated
from site grading, trenching, or other excavation work in a permitted
spoil area on the substation property, or the material would be spread
or graded across the site. Areas disturbed by construction work and
equipment installation would be stabilized by applying new gravel or
resurfacing the disturbed areas (TVA 2016d). Consequently, following
the completion of construction, disturbed areas would lie within the
footprint of the expanded substation footprint and otherwise overlain
by equipment or hard surfaces and would not be subject to long-term
soil erosion and with little potential to impact surface water or
groundwater resources.
The expansion projects at all three substations would also be
subject to various permits and approvals, which TVA would obtain.
Construction stormwater runoff from land disturbing activities of 1 ac
(0.4 ha) or more is subject to regulation in accordance with Section
402 of the CWA. Section 402 establishes the NPDES permit program.
Mississippi and Tennessee administer these regulatory requirements
through State NPDES general permits. Specifically, State construction
stormwater general permits will be required for construction activities
at the Holly Springs, Corinth, and Wilson substations. Additionally,
for the Wilson Substation, a Wilson County Land Disturbance permit will
also be required (TVA 2016d). For NPDES general permits, permit holders
must also develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
to ensure the proper design and maintenance of stormwater and soil
erosion BMPs to prevent sediment and other pollutants in stormwater
discharges and ensure compliance with State water quality standards.
Based on the foregoing, the NRC staff finds that the transmission
system upgrades and associated substation expansion projects would have
negligible direct impacts on water resources and would otherwise be
conducted in accordance with TVA standard BMPs to minimize
environmental impacts. The licensee's construction activities would
also be subject to regulation under NPDES general permits for
stormwater discharges associated with construction activity.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that EPU-related transmission
system upgrades would not result in significant impacts on surface
water or groundwater resources.
The EPU implementation at BFN would result in operational changes
with implications for environmental conditions. As further detailed
under ``Plant Site and Environs'' of this EA, BFN withdraws surface
water from Wheeler Reservoir to supply water for condenser cooling and
other in-plant uses. Total water withdrawals by BFN have averaged
1,848,000 gpm (4,117 cfs; 116.3 m/s) over the last 5 years, although
the average withdrawal rate in 2015 exceeded the average rate (TVA
2016b). The BFN uses a once-through circulating water system for
condenser cooling aided by periodic operation of helper cooling towers.
Normally, during once-through (open cycle) operation, BFN returns
nearly all of the water it withdraws back to the reservoir, albeit at a
higher temperature, through three, submerged diffuser pipes. When
necessary throughout the course of the year, BFN's return condenser
cooling water is routed through one or more of the helper cooling
towers based on the level of cooling needed so that the resulting
discharge to the river meets thermal limits as stipulated in TVA's
NPDES permit. The licensee may also derate one or more BFN generating
units in order to ensure compliance with NPDES thermal limits, as
previously described (TVA 2016a).
Following implementation of the EPU, TVA predicts that BFN would
need to operate helper cooling towers an additional 22 days per year on
average (for a total of 88 days per year) to maintain compliance with
NPDES thermal limits, as compared to a projected average of 66 days per
year at current power levels (TVA 2016b; TVA 2016a). When helper
cooling towers are used, a portion of the water passing through the
towers is consumptively used (lost) due to evaporation and cooling
tower drift. The results of TVA's hydrothermal modeling, as previously
described, indicate that approximately 3 percent of the cooling water
flow passed through the helper towers is consumptively used (TVA
2016a). Thus, for an additional 22 days per year on average, BFN's
cooling water return flows to Wheeler Reservoir would be reduced by
approximately 3 percent following the proposed EPU as compared to
current operations. This is a negligible percentage of the total volume
of water passing through Wheeler Reservoir and that is otherwise
diverted by TVA to meet BFN cooling and other in-plant needs (TVA
2016a).
Operations at EPU power levels would not require any modifications
to BFN's circulating water system, residual heat removal service water
system, emergency equipment cooling water system, raw cooling water, or
raw water systems. Therefore, TVA expects no changes in the volume of
water that would be withdrawn from Wheeler Reservoir during operations
(TVA 2016b). The EPU operations would result in an increase in the
temperature of the condenser cooling water discharged to Wheeler
Reservoir. The licensee's hydrothermal modeling predicts that the
average temperature of the return discharge through BFN's submerged
diffusers would be 2.6[emsp14][deg]F (1.4 [deg]C) warmer than under
current operations and that the average temperature at the downstream
edge of the mixing zone prescribed by BFN's NPDES permit would increase
by 0.6[emsp14][deg]F (0.3 [deg]C). Nevertheless, these thermal changes
would continue to meet BFN's NPDES permit limits, including temperate
change limitations within the prescribed mixing zone (TVA 2016b,
2016a). In addition, there would also be no change in the use of
cooling water treatment chemicals or other changes in the quality of
other effluents discharged to Wheeler Reservoir in conjunction with
implementation of the EPU (TVA 2016b).
In summary, implementation of the EPU at BFN and associated
operational changes would not affect water availability or impair
ambient surface water or groundwater quality. The NRC staff concludes
that the proposed EPU would not result in significant impacts on water
resources.
Terrestrial Resource Impacts
The BFN site's natural areas include riparian areas, upland
forests, and
[[Page 86741]]
wetlands that have formed on previously disturbed land cleared prior to
BFN construction. Onsite plant modifications and upgrades would not
disturb these areas because the EPU-related modifications and upgrades
would not involve any new construction outside of the existing facility
footprint, as previously described under ``Land Use Impacts.'' For this
reason, sediment transport and erosion are also not a concern. The
modifications and upgrades would result in additional noise and
lighting, which could disturb wildlife. However, such impacts would be
similar to and indistinguishable from what nearby wildlife already
experience during normal operations because the upgrades and
modifications would take place during regularly scheduled outages,
which are already periods of heightened site activity.
Regarding transmission system upgrades, the breaker failure relay
replacements and BFN main generator excitation system modifications
would occur within existing BFN structures and would not involve any
previously undisturbed land. These upgrades would result in no impacts
on terrestrial resources. The MVAR capacitor bank installations would
occur at five offsite locations throughout TVA service area as
described previously. Three of the five capacitor bank installations
would require expansion of the existing substation footprints and
additional grading and clearing, as described in the ``Land Use
Impacts'' section. The affected land currently contains terrestrial
habitat or other semi-maintained natural areas, and TVA (2016d) reports
that all three areas are likely to contain primarily non-native,
invasive botanicals. None of the three land parcels contain wetlands,
ecologically sensitive or important habitats, prime or unique farmland,
scenic areas, wildlife management areas, recreational areas, greenways,
or trails. The licensee (2016d) also reports that no bird colonies or
aggregations of migratory birds have been documented within 3 mi (4.8
km) of the substation footprints. The licensee would implement BMPs to
minimize the duration of soil exposure during clearing, grading, and
construction (TVA 2016d). The licensee would also revegetate and mulch
the disturbed areas as soon as practicable after each disturbance, and
TVA's landscaping BMPs require revegetation with native plants or non-
invasive species (TVA 2016d). The NRC staff did not identify any
significant environmental impacts to terrestrial resources related to
altering land uses within the small parcels of land required for the
capacitor bank installations.
Following the necessary plant modifications and transmission system
upgrades, operation at EPU levels would result in no additional or
different impacts on terrestrial resources as compared to operations at
the current licensed power levels. The NRC assessed the impacts of
continued operation of BFN through the period of extended operation in
the BFN FSEIS (NRC 2005) and determined that impacts on terrestrial
resources would be small (i.e., effects would not be detectable or
would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably
alter any important attribute of the resource).
The NRC staff concludes that the temporary noise and lighting
during implementation of EPU modifications and upgrades and small areas
of land disturbance associated with the MVAR capacitor bank
installations would be minor and would not result in significant
impacts to terrestrial resources.
Aquatic Resource Impacts
Aquatic habitats associated with the site include Wheeler Reservoir
and 14 related tributaries, of which Elk River, located 10 mi (16 km)
downstream of BFN, is the largest. Onsite plant modifications and
upgrades would not affect aquatic resources because EPU-related
modifications and upgrades would not involve any new construction
outside existing facility footprints and would not result in
sedimentation or erosion or any other disturbances that would otherwise
affect aquatic habitats.
Regarding transmission system upgrades, the breaker failure relay
replacements and BFN main generator excitation system modifications
would occur within existing BFN structures and would, therefore, not
affect aquatic resources. Although three of the five MVAR capacitor
bank installations would require expansion of existing substation
footprints as described previously, TVA (2016d) reports that the
expansions would not affect the flow, channels, or banks of any nearby
streams. As described previously in the ``Water Resource Impacts''
section, the substation expansions would have negligible direct impacts
on water resources, and TVA would implement BMPs, as appropriate, and
be subject to regulations under NPDES general permits during any
construction activities. Accordingly, the NRC staff did not identify
any significant environmental impacts related to aquatic resources with
respect to transmission system upgrades.
Following the necessary plant modifications and transmission system
upgrades, operation at EPU levels would result in additional thermal
discharge to Wheeler Reservoir. As described in the ``Cooling Tower
Operation and Thermal Discharge'' and ``Water Resources Impacts''
sections of this document, TVA predicts that the temperature of water
entering Wheeler Reservoir would be 2.6[emsp14][deg]F (1.4 [deg]C)
warmer on average than current operations and that the river
temperature at the NPDES compliance depth at the downstream end of the
mixing zone would be 0.6[emsp14][deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) warmer on average.
In the BFN FSEIS, the NRC (2005) evaluated the potential impacts of
thermal discharges in Section 4.1.4, ``Heat Shock,'' assuming continued
operation at EPU power levels. The NRC (2005) found that the BFN
thermal mixing zone constitutes a small percentage of the Wheeler
Reservoir surface area, that the maximum temperatures at the edge of
the mixing zone do not exceed the upper thermal limits for common
aquatic species, and that continued compliance with the facility's
NPDES permit would ensure that impacts to aquatic biota are minimized.
Since the time the NRC staff performed its license renewal review, the
ADEM has issued a renewed BFN NPDES permit. The CWA requires the EPA or
States, where delegated, to set thermal discharge variances such that
compliance with the NPDES permit assures the protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in
and on the body of water into which the discharge is made, taking into
account the cumulative impact of a facility's thermal discharge
together with all other significant impacts on the species affected.
Under the proposed action, TVA would remain subject to the limitations
set forth in the renewed BFN NPDES permit. The NRC staff finds it
reasonable to assume that TVA's continued compliance with, and the
State's continued enforcement of, the BFN NPDES permit would ensure
that Wheeler Reservoir aquatic resources are protected.
Regarding impingement and entrainment, in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3
of the BFN FSEIS, the NRC (2005) determined that impingement and
entrainment during the period of extended operation would be small. The
proposed EPU would not increase the volume or rate of water withdrawal
from Wheeler Reservoir and no modifications to the current cooling
system design would be required. Thus, the NRC finds that the proposed
EPU would not change the rate of impingement or
[[Page 86742]]
entrainment of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic organisms compared to
current operations.
Regarding chemical effluents, the types and amounts of effluents
would not change under the proposed EPU, and effluent discharges to
Wheeler Reservoir would continue to be regulated by the ADEM under the
facility's NPDES permit. Thus, the NRC concludes that compared to
current operations, the proposed EPU would not change the type or
concentration of chemical effluents that could impact aquatic
resources.
The NRC staff concludes that onsite plant modifications and
transmission system upgrades associated with the proposed EPU would not
affect aquatic resources. Although operation at EPU levels would
increase thermal effluent to Wheeler Reservoir, the NRC staff concludes
that any resulting impacts on aquatic resources would not be
significant because thermal discharges would remain within the limits
imposed by the BFN NPDES permit.
Special Status Species and Habitats Impacts
Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA), Federal agencies must consult with the
FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, to ensure
that actions the agency authorizes, funds, or carries out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The FWS lists 31 Federally endangered, threatened, or candidate
species as potentially occurring near the BFN site. Of these species,
11 are terrestrial. As described under ``Terrestrial Resource
Impacts,'' the NRC determined that the proposed EPU would not have
significant impacts on the terrestrial environment. The NRC staff did
not identify any unique or different impacts that might affect
Federally listed or candidate terrestrial species, and as such, the NRC
staff concludes that the proposed EPU would have no effect on any
listed or candidate terrestrial species. Terrestrial species are not
addressed in detail in this EA, but a list of these species can be
viewed in the FWS's (2016) Environmental Conservation Online System
Information for Planning and Conservation report (FWS 2016). The
remaining 20 species are aquatic and are listed in Table 1 of this
document. No proposed or designated critical habitat occurs near the
BFN site (FWS 2016).
Table 1--Federally Listed Aquatic Species With the Potential To Occur
Near the BFN Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to
occur in
Federal the
Species Common name status \a\ vicinity
of BFN?
\b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elassoma alabamae............ spring pygmy FT......... Y
sunfish.
Etheostoma boschungi......... slackwater FT......... --
darter.
Etheostoma phytophilum....... rush darter..... FE......... --
Etheostoma wapiti............ Boulder darter.. FE......... --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freshwater Mussels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumberlandia monodonta....... spectaclecase... FE......... Y
Cyprogenia stegaria.......... fanshell........ FE......... --
Epioblasma triquetra......... snuffbox mussel. FE......... --
Hemistena lata............... cracking FE......... --
pearlymussel.
Lampsilis abrupta............ pink mucket..... FE......... Y
Lampsilis perovalis.......... orangenacre FT......... --
mucket.
Medionidus acutissimus....... Alabama FT......... --
moccasinshell.
Pegias fabula................ littlewing FE......... --
pearlymussel.
Plethobasus cyphyus.......... sheepnose....... FE......... --
Pleurobema furvum............ dark pigtoe..... FE......... --
Pleurobema perovatum......... ovate clubshell. FE......... --
Pleurobema plenum............ rough pigtoe.... FE......... Y
Ptychobranchus greenii....... triangular FE......... --
kidneyshell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athearnia anthonyi........... Anthony's FE......... Y
riversnail.
Campeloma decampi............ slender FE......... Y
campeloma.
Pyrgulopsis pachyta.......... armored snail... FE......... Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ FE = Federally endangered under the ESA; FT = Federally threatened
under the ESA; FC = Candidate for listing under the ESA.
\b\ Y = yes; -- = no. Occurrence information is based on species
identified in TVA's (2016a) supplemental environmental report
submitted as part of its EPU application as occurring within
tributaries to Wheeler Reservoir, within a 10-mi (16-km) radius of
BFN, or from Tennessee River Mile 274.9 to 310.7.
Sources: FWS 2016; TVA 2016a.
Action Area
The implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define
``action area'' as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by
the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the
action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area effectively bounds the analysis
of ESA-protected species and habitats because only species that occur
within the action area may be affected by the Federal action.
For the purposes of the ESA analysis for the proposed BFN EPU, the
NRC staff considers the action area to be the full bank width of
Wheeler Reservoir from the point of water withdrawal downstream to the
edge of the mixing
[[Page 86743]]
zone (2,400 ft (732 m) downstream of the diffusers). The NRC staff
expects all direct and indirect effects of the proposed action to be
contained within this area. The NRC staff recognizes that while the
action area is stationary, Federally listed species can move in and out
of the action area. For instance, a migratory fish species could occur
in the action area seasonally as it travels up and down the river past
BFN.
The NRC staff are not including the areas that would be affected by
the Holly Springs, Corinth, and Wilson substation expansions in the BFN
EPU action area. The licensee, as a Federal agency, must itself comply
with ESA section 7. The NRC has no authority over transmission
upgrades. Therefore, prior to undertaking the expansions, TVA, and not
NRC, would conduct section 7 consultation with the FWS, if necessary,
to address any potential impacts to Federally listed species and
critical habitats related to the substation expansions. Tennessee
Valley Authority's (2016d) preliminary review did not identify any
Federally listed species or critical habitats within the vicinity of
the three substations.
Impact Assessment
Since the 1970s, TVA has maintained a Natural Heritage Database
that includes data on sensitive species and habitats, including
Federally threatened and endangered species, in TVA's power service
area. Based on its Natural Heritage Database, TVA (2016a) reports that
seven Federally listed aquatic species occur in the vicinity of the BFN
site (see Table 1).
Tennessee Valley Authority (2016a) Natural Heritage Database
records indicate that three freshwater mussels--spectaclecase
(Cumberlandia monodonta), pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), and rough
pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum)--occur within the vicinity of BFN. These
species occur in sand, gravel, and cobble substrates in large river
habitats within the Tennessee River system. All three species are now
extremely rare and are primarily found in unimpounded tributary rivers
and in more riverine reaches of the main stem Tennessee River (TVA
2016a). Most of the remaining large river habitat in Wheeler Reservoir
occurs upstream of the BFN action area. Section 5.2 of the NRC's (2004)
biological assessment for license renewal describes Tennessee River
collection records for these three species, which date back to the
1990s. Relict shells of spectaclecase were collected in Wheeler
Reservoir in 1991 (Ahlstedt and McDonough 1992). Pink mucket and rough
pigtoe were collected near Hobbs Island (over 64 km (40 mi) upstream of
BFN) in 1998 (Yokely 1998). Tennessee Valley Authority (2016a) reports
no more recent records of these three species in its supplemental
environmental report submitted as part of the EPU application, and the
NRC staff did not identify any studies or information suggesting that
populations of these species exist in Wheeler Reservoir in the vicinity
of the BFN action area. Because these species do not occur in the
action area, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed BFN EPU would
have no effect on spectaclecase, pink mucket, and rough pigtoe.
Tennessee Valley Authority (2016a) Natural Heritage Database
records indicate that three aquatic snails--Anthony's snail (Athearnia
anthonyi), slender campeloma (Campeloma decampi), and armored snail
(Pyrgulopsis pachyta)--and one fish--spring pygmy sunfish (Elassoma
alabamae)--occur in the vicinity of BFN. However, these species are
restricted to tributary streams that feed into Wheeler Reservoir
upstream of BFN (TVA 2016a). The NRC staff did not identify any studies
or information suggesting that populations of these species exist in
the main stem of the Tennessee River (i.e., Wheeler Reservoir). Because
these species do not occur in the action area, the NRC staff concludes
that the proposed BFN EPU would have no effect on Anthony's snail,
slender capeloma, armored snail, or spring pygmy sunfish.
ESA Effect Determination
The NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU would have no effect
on Federally endangered, threatened, or candidate species. Federal
agencies are not required to consult with the FWS if they determine
that an action will not affect listed species or critical habitats (FWS
2013). Thus, the ESA does not require consultation for the proposed
EPU, and the NRC considers its obligations under ESA section 7 to be
fulfilled for the proposed action.
Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects
of their undertakings on historic properties, and the proposed EPU is
an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties.
Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for
eligibility are listed in 36 CFR 60.4 and include (1) association with
significant events in history; (2) association with the lives of
persons significant in the past; (3) embodiment of distinctive
characteristics of type, period, or construction; and (4) sites or
places that have yielded, or are likely to yield, important
information.
According to the BFN FSEIS (NRC 2005), the only significant
cultural resources in the proximity of BFN are Site 1Li535 and the Cox
Cemetery, which was moved to accommodate original construction of the
plant. Tennessee Valley Authority (2016a) researched current historic
property records and found nothing new within 3 mi (4.8 km) of the
plant. As described under ``Description of the Proposed Action,'' all
onsite modifications associated with the proposed action would be
within existing structures, buildings, and fenced equipment yards, and
TVA anticipates no disturbance of previously undisturbed onsite land.
Thus, historic and cultural resources would not be affected by onsite
power plant modifications and upgrades at BFN.
Regarding transmission system upgrades, Tennessee Valley
Archaeological Research (TVAR) performed Phase I Cultural Surveys to
determine if the expansion of the Holly Springs, Corinth, and Wilson
substations would affect any historic or cultural resources. Tennessee
Valley Archaeological Research's findings are summarized in the
following paragraphs.
During its Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Holly Springs
Substation (Karpynec et al. 2016b), TVAR revisited two NRHP-listed
historic districts, the Depot-Compress Historic District and the East
Holly Springs Historic District, within the survey radius. Tennessee
Valley Archaeological Research determined that the historic districts
are outside the viewshed of the proposed substation expansion. During
the survey, TVAR also identified 14 potentially historic properties,
none of which were found to be eligible for listing on the NRHP due to
their lack of architectural and historic significance. Tennessee Valley
Archaeological Research concluded that no historic properties would be
affected by the Holly Spring Substation expansion.
During its Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Corinth
Substation (Karpynec et al. 2016b), TVAR identified 13 properties
within the area of potential effect, none of which were determined to
be eligible for listing on the NRHP due to their lack of architectural
distinction and loss of integrity caused by modern alterations or
damage. Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research concluded that
[[Page 86744]]
no historic properties would be affected by the Corinth Substation
expansion.
During its Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Wilson
Substation (Karpynec et al. 2016c), TVAR identified one property within
the area of potential effect, which was determined as eligible for
listing on the NRHP under Criteria A and C for its historical and
archaeological significance. Tennessee Valley Archaeological Research
concluded that the Wilson Substation expansion would have a visual
effect on the property. However, the effect would not be adverse due to
the fact that the existing substation and modern development located
immediately northwest and southeast of the property have already
established a visual effect.
Following power plant modifications and substation upgrades,
operation of BFN at EPU power levels would have no effect on existing
historic and cultural resources. Further, TVA has procedures in place
to ensure that BFN operations would continue to protect historic and
cultural resources, and the proposed action would not change such
procedures (NRC 2005). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that EPU-
related power plant modifications and substation upgrades would not
result in significant impacts to historic and cultural resources.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU include
increased demand for short-term housing, public services, and increased
traffic due to the temporary increase in the size of the workforce
required to implement the EPU at BFN and upgrade affected substations.
The proposed EPU also could generate increased tax revenues for the
State and surrounding counties due to increased ``book'' value of BFN
and increased power generation.
During outages, the workforce at BFN increases by 800 to 1,200
workers for an average of 1,000 additional workers onsite. Normally,
outage workers begin to arrive at BFN 2 to 3 weeks prior to the start
of the outage, and the total number of onsite workers peaks at about
the 3rd day of the 21- to 28-day outage. The EPU outage for each unit
would last 35 days or less (TVA 2016a). Once EPU-related plant
modifications have been completed, the size of the workforce at BFN
would return to pre-EPU levels approximately 1 week after the end of
the outage with no significant increases during future outages. The
size of the operations workforce would be unaffected by the proposed
EPU.
Most of the EPU plant modification workers are expected to relocate
temporarily to the Huntsville metropolitan area during outages,
resulting in short-term increased demands for public services and
housing. Because plant modification work would be temporary, most
workers would stay in available rental homes, apartments, mobile homes,
and camper-trailers.
The additional number of outage workers and truck material and
equipment deliveries needed to support EPU-related power plant
modifications could cause short-term level-of-service impacts
(restricted traffic flow and higher incident rates) on secondary roads
in the immediate vicinity of BFN. However, only small traffic delays
are anticipated during the outages.
The BFN currently makes payments in lieu of taxes to states and
counties in which power operations occur and on properties previously
subjected to state and local taxation. The licensee pays a percentage
of its gross power revenues to such states and counties. Only a very
small share of TVA payment is paid directly to counties; most is paid
to the states, which use their own formulas for redistribution of some
or all of the payments to local governments to fund their respective
operating budgets. In general, half of TVA payment is apportioned based
on power sales and half is apportioned based on the ``book'' value of
TVA property. Therefore, for a capital improvement project such as the
EPU, the in-lieu-of-tax payments are affected in two ways: (1) As power
sales increase, the total amount of the in-lieu-of-tax payment to be
distributed increases, and (2) the increased ``book'' value of BFN
causes a greater proportion of the total payment to be allocated to
Limestone County. The state's general fund, as well as all of the
counties in Alabama that receive TVA in-lieu-of-tax distributions from
the State of Alabama, benefit under this method of distribution (TVA
2016a).
Due to the short duration of EPU-related plant modification and
substation upgrade activities, there would be little or no noticeable
effect on tax revenues generated by additional workers temporarily
residing in Limestone County and elsewhere. In addition, there would be
little or no noticeable increased demand for housing and public
services or level-of-service traffic impacts beyond what is experienced
during normal refueling outages at BFN. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would be no significant socioeconomic impacts from
EPU-related plant modifications, substation upgrades, and power plant
operations under EPU conditions.
Environmental Justice Impacts
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
activities associated with the proposed EPU at BFN. Such effects may
include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social
impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general
public residing in the vicinity of BFN, and all are exposed to the same
health and environmental effects generated from activities at BFN.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of the BFN
According to the 2010 Census, an estimated 22 percent of the total
population (approximately 978,000 individuals) residing within a 50-
mile radius of BFN identified themselves as a minority (MCDC 2016). The
largest minority populations were Black or African American
(approximately 135,000 persons or 14 percent), followed by Hispanic,
Latino, or Spanish origin of any race (approximately 44,000 persons or
4.5 percent). According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2010 Census, about
21 percent of the Limestone County population identified themselves as
minorities, with Black or African Americans comprising the largest
minority population (approximately 13 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau
(USCB) 2016). According to the USCB's 2015 American Community Survey 1-
Year Estimates, the minority population of Limestone County, as a
percent of the total population, had increased to about 23 percent with
Black or African Americans comprising 14 percent of the total county
population (USCB 2016).
Low-Income Populations in the Vicinity of BFN
According to the USCB's 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, approximately 32,000 families and 154,000 individuals (12
and 16 percent, respectively) residing within a 50-mile radius of BFN
were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold (MCDC
2016). The 2014 Federal poverty threshold was $24,230 for a family of
four (USCB 2016).
According to the USCB's 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates, the median household income for Alabama was $44,765, while
14 percent of families and 18.5 percent of the state population were
found to be living below the Federal poverty
[[Page 86745]]
threshold (USCB 2016). Limestone County had a higher median household
income average ($55,009) and a lower percentage of families (12
percent) and persons (15 percent) living below the poverty level,
respectively (USCB 2016).
Impact Analysis
Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would
consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust,
traffic, employment, and housing impacts) and radiological effects.
Radiation doses from plant operations after implementation of the EPU
are expected to continue to remain well below regulatory limits.
Noise and dust impacts would be temporary and limited to onsite
activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site
access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during
shift changes. Increased demand for inexpensive rental housing during
the EPU-related plant modifications could disproportionately affect
low-income populations; however, due to the short duration of the EPU-
related work and the availability of housing, impacts to minority and
low-income populations would be of short duration and limited.
According to 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, there
were approximately 4,016 vacant housing units in Limestone County (USCB
2016).
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this EA, the NRC staff concludes
that the proposed EPU would not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-
income populations residing in the vicinity of BFN.
Cumulative Impacts
The Council on Environmental Quality defines cumulative impacts
under the NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) as the
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 (40 CFR 1508.7).
Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects associated
with the proposed action are overlaid or added to temporary or
permanent effects associated with other actions. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions
taking place over a period of time. For the purposes of this cumulative
analysis, past actions are related to the resource conditions when BFN
was licensed and constructed; present actions are related to the
resource conditions during current operations; and future actions are
those that are reasonably foreseeable through the expiration of BFN's
renewed facility operating licenses (i.e., through 2033, 2034, and 2036
for Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively).
In Section 4.8 of the BFN FSEIS (NRC 2005), the NRC staff assessed
the cumulative impacts related to continued operation of BFN through
the license renewal term assuming operation of BFN at EPU levels. In
its analysis, the NRC (2005) considered changes and modifications to
the Tennessee River; current and future water quality; current and
future competing water uses, including public supply, industrial water
supply, irrigation, and thermoelectric power generation; the
radiological environment; future socioeconomic impacts; historic and
cultural resources; and cumulative impacts to Federally endangered and
threatened species. The NRC (2005) determined that the contribution of
BFN continued operations at EPU levels to past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions would not be detectable or would be so minor
as to not destabilize or noticeably alter any important attribute of
the resources.
Because the proposed EPU would either not change or result in
significant impacts to the radiological environment, onsite or offsite
land uses, visual resources, air quality, noise, terrestrial resources,
special status species and habitats, historical and cultural resources,
socioeconomic conditions, or environmental justice populations, the NRC
concludes that implementation of the proposed action would not
incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources.
Regarding water resources and aquatic resources, although the proposed
EPU would result in more thermal effluent, discharges would remain
within the limits set forth in the current BFN NPDES permit, and no
other facilities discharge thermal effluent within the BFN mixing zone
that would exacerbate thermal effects. As described in this document,
the NRC (2005) determined cumulative impacts to these resources would
not be detectable or would be so minor as to not destabilize or
noticeably alter any important attribute of the resources. Accordingly,
the NRC staff finds that cumulative impacts on water resources and
aquatic resources under the proposed action would not be significant.
Additionally, for those resources identified as potentially
impacted by activities associated with the proposed EPU (i.e., water
resources and aquatic resources), the NRC staff also considered current
resource trends and conditions, including the potential impacts of
climate change. The NRC staff considered the U.S. Global Change
Research Program's (USGCRP's) most recent compilation of the state of
knowledge relative to global climate change effects (USGCRP 2009,
2014).
Water Resources
Predicted changes in the timing, intensity, and distribution of
precipitation would be likely to result in changes in surface water
runoff affecting water availability across the Southeastern United
States. Specifically, while average precipitation during the fall has
increased by 30 percent since about 1900, summer and winter
precipitation has declined by about 10 percent across the eastern
portion of the region, including eastern Tennessee (USGCRP 2009). A
continuation of this trend coupled with predicted higher temperatures
during all seasons (particularly the summer months), would reduce
groundwater recharge during the winter, produce less runoff and lower
stream flows during the spring, and potentially lower groundwater base
flow to rivers during the drier portions of the year (when stream flows
are already lower). As cited by the USGCRP, the loss of moisture from
soils because of higher temperatures along with evapotranspiration from
vegetation is likely to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity
of droughts across the region into the future (USGCRP 2009, USGCRP
2014).
Changes in runoff in a watershed along with reduced stream flows
and higher air temperatures all contribute to an increase in the
ambient temperature of receiving waters. Annual runoff and river-flow
are projected to decline in the Southeast region (USGCRP 2014). Land
use changes, particularly those involving the conversion of natural
areas to impervious surface, exacerbate these effects. These factors
combine to affect the availability of water throughout a watershed,
such as that of the Tennessee River, for aquatic life, recreation, and
industrial uses. While changes in projected precipitation for the
Southeast region are uncertain, the USGCRP has reasonable expectation
that there will be reduced water availability due to the increased
evaporative losses from rising temperatures alone (USGCRP 2014).
Nevertheless, when considering that the
[[Page 86746]]
Tennessee River System and associated reservoirs are closely operated,
managed, and regulated for multiple uses which include thermoelectric
power generation, the incremental contribution of the proposed EPU on
climate change impacts is not significant.
Aquatic Resources
The potential effects of climate change described in preceding
paragraphs for water resources, whether from natural cycles or man-made
activities, could result in changes that would affect aquatic resources
in the Tennessee River. Increased air temperatures could result in
higher water temperatures in the Tennessee River reservoirs. For
instance, TVA found that a 1 [deg]F (0.5 [deg]C) increase in air
temperature resulted in an average water temperature increase between
0.25 [deg]F and 0.5 [deg]F (0.14 [deg]C and 0.28 [deg]C) in the
Chickamauga Reservoir (NRC 2015). Higher water temperatures would
increase the potential for thermal effects on aquatic biota and, along
with altered river flows, could exacerbate existing environmental
stressors, such as excess nutrients and lowered dissolved oxygen
associated with eutrophication. Even slight changes could alter the
structure of aquatic communities. Invasions of non-native species that
thrive under a wide range of environmental conditions could further
disrupt the current structure and function of aquatic communities (NRC
2015). Nevertheless, when considering that the Tennessee River System
and associated reservoirs are closely operated, managed, and regulated
for multiple uses that include thermoelectric power generation, the
incremental contribution of the proposed EPU on climate change impacts
is not significant.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed license amendments (i.e., the ``no-action''
alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in
current environmental conditions or impacts. However, if the EPU were
not approved, other agencies and electric power organizations might be
required to pursue other means of providing electric generation
capacity, such as fossil fuel or alternative fuel power generation, to
offset future demand. Construction and operation of such generating
facilities could result in air quality, land use, ecological, and waste
management impacts significantly greater than those identified for the
proposed EPU.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in NUREG-1437, Supplement 21, Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:
Regarding Browns Ferry Station, Units 1, 2, and 3--Final Report (NRC
2005).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff did not enter into consultation with any other
Federal or State agency regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. However, on October 6, 2016, the NRC notified the
Alabama State official, Mr. David Walter, Director of Alabama Office of
Radiation Control of the proposed amendments, requesting his comments
by October 13, 2016. If the State official has any comments, the
comments will be addressed and resolved in the final EA. The NRC will
also forward copies of this draft EA and FONSI to the EPA, FWS, and
ADEM and publish the draft EA and FONSI in the FR for comment. The NRC
will address any comments received during the comment period in the
final EA.
IV. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC is considering issuing amendments for Renewed Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68, issued to TVA for
operation of BFN to increase the maximum licensed thermal power level
for each of the three BFN reactor units from 3,458 MWt to 3,952 MWt.
On the basis of the EA included in Section III of this document and
incorporated by reference in this finding, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action would not have significant effects on the quality of
the human environment. The NRC's evaluation considered information
provided in the licensee's application and associated supplements as
well as the NRC's independent review of other relevant environmental
documents. Section of this document lists the environmental documents
related to the proposed action and includes information on the
availability of these documents. Based on its findings, the NRC has
decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
V. Availability of Documents
The following table identifies the environmental and other
documents cited in this document and related to the NRC's FONSI.
Documents with an ADAMS accession number are available for public
inspection online through ADAMS at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or in person at the NRC's PDR as previously described.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS accession No., FRN,
Document or URL reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven A. Ahlstedt and Thomas A. McDonough. ML042790392
Quantitative Evaluation of Commercial
Mussel Populations in the Tennessee River
Portion of Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama.
Dated October 1992.........................
(Prepared by Ahlstedt and McDonough 1992)..
Alabama Department of Environmental ML16159A040
Management.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit No. AL0022080, Tennessee
Valley Authority, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant.
Dated July 3, 2012.........................
(ADEM 2012)................................
Alabama Department of Environmental ML16259A186
Management.
Alabama's Draft 2016 Sec. 303(d) List
Fact Sheet.
Dated February 7, 2016.....................
(ADEM 2016)................................
Karpynec T, Rosenwinkel H, Weaver M, Wright ML16197A563
K, and Crook E.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Surveys of
Tennessee Valley Authority's Corinth and
Holly Springs Substation Expansions in
Alcorn and Marshall Counties, Mississippi.
Dated May 2016.............................
(Karpynec et al. 2016b)....................
[[Page 86747]]
Karpynec T., Rosenwinkel H., Weaver M., ML16197A563
Wright K., and Crook E.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the
Wilson Substation Expansion Project in
Wilson County, Tennessee.
Dated May 2016.............................
(Karpynec et al. 2016c)....................
Missouri Census Data Center................ http://mcdc.missouri.edu/
Circular Area Profiles (CAPS), 2010 Census websas/caps10c.html
Summary File 1, Aggregated Census Block
Group Hispanic or Latino and Race data and
2010-2014 American Community Survey (ACS)
data, Summary of Aggregated Census Tract
data in a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius
around BFN (Latitude= 34.703889355505075,
Longitude= -87.11862504482272).
Accessed September 2016....................
(MCDC 2016)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML041840301
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3--
Proposed Technical Specifications Change
TS-418--Request for License Amendment
Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Operation..
Dated June 25, 2004........................
(TVA 2004a)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML042800186
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1--Proposed
Technical Specifications Change TS-431--
Request for License Amendment--Extended
Power Uprate (EPU) Operation.
Dated June 28, 2004........................
(TVA 2004b)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML062680459
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant--Unit 1--
Technical Specifications Change TS-431,
Supplement 1--Extended Power Uprate (EPU).
Dated September 22, 2006...................
(TVA 2006).................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML14265A487
Technical Specifications Changes TS-431 and
TS-418 -Extended Power Uprate (EPU)--
Withdrawal of Requests and Update to EPU
Plans and Schedules.
Dated September 18, 2014...................
(TVA 2014).................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML15282A152
Proposed Technical Specifications Change TS-
505--Request for License Amendments--
Extended Power Uprate, Cover Letter.
Dated September 21, 2015...................
(TVA 2015a)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML15317A361
Proposed Technical Specification Change TS-
505--Request for License Amendments--
Extended Power Uprate--Supplemental
Information.
Dated November 13, 2015....................
(TVA 2015b)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML15351A113
Proposed Technical Specifications (TS)
Change TS-505--Request for License
Amendments--Extended Power Uprate (EPU)--
Supplement 2, MICROBURN-B2 Information.
Dated December 15, 2015....................
(TVA 2015c)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML15355A413
Proposed Technical Specifications (TS)
Change TS-505--Request for License
Amendments--Extended Power Uprate (EPU)--
Supplement 3, Interconnection System
Impact Study Information.
Dated December 18, 2015....................
(TVA 2015d)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML16197A563
Proposed Technical Specifications (TS)
Change TS-505--Request for License
Amendments--Extended Power Uprate, BFN EPU
LAR, Attachment 42, Supplemental
Environmental Report, Revision 1.
Dated May 27, 2016.........................
(TVA 2016a)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML16159A040
Proposed Technical Specifications (TS)
Change TS-505--Request for License
Amendments--Extended Power Uprate (EPU)--
Supplement 13, Responses to Requests for
Additional Information.
Dated April 22, 2016.......................
(TVA 2016b)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML16197A563
Proposed Technical Specifications (TS)
Change TS-505--Request for License
Amendments--Extended Power Uprate (EPU)--
Supplement 18, Responses to Requests for
Additional Information and Updates
Associated with Interconnection System
Impact Study Modifications.
Dated May 27, 2016.........................
(TVA 2016c)................................
[[Page 86748]]
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML16197A563
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, RERP-RAI-GE-2
Response, Attachment 1: Supplemental
Environmental Information for Transmission
System and BFN Main Generator Upgrades.
Dated May 27, 2016.........................
(TVA 2016d)................................
Tennessee Valley Authority................. ML16197A563
BFN EPU LAR, Attachment 47, List and Status
of Plant Modifications, Revision 1
(Enclosure 10).
Dated May 27, 2016.........................
(TVA 2016e)................................
U.S. Census Bureau......................... http://
American FactFinder, Table DP-1, ``Profile factfinder.census.gov/
of General Population and Housing faces/nav/jsf/pages/
Characteristics: 2010, 2010 Census Summary searchresults.xhtml?refres
File 1'' for Limestone County, Alabama; h=t
American FactFinder, Table DP05, ``ACS
Demographic and Housing Estimates, 2015
American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates'' for Limestone County, Alabama;
and Table DP03--``Selected Economic
Characteristics, 2015 American Community
Survey 1-Year Estimates'' for Alabama and
Limestone County, and Table B25002--
``Occupancy Status, 2015 American
Community Survey 1-Year Estimates'' for
Limestone County, Alabama.
Accessed September 2016....................
(USCB 2016)................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............. ML16120A505
Endangered Species Consultations Frequently
Asked Questions.
Dated July 15, 2013........................
(FWS 2013).................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............. ML16032A044
Updated List of Threatened and Endangered
Species That May Occur in Your Proposed
Project Location for Browns Ferry EPU.
Dated February 1, 2016.....................
(FWS 2016).................................
U.S. Global Change Research Program........ ML100580077
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States.
Dated June 2009............................
(USGCRP 2009)..............................
U.S. Global Change Research Program........ ML14129A233
Climate Change Impacts in the United
States: The Third National Climate
Assessment.
Dated May 2014.............................
(USGCRP 2014)..............................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... 63 FR 46491
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3--
Environmental Assessment Regarding Power
Uprate.
Dated September 1, 1998....................
(NRC 1998).................................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... ML040690720
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-
1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1).
Dated August 1999..........................
(NRC 1999).................................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... ML003716792
Alternative Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at
Nuclear Power Reactors (Regulatory Guide
1.183).
Dated July 2000............................
(NRC 2000).................................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... ML033640024
Review Standard for Extended Power Uprates
(RS-001). Revision 0.
Dated December 2003........................
(NRC 2003).................................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... ML042990348
Biological Assessment, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Power Plant, License Renewal Review,
Limestone County, Alabama.
Dated October 2004.........................
(NRC 2004).................................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... ML051730443
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:
Regarding Browns Ferry Plant, Units 1, 2,
and 3--Final Report (NUREG-1437,
Supplement 21).
Dated June 30, 2005........................
(NRC 2005).................................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... ML060970332
Issuance of Renewed Facility Operating
License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68
for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1,
2, and 3.
Dated May 4, 2006..........................
(NRC 2006a)................................
[[Page 86749]]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... 71 FR 65009
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and
3--Draft Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact Related
to the Proposed Extended Power Uprate.
Dated November 6, 2006.....................
(NRC 2006b)................................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... 72 FR 6612
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and
3--Final Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact Related
to the Proposed Extended Power Uprate.
Dated February 12, 2007....................
(NRC 2007a)................................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... ML063350404
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1--
Issuance of Amendment Regarding Five
Percent Uprate.
Dated March 6, 2007........................
(NRC 2007b)................................
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission......... ML15075A438
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants:
Regarding Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1
and 2 --Final Report (NUREG-1437,
Supplement 53).
Dated March 2015...........................
(NRC 2015).................................
Yokely P Jr................................ ML042800176
Mussel Study near Hobbs Island on the
Tennessee River for Butler Basin Marina.
Dated April 1998...........................
(Yokely 1998)..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of November 2016.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jeanne A. Dion,
Acting Chief, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-28865 Filed 11-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P