[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