ML042800166

Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project, Limestone County, Alabama

ML042800166
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	08/07/2003
From:	Loney J Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
2003-90
Download: ML042800166 (50)

Text

Document Type: EA-Admlnlstratie Records Index field: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Proj8c:t Name: BFN Units 2 & 3 Power Uprate EA Proj8c:t Number: 2003-90 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 2 AND 3 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE PROJECT LIMESTONE COUNTY, ALABAMA Proposed Action and Need The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposes to increase the reactor thermal power for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 2 and 3 such that the reactors can be operated at 120 percent of their original licensed thermal power of 3,293 megawatts-thermal. This project involves modifications to the high-pressure steam path, reactor feed pump turbines, and condensate demineralizer system; installation of higher horsepower condensate pump motors and new heater drain valves; as well as miscellaneous safety system setpoint changes.

The demand for electricity in the TVA service area has continued to increase beyond what was forecast in Energy Vision 2020 -Integrated Resource Plan/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which was completed in'1995. The proposed uprate of reactor thermal power at BFN Units 2 and 3 could add approximately 250 megawatts-electric to the system by using an existing plant and without a significant environmental impact. This proposal was previously evaluated in the TVA March 2001 Browns Ferry ,

Nuclear Plant Extended Power Uprate for Units 2 and 3 Final Environmental Assessment (EA). Newly available technical and economic analyses indicate that a different approach to mitigating potential thermal impacts has become more appropriate, i.e., use of existing cooling towers and derating (decreasing unit loads) in lieu of the March 2001 EA commitment to use existing cooling towers and construct a new cooling tower. Consequently, TVA elected to review anew the environmental impacts potentially resulting from this proposal.

Alternatives TVA considered two alternatives, a No Action Alternative, under which BFN Units 2 and 3 would continue to operate at the currently licensed power levels through expiration of operating licenses, and the Action Alternative described above.

Impacts Assessment The following environmental issues were identified in the scoping process as having the potential for environmental effects as a result of the proposed extended power uprate (EPU) of BFN Units 2 and 3: spent fuel storage, generation of solid and hazardous wastes, radiological health, surface water resources, aquatic ecology, and socioeconomic/environmental justice. The proposed action would not affect historic sites, threatened or endangered species, groundwater, floodplains, visual, recreational, 1

transportation,or terrestrialecology,norwouldit causeland use changes,or create significanteffectsfromthe minoramountsof noise,orfugitivedust generatedduring constructionactivitieson the existingBFNindustrialsite.

The proposedactionwouldnot increasethe probabilityor consequencesof accidents, changethe types of effluentsthat maybe releasedoff site,or significantlyincrease occupationalor public radiationexposure.The evaluationsof issuesrelatingto potential radiologicalimpacts(spentfuel storage,low-levelradioactivewaste, radiologicalimpacts from normaloperation,occupationalradiationdose,or radiologicalimpactsfrom potentialaccidents)indicatedno significantradiologicalenvironmentalimpacts associatedwith the proposedaction.

Computermodelingof Units2 and3 operatingat 120percentEPUwith 16 yearsof historicweatherdata indicatesthatthe proposedmitigationstrategyof usingexisting coolingtowersand deratingas necessarywill maintaincompliancewith the existing NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)permit. Far-fieldanalysisof predicteddischargewatertemperaturedataindicatesthat operatingBFN Units2 and 3 at EPU,while usingthe existingcoolingtowersandderatingto maintainNPDESpermit compliance,will resultin insignificantchangesin the watertemperaturedownstreamof BFN in the forebaysegmentof WheelerReservoir(TRM280.7to 274.9). Threatened and endangeredaquaticspeciesin the generalvicinityoccurupstreamof BFNin reacheswhichwouldbe unaffectedby plantoperationsundereitherthe NoAction or the

,ActionAlternative. Currentmonitoringpr9Qramshavedocumentedthat operatingBFN underthe existingNPDESpermithas notadverselyimpactedaquaticecologyand biodiversityin WheelerReservoir.No significantimpactsto aquaticcommunitiesare expectedfollowingimplementationof the EPU. Potentialenvironmentalimpactsfor socioeconomicand environmentaljusticewouldbe insignificantand temporary.

Mitigation .

As this projectis imp1emented, TVA will useexistingcoolingtowersand derateBFN Units2 and 3 as necessaryto maintaincompliancewiththermallimitsspecifiedby the NPDESpermitandto ensurethat potentialimpactsto reservoirwaterand ecological conditionsare insignificant.

In accordancewith the currentNPDESpermitand previouscommitments,TVA will continueannualmonitoringof reservoirconditions.This monitoringwill continuefor three years followingimplementationof the EPUand is to confirmresultsof thermal modelingthat indicateno significantimpacton a balancedindigenouspopulationof fish, shellfish,and wildlifein andon WheelerReservoirfromthe EPUof Units2 and 3.

Annualmonitoringresultswill be reported'tothe stateof Alabama.

Spentfuel will be storedin a facilitylicensedandapprovedby the NuclearRegulatory Commission.

Conclusion and Findings EnvironmentalPolicyand Planning'sNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct (NEPA) administrationstaff has preparedthe BrownsFerryNuclearPlantUnits2 and 3 ExtendedPowerUprateProjectEnvironmentalAssessmentanddeterminedthat the potentialenvironmentalconsequencesof TVA's proposedactionto increasethe reactor thermal powerfor BFN Units2 and 3 suchthatthe reactorscan be operatedat 2

120 percentof their originallicensedthermalpowerhavebeenaddressedand that the proposedactionis not a majorfeeleralactionsignificantlyaffectingthe qualityof the environment. This findingis contingentuponsuccessfulimplementationof the commitmentslistedabove. Accordingly,an EnvironmentalImpactStatementis not required.

3

Document Type: EA-Admlnlstrative Records Index field: Anal EnvIronmental Document Project Neme: BFN Units 2 & 3 Power Uprate EA Project Number: 2003-90 FINALENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 2 AND 3 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE PROJECT Limestone County, Alabama TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY AUGUST 2003

Page intentionally blank Final Environmental Assessment August 2003 Proposed project: BrownsFerryNuclearPlantUnits2 and 3 ExtendedPower UprateProject UmestoneCounty,Alabama Leadagency: TennesseeValleyAuthority Cooperating agencies: None For further information, contact: Tina Tomaszewski NEPA Specialist Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street, MR 2T Chattanooga, TN 37402 Phone: (423) 751-7291 Fax: (423) 751-3230

. e-mail: tmtomaszewski@tva.gov Abstract: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposes to increase the reactor thermal power for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 2 and 3 such that the reactors can be operated at 120 percent of their original licensed thermal power (OLTP) of 3,293 megawatts thermal. This proposal was previously evaluated in the TVA March 2001 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Extended Power Uprate for Units 2 and 3 Final Environmental Assessment.

This previous EA included commitments to mitigate potential thermal impacts to surface waters by use of existing cooling towers and addition of a new cooling tower. TVA elected to review the proposed project again because newly available technical and economic analyses indicated that a different approach to mitigating potential thermal impacts has become more appropriate. Operating BFN Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP would have less impact than operating Units 1 through 3 at 100 percent of OLTP.

The principal environmental impact would be slightly increased thermal loading to the waters of Wheeler Reservoir above current operations of Units 2 and 3 at 105 percent of OLTP, but still less than presently permitted levels. This impact would be mitigated by using existing cooling towers and derating BFN as necessary to maintain compliance with the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.

Page intentionally blank Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSEOF ANDNEEDFORACTION 1 1.1. The ProposedDecision 1 1.2. Needfor TVA Action 1 1.3. Background 1 1.4. OtherPertinentEnvironmentalReviewsor Documentation 2 1.5. The ScopingProcess 3 1.6. NecessaryFederalPermitsor Ucenses 3

2. ALTERNATIVESINCLUDINGTHEPROPOSEDACTION 5 2.1. Alternatives 5 2.1.1. AlternativeA - The NoActionAlternative 5 2.1.2. AlternativeB - UprateUnits2 and 3 at BrownsFerryNuclearPlantto 120 percent OriginalUcensedThermalPower 5 2.2. Comparisonof Alternatives 6 2.3. The PreferredAlternative 7

3. AFFECTEDENVIRONMENTAND ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 9 3.1. SiteDescription 9 3.2. Impacts Evaluated ...... ... 9 3.2.1. SpentFuel Storage ~ 10 3.2.2. Hazardous Waste 10 3.2.3. Solid Waste 10 3.2.4. Low-Level Radioactive Waste 11 3.2.5. Radiological Impacts - Normal Operation 11 3.2.6. Occupational Radiation Dose 11 3.2.7. Radiological Impacts - Accident Related 12 3.2.8. Surface Water ResourcesfThermal Effects 12 3.2.9. Aquatic Ecology 14 3.2.10. Threatened and Endangered Species Aquatic 18 3.2.11. Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice 19 3.3. Cumulative1mpacts  ; 21 3.4. Summary of TVA Commitments and Proposed Mitigation Measures 21

4. LIST OF PREPARERS 23 4.1. NEPA Project Management... 23 4.2. Other Contributors  : : 23

5. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 25 5.1. Literature Cited 25 5.2. Glossary of Terms 27 Final Environmental Assessment

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Environmental Reviews Related to Supplemental EA for BFN Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate 4 Table 3-1. Maximum Dose Due to Radioactive Effluent Releases - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 11 Table 3-2. Summary of Wheeler Reservoir Water Quality Far-Field Computer Model Results for Equivalent Weather Years 1987-1988. 1991-1994 15 ii Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action CHAPTER 1

1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1. The Proposed Decision The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposes to increase the reactor thermal power for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 2 and 3 such that the reactors can be operated at 120 percent of their original licensed thermal power (OLTP) of 3,293 megawatts thermal (MWt). This proposal was previously evaluated in the TVA March 2001 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Extended Power Uprate for Units 2 and 3 Final Environmental Assessment (EA) (TVA, 2001). Since newly available technical and economic analyses indicate that a different approach to mitigating potential thermal impacts has become more appropriate, TVA has elected to review anew the environmental impacts potentially resulting from this proposal.

1.2. Need for TVA Action With the aid of stakeholders in the Tennessee Valley, in 1995 TVA completed Energy Vision 2020 - Integrated Resource Plan/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

Energy Vision 2020 projected demands for electricity in the TVA power service area through the year 2020 and evaluated and recommended ways of meeting the projected increases. Over the past several years, strong economic growth in the TVA service area with the corresponding increase in energy need has increased the demand for electricity.

Based on peaking and baseload demands recorded in recent years, the medium load capacities targeted in Energy Vision 2020 may actually be too conservative. Actual peak demands increased by over 4,600 megawatts (MW) from the winter of 1995 (24,723 MW) to the summer of 2000 (29,344 MW): an average annual increase of about 920 MW (over 3 percent per year). Peaking demands during the summer of 2000 exceeded by 2,000 MW the medium load forecast contained in Energy Vision 2020. TVA met a newall-time peak load of 29,866 MW in January 2003. Continued demand increases of this magnitude could, in a few years, exceed TVA's generation capacity and negatively affect TVA's ability to serve its customers. The addition of approximately 250 megawatts-electric (MWe) of capacity at the currently operating BFN units provides a cost-effective means to meet the projected increased need for additional generating capacity by effectively utilizing an existing asset without a significant environmental impact.

1.3. Background The increases in reactor thermal power in the range proposed by TVA for Units 2 and 3 at BFN are termed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as "extended power uprates" or EPUs. These power uprates are typically defined by.NRC as uprates greater than 7 percent and up to 20 percent of OLTP. Such uprates generally require modifications to balance-of-plant equipment, such as high-pressure turbine condensate pumps and motors and main generators. As of July 23, 2003, the official Web site of the NRC (NRC, 2003) indicated that, excluding those plants with provisional operating licenses, EPUs for 11 nuclear units had been approved by NRC, and an additional 15 license amendment applications for such uprates are expected between 2003 and 2008.

Final Environmental Assessment 1

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project In 1998, BFN completed an Integrated Plant Improvement p'roject for Browns Ferry Units 2 and 3, which,amongother improvem'ents,resultedin a 5 percentuprate of the OLTP for both units (3,293 to 3,458 MWt). Uprates of this nature are termed "stretch" uprates by NRC (NRC, 2003). The impacts of this action were evaluated in an EA dated August 1997.

NRC issued the EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) related to the October 1, 1997, application for a 5 percent power uprate on August 26, 1998. A license amendment to the Browns Ferry operating license was approved by NRC for the 5 percent uprate on September 8,1998. The NRC recently approved a Licensing Topical Report, -Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate," NEDC 32424P-A, February 1999, and .Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate," NEDC 32523P-A, February 2000, which establishes the generic methodology to uprate the power output of boiling water reactors such as the BFN units up to 120 percent of the OLTP. For the currently proposed project, TVA would obtain a license amendment from the NRC to allow Units 2 and 3 to operate up to 120 percent of the OLTP. The impacts of (1) the license renewal for Units 2 and 3 for an additional 20 years of operations beyond their current operating licenses, (2) the possible restart, license extension, and uprate of BFN Unit 1, and (3) construction of an independent spent fuel storage facility were assessed in a TVA, 2002, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The proposed project to uprate Units 2 and 3 would be feasible, independent of any decisions TVA has made regarding the license extension of Units 1, 2, and 3 and the possible restart of Unit 1.

This EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and TVA's implementing procedures. It addresses specific issues and potential environmentalimpactsassociatedwith the proposedaction.

1.4. Other Pertinent Environmental Reviews or Documentation The Final SEIS for Operating License Renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama (TVA, 2002) included an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of two action alternatives, Alternative 1, operating BFN Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP for an additional 20 years beyond current operating licenses, and Alternative 2, refurbishment and restart of BFN Unit 1 with relicensing of all three units.

Both Action Alternatives initially contemplated the installation of new cooling towers to mitigate the increased thermal loading to Wheeler Reservoir. Computer modeling analyses for Alternative 1 included an assumption of the installation of a new 16-cell mechanical draft cooling tower, use of existing cooling towers, and derating as necessary to mitigate the thermal impacts. Alternative 2, refurbishment and restart of BFN Unit 1 with relicensing of all three units, was adopted by the TVA Board as reflected in the record of decision (ROD) issued in May 2002. For the restart of Unit 1, ~hemitigation strategy for increased thermal loads to surface waters included use of existing cooling towers, construction of a new 20-cell cooling tower, and derating as necessary.

The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Extended Power Uprate for Units 2 and 3 lEA(TVA, 2001),

which was completed in March 2001, described the potential environmental effects of increasing power thermal output from BFN Units 2 and 3 from 105 percent to 120 percent of OLTP. A FONSI was issued for the proposed project contingent upon certain mitigation measures for rendering increased thermal loads to surface waters insignificant. Thermal impact mitigation measures included construction of a new 16-cell cooling tower and the use of existing cooling towers. After the March 2001 FONSI was issued, additional technicalanalysescompletedlate in 2001 predictedthat withoutthe newcoolingtower, 2 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1 - Purpose of and Need for Action which was specified as a mitigatiQnmeasure, the plant would only need to derate for 183 hours0.00212 days <br />0.0508 hours <br />3.025794e-4 weeks <br />6.96315e-5 months <br /> in a 1o-year period. Subsequent n"Iodelrefinements using 16 years of data predicted that operation of BFN Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP without the proposed new cooling tower would only require 128 hours0.00148 days <br />0.0356 hours <br />2.116402e-4 weeks <br />4.8704e-5 months <br /> of derating in the 16-year period. Further, economic analysis indicated that due to transmission system improvements, the cost of replacement power for that number of hours (Le., 128 hours0.00148 days <br />0.0356 hours <br />2.116402e-4 weeks <br />4.8704e-5 months <br />) over a 16-year period would not be enough to justify construction of a new cooling tower as a part of the EPU project for Units 2 and 3. This change in project economics, the need to add sections addressing socioeconomics and environmental justice concerns, and ADEM'srecent determination that the designated water quality uses for Wheeler Reservoir with respect to temperature are not impaired (ADEM,2002), prompted TVAto review anew the impacts of the EPU project for BFN Units 2 and 3.

These and other related environmental reviews are shown in Table 1-1.

1.5. The Scoping Process In preparing this EA,TVA assembled a core team from the followingentities withinTVA:

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Nuclear Licensing, River Operations, Communications, Resource Stewardship, Officeof the General Counsel, Environmental Policyand Planning, and NEPA Administration. The core team met on March 25, 2003, to discuss the proposed extended power uprate for BFN Units 2 and 3 and the adequacy of the previous EAthat had been completed in March 2001 (TVA, 2001). Because new data affecting the economics of the project had become available and because additional water quality data had been accumulated since the previous EA,the core team decided to proceed with additional environmental review. An interdisciplinaryteam (lOT)for conducting the review was selected. The lOT met on April30, 2003. From discussions among the core team and the lOT,the followingissues were identified:spent fuel storage, generation of solid and hazardous wastes, radiological health, surface water quality, aquatic ecology, threatened or endangered species, and socioeconomic/environmental justice. Potential effects to these areas have been evaluated in this EA. Resources and issues for which there was no potential or only a de minimis potential for effects include groundwater, floodplains, wetlands, historic properties/cultural heritage, visual and recreational resources, transportation, terrestrial ecology, noise, and land use.

1.6. Necessary Federal Permits or Licenses In order for TVA to implement the proposed action, the NRC would have to issue an amendment to the operating licenses for BFN Units 2 and 3.

Final Environmental Assessment 3

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project Table 1-1. Environmental Reviews Related to Supplemental EAfor BFNUnits 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Type of Title Result/Date SummarylRelevance Review for this Review SEIS Final Supplemental Record of Decision was to seek extension of NRC Environmental Impact Decision licenses for BFN Units 1 through 3 at Statement (SEIS) for (ROD) issued 120 percent of OLTP for an additional 20 Operating License 5/16/2002 years beyond original4O-yearoperating Renewal of the Browns license terms. Mitigationmeasures for Ferry Nuclear Plant in increased thermal loads to surface waters Athens, Alabama included use of existing cooling towers, construction of a new cooling tower, and derating the plant as necessary.

EA Browns Ferry Nuclear FONSI Actionwas to propose a project to request an Plant Extended Power issued increase in the output of BFN Units 2 and 3 Uprate for Units 2 and 3 3/15/2001 from 105 percent of OLTP to 120 percent.

EA Since the proposed mitigationhas changed, and additional data and analyses have become available, TVA has elected to review anew the environmental impacts potentially resulting from the proposal.

EA Browns Ferry Nuclear FONSI Actionwas to request license amendment Plant Units 2 and 3 issued from NRCto uprate BFN Units 2 and 3 to Power Uprate Project 8/28/1997 105 percent of OLTP.

EA EIS Energy Vision2020 - ROD issued Documents TVA's long-term strategies for Integrated Resource 2/2211996 meeting demands for electric power.

Plan/Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

EIS Browns Ferry Nuclear Atomic This document evaluated potential Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 Energy environmental impacts for originallyproposed Final EIS Commission 40-year lifeof BFN.

accepted as adequate to support licensing on 8/28/1972 4 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2 -Alternatives CHAPTER 2

2. ALTERNATIVESINCLUDINGTHE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action involves construction activities as wellas changes to current operations. Physical construction activities would be a minor, temporary addition to an existing industrial facilityhaving a substantial property buffer. Minor,temporary construction impacts could occur. Potential for environmental effects would primarilybe related to operational aspects.

2.1.. Alternatives The alternatives being considered are to extend the power uprate to BFN Units 2 and 3 to 120 percent of original licensed thermal power (OLTP) and the No ActionAlternative.

2.1.1. Alternative A - The No Action Alternative Under the No ActionAlternative,the BFN Units 2 and 3 would continue to operate at the currently licensed power levels (3,458 MWt).

2.1.2. Alternative B - Uprate Units 2 and 3 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant to 120 percent Original Licensed Thermal Power The proposed action is to seek a license amendment from NRC to operate BFN Units 2 and 3 at up to 120 percent of the OLTP (3,293 to 3,952 MWt),resulting in approximately 250 MWe of additional electrical output from BFN.

A new operatingphilosophywouldbe establishedwherebyreactor powerwouldbe .

adjusted as seasonal changes in river temperature affect the overall efficiencyof the turbine to maintain generator output af a constant level (approximately 1,280 MWe)throughout the year. This new operating approach means that, at times during the year, reactor steam and feedwater flow could approach levels of 120-122 percent of the original operating basis.

To accommodate the increased reactor steam and feedwater flowand to accommodate the increased heat rejected, the followingmodificationsto plant equipment are expected to be necessary. The exact nature of these modificationscan be determined only after engineering evaluations are completed.

1. Modificationsto the high-pressure turbine steam path

2. Modificationsto the reactor feed pump turbines

3. Installation Ofhigher horsepower condensate pump motors

4. Modificationsto the condensate demineralizer system

5. Installation of new heater drain valves

6. Possible installation of some miscellaneous safety system setpoint changes Allchanges are withinthe existing structures and buildings housing the major unit components. The project would make use of existing parking lots, road access, laydown areas, offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms already located in previously Final Environmental Assessment 5

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project disturbed surface areas at BFN. No changes to transmission lines or the switchyard.would be required. .

All deliveries of materials would be by truck to support the work identified above. It is anticipated that about 25 (no more than 30) deliveries of material would occur over a one-year period (two to two and one-half per month on average). Equipment would be unloaded in existing receiving areas with unloading equipment already on site and temporarily stored in existing laydown areas. Existing land uses would not be altered.

As many as 1,000 additional workers would be on site during the 35-day period required for the modifications. It is anticipated that mobilization would occur about two weeks prior to this period, and the number of workers would peak at as many as 1,000 about three weeks into the outage, then tail off during the final ten days of the outage.

2.2. Comparison of Alternatives If extended power uprate is implemented for BFN Units 2 and 3, an additional electric generating capacity of approximately 250 MWe would be added to the TVA system. If the extended power uprate is not implemented, the small increases in environmental impacts resulting from the proposed EPU would not occur. However, the additional approximate 250 MWe of generating capacity would need to be acquired from an alternative energy source. Other alternatives include demand-side management and conservation, new generating plants, repowering of existing coal-fired plants, and power purchases from other utilities. For a capacity need of approximately 250 MWe und~r the No .Action Alternative, TVA would most likely purchase the power from existing gas-fired gene.ratorsand in the long term as the need for capacity grew, consider additional TVA gas-fired capacity. With the possible exception of demand-side management and conservation, the environmental impacts of uprating BFN are substantially less than those of other power supply alternatives involving fossil fuels or purchases from other utilities that also generate with fossil fuels.

Although speculative, these alternative energy sources could result in impacts to air quality (i.e., emission of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants), water quality, land use (for siting of new plants), and generation of additional solid and hazardous wastes.

As compared to the No Action Alternative, minor impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed action. Some of the plant modifications required to implement the EPU may result in the generation of small amounts of hazardous and solid wastes. BFN currently has in place the necessary procedures and contracts for proper disposal of both types of waste. The capacity of the BFN landfill and the local landfills is adequate to accommodate the additional solid waste.

The increased thermal power proposed for this project would result in an increase of approximately 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit (QF)in ~hetemperature of the circulating water leaving the main condenser from that currently experienced. This increase in discharge temperature would result in increased cooling tower usage during summer periods to maintain compliance with the discharge limitations. No changes are expected to be required to the plant intake system or intake flow rates because of this project. The amount of water withdrawn from the river remains within levels evaluated during the original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) impact analysis for three-unit operation at BFN; therefore, neither Alternative A nor B would impact impingement/entrainment levels at BFN.

As compared to current operations, potential radiological effects to the public resulting from 6 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2 -Altematives plant radioactive effluents from operation of BFNunder.extended power uprate would not significantlychange the maximumprojectedannual dose or cumulativedose overtime. .

Radiological doses for extended uprate conditions would be well below the regulatory limits and would have no effect on human health. Impacts to aquatic communities by operation at either current or uprated power levels would be minimaland insignificant. No effects to threatened or endangered species would occur.

While this increase in capacity would result in minor increases in the thermal load to the Tennessee River resulting from operation of BFN,these increases are small, and could be accommodated without changes to existing permit limitations. An amendment to the operating license for BFN Units 2 and 3 from the NRC would be required.

Prior to the restart of Unit 1, the impacts for operating Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP remain withinthe bounds of the original environmental impacts identifiedfor three-unit operation at BFN. Afterthe restart of Unit 1, the cumulative impacts of operating all three units at 120 percent of OLTP have been described in detail in the Browns Ferry Relicensing SEIS (rVA, 2002) and found to be insignificantwith the commitments therein.

2.3. The Preferred Alternative TVA's preferred alternative is Alternative B, i.e., to increase the reactor thermal power for BFN Units 2 and 3 such that the reactors can be operated at 120 percent of their OLTP of 3,293 MW. The preferred means of maintaining BFN compliance with the existing National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES) water discharge permit and mitigating potentially increased thermal loads to Wheeler Reservoir is to use the existing cooling towers in conjunction with derating BFN Units 2 and 3.

FinalEnvironmentalAssessment 7

Page intentionally blank u_ ___ __u_ --- ---

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences CHAPTER3

3. AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1. Site Description BFN is located on an 840-acre tract on the north shore of Wheeler Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 294 in Limestone County, Alabama. The site is approximately ten miles northwest of Decatur, Alabama and ten miles southwest of Athens, Alabama. The plant has three licensed reactors, two of which are currently in operation (Units 2 and 3). Unit 1 is currently in nonoperational status.

Wheeler Reservoir was created in 1936 and has an area of 67,070 acres and a volume of 1,050,000 acre-feet at the normal summer pool elevation of 556 feet (mean sea level).

Most of Wheeler Reservoir is classified by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) for use as public water supply, swimming and other whole-body water-contact sports, and fish and wildlife. However, the area of the reservoir immediately upstream and downstream of BFN is not classified for public water supply.

Water quality is generally good and is suitable for the designated uses. The section of Wheeler Reservoir from the Elk River to Wheeler Dam was on the 2000 Alabama 303(d) list as partially supporting its designated uses due to pH and temperaturelthermal modifications caused by industrial sources and flow regulation and modification.

However, in 2002, ADEM determined that the mean temperatures in the photic zone (top four meters in the water column) are statistically similar to values measured at other locations along the Tennessee River and that designated uses of Wheeler Reservoir are not impaired due to pH and temperature (ADEM, 2002).

Water temperature patterns in Wheeler Reservoir are constantly changing in response to varying meteorological and flow conditions. Natural water temperatures in the reservoir vary from around35 degreesFahrenheit(!IF)in Januaryto around9()2F in July.

Temperature patterns upstream of BFN are fully mixed during the fall, winter, and spring, with weak thermal stratification from June through September.

There are eight potable water intakes on Wheeler Reservoir withdrawing a total of approximately 124 million gallons per day (mgd) for municipal and industrial use.

Wastewater discharges include 11 municipal plants discharging approximately 30 mgd.

Eighteen industrial plants discharge approximately 2,513 mgd. The largest discharge by far is cooling water from BFN. Consump~iveand off-stream water uses do not conflict significantly due to the large volume of reservoir water available, the river flow rate that has 24-hour average minimum flows ranging from 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 10,000 cfs, and the return of most of the water withdrawn.

3.2. Impacts Evaluated The scoping process identified the following issues with potential for substantive environmental effects: spent fuel storage, generation of solid and hazardous wastes, radiological health, surface water resources, aquatic ecology, threatened or endangered species, and socioeconomic/environmental justice.

Final Environmental Assessment 9

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project The proposed action would not substantively increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.

Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites, cause land use changes, or create significant effects from the additional noise or fugitive dust generated during construction activities on this industrial site.

3.2.1. Spent Fuel Storage Although the proposed EPU would increase the average batch size of fuel assemblies needed for a refueling from the current 288 to approximately 332 with the uprate, the required BFN schedule for spent fuel storage expansion (i.e., dry storage) would not be affected. The impact of EPU on spent fuel storage is that the number of dry storage casks required would increase by approximately 7 percent with EPU implementation.

Implementation of the Dry Cask Storage Project was reviewed as part of the TVA SEIS for relicensing of the three units and restart of Unit 1 at BFN (TVA, 2002). The additional spent fuel generated as a result of EPU would not have a significant impact, since this additional spent fuel would be accommodated in the dry cask facility pending the shipment of the waste to United States Department of Energy's geological repository.

3.2.2. Hazardous Waste BFN is currently classified as a large quantity generator of hazardous waste. Some of the plant modifications required to implement the EPU may result in the generation of small amounts of hazardous waste that must be properly handled and disposed. Neither the types nor amounts of waste generated are.expected to be different from those routinely handled at BFN. No new waste streams are anticipated due to the uprate activities. Typical hazardous waste types produced as a result of these activities include spent solvents used in cleaning and degreasing activities and paint-related wastes from coating activities. The volumes of waste produced are expected to be within the ranges experienced in previous years, and would not impact site hazardous waste reduction goals. Hazardous wastes generated at BFN are managed through the TVA Hazardous Waste Storage Facility (HWSF) in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. The HWSF maintains contracts with a variety of companies who provide disposal services for TVA generated waste materials.

3.2.3. Solid Waste BFN currently has a permitted construction/demolition landfill that can accommodate some of the waste material and contracts with local haulers to dispose of most solid waste in permitted municipal landfills. As with the hazardous waste described above, some of the modifications would result in the generation of solid wastes that require disposal. Based on plant experience with previous similar modifications and construction activities, the types of wastes produced are not out of the ordinary for activities of this type. Typical solid wastes include scrap lumber and packing materials and miscellaneous construction-related debris. Neither the capacity of the BFN landfill nor the local landfills would be impacted by the volume of waste produced as a result of this project.

10 Final Environmental Assessment

- --_ ___ __ __ u. _ u ___ _. _ _ _. __ ____ .-- ----

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.2.4. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Operation of BFN Units 2 and 3 at the proposed uprated power levels would result in generation of 15-20 percent more radioactive resin as a result of the increased condensate demineralizer flow. The existing radioactive waste treatment and temporary storage systems at BFN are capable of accommodating this increased waste generation without modification. The small amount of dry active waste that would be generated because of modificationactivities withinthe plant would remain withinthe range of waste volumes currently generated and would not impact waste generation goals.

3.2.5. Radiological Impacts - Normal Operation To assess the impact of increased gaseous and liquideffluent releases, the maximum projected dose to the public because of the effluent releases resulting from operation at uprated conditions was compared to the current dose and to the NRC and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limitations(Table 3-1).

Table 3-1. MaximumDose Due to Radioactive Effluent Releases - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 1994-1996 PERCENT OF PERCENT OF CURRENT PROJECTED NRC LIMIT EPA LIMIT AVERAGE AVERAGE CURRENTI CURRENTI TYPE NRC LIMIT EPA LIMIT . DOSE DOSE PROJECTED PROJECTED LIQUID EFFLUENTSlmllllre Total Bodv I 3 I 25 I 0.054 I 0.065 I 1.812.2 I 0.210.3 Anv Oman I 10 25 I 0.078 I 0.094 I 0.8/0.94 0.3/0.4 GASEOUSEFFLUENTS(millirem/vear)

NobleGas 10 25 0.00098 0.0012 0.009/0.012 0.004/0.005 (Gamma)

NobleGas 20 25 0.0014 0.0017 0.007/0.009 0.006/0.007 (Beta)

Anv Orcan 15 25 0.035 0.042 0.23/0.28 0.14/0.17 These data indicate that under normal operating conditions, operation of BFNat EPU conditions would not significantlychange the maximum projected annual dose or cumulative dose over time to the public resulting from plant radioactive effluents. It is also important to note that the data for the liquideffluents from Table 3-1 do not take into account operation of the on-site recycling process.

The quantity of the isotope nitrogen-16 (N-16) in the reactor water and turbine building would be expected to increase linearlywiththe EPU. Any discernible increase in radiation due to increased N-16 would be-measured on the site environmental thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)stations. Past history from these TLDstations has not shown any measurable N-16 radiation at off-site locations. Therefore, it is unlikely that the increase in N-16 source term due to EPU would result in any measurable dose to the public.

3.2.6. Occupational Radiation Dose Occupational radiation dose would be expected to increase linearlywith the EPU.

Administrative and radiological controls constraining individualradiation dose below 10 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 20 radiation dose limitsare a programmatic requirement. The facilityaverage annual occupational radiation dose during the ten-year Final Environmental Assessment 11

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project period 1991 through ~OOOis 0.198 rem. A linear extrapolation forecasts an annual .

average occupational dose less than 0.24 rem; approximately 5 percent of the 10CFR20 adult whole body occupational radiation dose limit. These data do not take into account ALARA program initiatives and administrative dose level controls.

3.2.7. Radiological Impacts - Accident Related The radiological consequences resulting from the postulated events (loss of coolant accident, main steam line break accident, fuel-handling accident, and the control rod drop accident) have been evaluated using NRC accepted methods. The results indicate existing regulatory requirements would continue to be met.

3.2.8. Surface WaterResourceslThermal Effects 3.2.8.1. Existing Operations and Potential Impacts Under normal operation, BFN uses a once-through circulating water system to dissipate heat from the main turbine condensers. Water is withdrawn from the Tennessee River by the plant intake system and is discharged back to the river through submerged diffusers located on the river bottom and oriented perpendicular to the river flow. The diffusers are designed to enhance mixing of the heated effluent and the ambient water by discharging the effluent through 2-inch diameter ports (7,800 per unit, 23,400 total) located on the downstream-facing portion of the diffuser pipe and angled to force the heated effluent up into the water column.

In addition to the once-through system, BFN currently has five mechanical draft cooling towers that can be operated to assist in heat dissipation (helper mode) primarily during summer hot-weather periods. BFN has an NPDES permit (Number AL0022080) issued by the state of Alabama that contains specific requirements applicable to the nonradiological effluents released from BFN. Browns Ferry's current thermal limitations are a maximum 1-hour average of 93°F, and a maximum 24-hour average of 90°F, with a maximum temperature rise of 10°F over ambient conditions. All limitations are applied at the end of a 2,400-foot mixing zone downstream of the diffusers.

The increased thermal power proposed for this project would result in an increase of approximately 2.3°F in the temperature of the circulating water leaving the main condenser. This increase in discharge temperature would result in increased cooling tower usage during summer periods to maintain compliance with the discharge limitations.

Effluent discharges from other plant systams such as yard drainage, station sumps, and sewage treatment would not be expected to change due to the power uprate. The changes in discharges to the river resulting from this uprate would remain within the bounding conditions established in the NPDES permit and, therefore, would have minimal impact either individually or cumulatively on the environment.

No changes are expected to be required to the plant intake system as a result of this project. The amount of water projected to be withdrawn from the river remains within the levels evaluated during the original EIS impact analysis for three-unit operation at BFN; therefore, this project would not significantly impact intake water volume.

12 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.2.8.2. Computer Simulations of NPDESCompliance Measures Computer simulations for evaluating the need for cooling towers and derating when operating BFN Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of originallicensed thermal power (OLTP) were conducted using meteorological and water temperature data from 1985 to 2002, excluding 1989 and 1990 (years for which necessary data were unavailable). The results of the simulations indicated that existing cooling towers would provide adequate cooling to operate Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP except in severely hot and dry conditions, when derating the plant would be necessary to remain in compliance with in-stream thermal limitsin the current NPDES permit. Computer modeling EPU operation of Units 2 and 3 using the available weather data since 1985 predicted a total of 128 hours0.00148 days <br />0.0356 hours <br />2.116402e-4 weeks <br />4.8704e-5 months <br /> of derating in the 16-year modeling period. The model predicted that 25,55,39, and,9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> of derating would have been needed for equivalent weather years 1986, 1993, 1999, and 2002, respectively.

The simulations indicated that the combination of using existing cooling towers and derating the plant would allow compliance withthe current NPDES permit.

3.2.8.3. Far-Field Modeling Water Temperature Results The implications of the thermal effects on reservoir.water temperatures, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations, and eutrophication were evaluated using a far-field,two-dimensional reservoir model (Shiao, 'et al., 1993). The model was run for six years (1987-1994, excluding results for 1989 and 1990, where meteorological data are not available) using estimated hourly withdrawals and releases from ~FN, as well as flow data from Guntersville and Wheeler Dams. The six-year time frame selected for the far-field analysis included a range of operating conditions, includingseverely hot and dry years, a relatively cold and wet year, and a year of approximately average conditions.

Results of the modeling analysis are shown in Table 3-2 for two reservoir segments:

upstream of BFN (TRMs295.9-294.0) and the reservoir forebay (TRMs280.7-274.9),

which is downstream of BFN and upstream of Wheeler Dam.

The mean temperature over the six-year model simulation period predicted for the reservoir forebay segment increased from 65.7°F to 65.8°F as Units 2 and 3 were uprated from 105 percent to 120 percent. For all three units operating at 100 percent OLTP, the six-year mean water temperature predicted at the reservoir forebay segment was 66.1°F. Thus, the proposed two-unit operation at 120 percent represents a decrease of 0.3°F compared to all three units operating at their initial100 percent OLTP and a 0.1OFincrease compared to two units operating at 105 percent OLTP. Six-year means of the predicted water temperatures for July and August showed a similar trend for the reservoir forebay segment.

The maximum daily temperature (Le., the warmest daily average rivertemperature) over the six-year simulation period predicted for the reservoir forebay was 90.6°F for all three cases for the years modeled. Thus, the maximum daily temperature downstream of BFN at the reservoir forebay would not be expected to change measurably with the proposed uprate of Units 2 and 3 to 120 percent of OLTP.

Final Environmental Assessment 13

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project 3.2.8.4. Far-Field ModelingAlgal Biomass and Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Concentrations Results Wheeler Reservoir Forebay Segment The six-year modeling analysis of algal and DO concentrations upstream of the plant and in the reservoir forebay were essentially unchanged under all three operating cases.

Thus, significant changes in algal and DO concentrations would not be expected with the proposed operation of Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP.

Based on these results and future operation of the plant in compliance with regulatory requirements for thermal effects, operation of Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP would be expected to have insignificant effects on reservoir stratification, DO concentrations, eutrophication, and cumulative impacts.

3.2.9. Aquatic Ecology 3.2.9.1. Fish In 1985, BFN initiated a three-phase biological monitoring program to evaluate the effects of the BFN thermal discharge on total standing stocks and selected fish species in Wheeler Reservoir and a sampling program to monitor total standing stocks of fish in Wheeler Reservoir. The results were reported to the state of Alabama in 1998 (Baxter and Buchanan, 1998), and additional analyses of the data were provided as part of the NPDES permit renewal application submitted in September 1999 (TVA, 1999). Both the final report and the additional analyses concluded that the operation of BFN under the current permit limitations has not had a significant impact on the aquatic community of Wheeler Reservoir or on the specific aquatic species studied.

Two species of special interest, sauger and yellow perch, were the focus of BFN thermal variance studies because both are considered coolwater species and, theoretically, moresusceptibleto elevatedwatertemperature.Basedon resultsof studiesconducted .

from 1985 through 1992, operation of BFN had no significant adverse impact on the reproductive success of either species or the movement of sauger past BFN. However, the studies did indicate sauger-spawning success was adversely impacted by overfishing (Maceina, et aI., 1998), and drought conditions (e.g., low flows and decreased turbidity) in the Tennessee Valley during 1985 through 1988. The operation of BFN had not impacted the sauger population in Wheeler Reservoir (Baxter and Buchanan,1998). '

Cove rotenone samples were collected annually from 1969 through 1997 as a component of the TVA environmental monitoring program for BFN. These samples provided a database on the fish community in the vicinity of BFN and later served as a part of the thermal variance monitoring program. In more recent samples, 52 species were collected in 1995,45 species in 1996, and 43 species in 1997. Annual standing stock estimates were 105,655 fish/hectare (ha) and 683 kilograms (kg)/ha in 1995 and decreased to 11,713 fish/ha and 366 kg/ha in 1996, then increased to 24,497 fish/ha and 489 kg/ha in 1997. As usual, forage fish were numerically dominant in samples and dominated biomass estimates in 1995 and 1996, but rough fish were highest in biomass in 1997. Gizzard shad exhibited the highest biomass during all three years, followed by threadfin shad in 1995 and smallmouth buffalo in 1996 and 1997 (Baxter and Buchanan, 1998). :;',

14 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Table 3-2. Summary of Wheeler Reservoir Water Quality Far-Field Computer Model Results for Equivalent Weather Years 1987-1988,1991-19941 Upstream of BFN Reservoir Forebay Segment Parameter (Units) Reservoir Segment TRM 280.7-274.9 TRM295.9-294.0 M Mean4 July-Aug. Max. Mean July-Aug.

Temperature COF)2 Da Means Day Mean 3 Unitsat 100% 90.2 65.6 84.6 90.6 66.1 85.1 2 Unitsat 105% 90.1 65.1 84.2 90.6 65.7 84.8 2 Unitsat 120% 90.2 65.2 84.3 90.6 65.8 84.9 Difference(120%-100%) 0.0 -0.4 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 Algal Biomass (millirams Max. July-Aug. Max. Mean July-Aug.

Mean Mean per liter rmaILUli Dav Mean Dav 3 Unitsat 100% 7.0 3.4 6.1 7.7 3.4 6.1 2 Unitsat 105% 7.2 3.5 6.3 8.1 3.5 6.2 2 Unitsat 120% 7.2 3.5 6.2 8.0 3.5 6.2 Difference(120%-100%) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 Min. July-Aug. Min. July-Aug.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)7 Mean Mean Mean Day8 Mean Day 3 Units at 100% 5.3 8.8 6.8 3.5 8.0 5.2 2 Unitsat 105% 4.8 8.8 6.8 2.9 7.9 4.8 2 Unitsat 120% 4.8 8.8 6.7 2.9 7.9 4.8 Difference(120%-100%) -0.5 0.0 -0.1 -0.6 -0.1 -0.4 1 All values in table are based on the daily average for parameter indicated. 1989-1990 model results were omitted because historical meteorological data were not available.

2 All temperature values are based on model results at the 5-foot depth.

3 Max. day is the maximum average daily value (1 day) out of the six-year period.

4 Mean is the average of all daily values (2,192 days) over the six-year period.

S July-Aug. mean is the average of all June and July daily values (520 days) over the six-year period. . .

6 Algal biomass values are based on model results at the 5-foot depth.

7 Dissolved oxygen values are based on model results for the water column average.

8 Min. day is the minimum average daily value (1 day) out of the six-year period.

Final Environmental Assessment 15

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project TVA has conductedextensivesamplingof the fish communityin the vicinityof BFNand elsewherein WheelerReservoirin recentyears,bothin monitoringprogramsconducted specificallyfor BFN (Baxterand Buchanan,1998)and as part of TVA's Reservoir MonitoringProgram(Dycusand Baker,2000). Fifty-sevenspecieshavebeencollectedin recentyears by varioussamplingmethods(seeAppendixTableA-1).

TVA begana programto monitorthe ecologicalconditionsof its reservoirssystematicallyin 1990. Previously,reservoirstudieshad beenconfinedto assessmentsto meetspecific needsas they arose. Reservoir(andstream)monitoringprogramswere combinedwith TVA's fish tissueand bacteriologicalstudiesto form an integratedVital SignsMonitoring Program. Vital signsmonitoringactivitiesfocuson: (1) physical/chemicalcharacteristicsof waters;(2) physical/chemicalcharacteristicsof sediments;(3) benthicmacroinvertebrate communitysampling;and (4)fish assemblagesampling. Fishare includedin aquatic monitoringprogramsbecausethey are importantto the aquaticfood chainand because they havea long life cycle,whichallowsthemto reflectconditionsovertime. Fishare also importantto the publicfor aesthetic,recreational,and commercialreasons(Dycusand Baker,2000).

Fish samplesweretaken in threeareasof WheelerReservoirfrom 1993through1995, 1997,1999,and 2000through2002as partof TVA's ReservoirVitalSignsMonitoring Program. Areassampledincludedthe forebay(areaof the reservoirnearestthe dam),~

midreservoirtransitionstationin the vicinityof TRM295.9,an upper-reservoirinflowstation at TRM 348, and the Elk Riverembayment.Resultsof samplingat the transitionstations and cove rotenonesurveysof WheelerReservoirare presentedin AppendixTableA-1 (Baxterand Gardner,2003). Thesedataare morerepresentativeof fish communitiesin the vicinityof BFN.

ReservoirFishAssemblageIndex(RFAI)ratingsare basedprimarilyon fish community structureandfunction. Alsoconsideredin the ratingis the percentageof the sample representedby omnivoresand insectivores,overallnumberof fish collected,and the occurrenceof fish with anomaliessuchas diseases,lesions,parasites,deformities,etc.

Comparedto other run-of-the-riverreservoirs,the fish assemblageat the Wheeler midreservoirstation(TRM295.9) ratedpoorin 1992and 1999,fair in 1990,1991,1995, and 1997,and good in 1993and 1994. Annualelectrofishingand gill net sampleswere collectedsince 2000at the upstreamof BFNsamplingstation(TRM295.9)and a downstream(belowthe BFNdiffusermixingzone)samplingstationat TRM292.5. The averagefish assemblageindexscoresfrom 1993through2002ratedgoodat TRM 292.5 and fair at TRM 295.9 (AppendixTableA-2) (Baxterand Gardner,2003).

Resultssince 1991indicateno adverseimpactsto the aquaticcommunityof Wheeler a

Reservoiras resultof BFNoperation(Baxterand Gardner,2003). Basedon the results reportedinthatdocumentandthefindingsofthepresentEAthat the expectedimpactson thermal conditionsfor water quality,reservoirstratification,DO concentrations,and eutrophicationare expectedto be insignificant,effectson the reservoirfisheryare also expectedto be insignificant.To confirmthe expectedlowlevelof effects,TVA will continue the currentmonitoringschemefor threeyearsfollowingimplementationof the EPU.

3.2.9.2. Entrainment and Impingement of Fish and Shellfish, Heat Shock Fish eggs and larvaeentrainedin coolingwatermaysuffermortalityfrom one or more physicaleffectsof passagethroughtheplant. Consequently, inconjunction withthe 16 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences construction of BFN,TVA investigated the preoperational characteristics and dynamics of the annual ichthyoplanktonpopulationsin'WheelerReservoir(TVA,1978a). This .

investigation was continued through the initiationof commercial operation in 1974, and data from 1971-1977 were reported (TVA,1978b); 1978 and 1979 data were also reported (TVA, 1980). These studies concluded that estimated plant entrainment under open-cycle, three-unit operation would not add significantlyto expected natural mortalityof fish eggs and larvae in the reservoir (TVA, 1980); overall impingement did not appear to represent an adverse environmental impact to the Wheeler fish community (TVA,1978b).

Response of fish and other aquatic lifeto elevated temperatures found in power plant discharges can range from acute (which includes immediate disabilityand death) to chronic or low level (which may include physiologicalor behavioral responses such as changes in spawning, migration, or feed behaviors). Since the discharge diffusers at BFN are located such that fish do not become trapped in areas of elevated temperatures, acute impacts are highly unlikely. TVAstudies have documented that thermal releases from BFN have not had a significant impact on the aquatic community of Wheeler Reservoir (Baxter and Buchanan, 1998).

The volume of water withdrawnfrom the reservoir would remain withinthe levels evaluated during the original EIS impact analysis for three-unit operation at BFN;therefore, neither Alternative A nor Alternative B would impact entrainment and impingement levels beyond those currently permitted at BFN. In-stream temperatures at the end of the mixingzone would remain withinNPDES permitted limits;thus, heat shock impacts would not be anticipated.

Based on these results, entrainment, impingement, and potential for heat shock from the extended power uprate of Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP would also be expected to have insignificant effects on the reservoir fishery and general biologicalcommunity.

3.2.9.3. Benthic Organisms As mentioned, BFN is located on Wheeler Reservoir, which TVA classifies as a run-of-the-river reservoir. Run-of-the-river reservoirs typicallyhave short water retention times (one to two weeks) and littlewinter drawdown. Benthic habitats in the reservoir range from deposits of finely divided silts to river channel cobble and bedrock. The most extensive benthic habitat is composed of fine-grained brown silt, which is deposited both in the old river channel and on the former overbank areas. The overbank areas, on either side of the old river channel, are far more extensive than the channel and are the most productive (TVA, 1972). These overbanks, located directlyacross from BFN, extend approximately two miles downstream. The overbanks support communities of Asiatic and fingernail clams, burrowing mayflies, aquatic worms',and midges. Cobble and bedrock areas, found primarilyin the old channel, support Asiatic clams, bryozoa, sponges, caddisflies, snails, and some leeches. The Asiatic clam is not indigenous to North America, but is common in the Tennessee River system.

Benthic macroinvertebrates are included in the previously mentioned VitalSigns Monitoring Program because of their importance to the aquatic food chain and because they have limitedcapabilityof movement,thereby preventingthem fromavoidingundesirable .

conditions. Since 1995, vital signs samples have been collected in the late fall/winter (November-December). Depending on reservoir size, as many as three stations are sampled (i.e., inflow,transition, and forebay).

Final Environmental Assessment 17

~ -----

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project Benthic macrolnvertebrate vitalsigns monitoringdata are analyzedusingseveralmetrics.

The number of metrics has varied through the' sample years as reservoir benthic analysis.

has been fine-tuned. The most recent analysis is comprised of seven metries: taxa richness; Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera,and Tricopertera(EPT)taxa; long-livedtaxa; percent oligochaete; dominance; zero samples; and non-chironomid and oligochaete density. The number derived for each metric is totaled, and the score is applied to a range of values listed in Appendix Table A-3 that identify the overall condition of the benthic community (i.e., very poor, poor, fair, good, or excellent).

BFN is located a short distance downstream from the vital signs transition station on Wheeler Reservoir (TRM 295.9). The transition station is the zone considered to be between riverine (the inflow station) and impoundment habitats (the forebay station).

Benthic community scores at the transition station ranged from "excellent' in 1994 to "good" in 1995 and "excellent' again in 1997 ~nd 1999 (Dycus and Baker, 2000).

In addition to vital signs benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring, benthic community sampling in support of BFN thermal variance monitoring was begun in the fall of 2000 (and will continue at least for the term of the current permit cycle-five years). Station locations are TRM 295.9 and TRM 291.7, upstream and downstream of the BFN diffusers, respectively (Appendix Table A-3). The average benthic index scores found above BFN diffusers to be in "excellent' condition and "good" condition below the diffusers (Baxter and Gardner, 2003). .

Freshwater mussel fauna are not assessed as part of TVA's Vital Signs Monitoring Program; however, they are excellent indicators of water quality due to their sessile nature and inability to avoid perturbations impacting water quality. Mussels feed on microorganisms (protozoans, bacteria, diatoms) and organic particles suspended in the water that are brought into the body via siphon action and consumed.

Thirty-eight freshwater mussel species had been documented in Wheeler Reservoir through 1991 (Ahlstedt and McDonough, 1993). Twelve species were identified in the vicinity of BFN during a 1982 survey for a proposed barge facility (Henson and Pryor, 1982). Most recently, Alabama Fish and Game identified 14 species upstream of BFN and 12 species downstream (Jeffrey T. Garner, Alabama Game and Fish Division malacologist, personal communication, 2001). A listing of these species appears in Appendix Table A-4.

Table 3-2 illustrates computer-modeling results for the six-year far-field analysis. As shown in the table, the model predicted that two units operating at 120 percent OLTP would result in a O.22Flower July-August average mean temperature in Wheeler Reservoir forebay than three units operating at 100 percent OLTP. Any increase in discharge temperature would result in increased cooling tower usage and possible derate of the plant during summer periods. Water intake velocity would not change from that which was evaluated during previous studies when all three units were in operation at BFN. Therefore, no impacts to benthic macroinvertebrate communities due to discharge temperatures or entrainment are expected in the vicinity of BFN because of this action.

3.2.10. Threatened and Endangered Species - Aquatic Five federally endangered aquatic species are known to occur in the vicinity of BFN. The rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) and the pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) are freshwater mussels that historically occurred in silt-free, stable gravel and cobble habitats in large river 18 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences habitats throughout the Tennessee Riversystem(Parmaleeand Bogan,1998). These species are now extremely rare and are primarily found in unimpounded"tributary rivers and in the more riverine reaches of the largely impounded mainstem Tennessee River. In Wheeler Reservoir, most of the surviving large river habitat occur upstream of BFN. All recent records of these two species are from upstream of BFN (Ahlstedt and McDonough, 1993; Colaw and Carroll, 1982; Jeffrey T. Garner, Alabama Game and Fish Division malacologist, personal communication, 1998 and 2001; Gooch, et aI., 1979; Henson and Pryor, 1982; TVA, 2003; Yokely, 1998). It is very unlikely that populations of these species exist in Wheeler Reservoir downstream of BFN (Leroy M. Koch, United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] field supervisor, Daphne, Alabama, personal communication, 1999). "

Three federally listed endangered aquatic snails; armored snail (Pyrgulopsis pachyta),

slender campeloma (Campeloma decampl), and Anthony's river snail (Leptoxis

[=Athearnia] anthonYI),are restricted to tributary creeks to Wheeler Reservoir, located upstream from BFN (Appendix Table A-5). No evidence exists to suggest that populations of these species exist in the mainstem of the Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) in the vicinity of BFN, or in tributary streams downstream of BFN. One state-listed snail, Warty Rocksnail (Lithasia lima), is reported from tributary streams upstream of BFN, but is not likely to occur in the mainstem Tennessee River adjacent to or downstream of BFN. Vital signs monitoring data and TVA's Regional Natural Heritage Program's most recent database indicates no state or federally protected fish species have been collected, or are currently known to occur in the vicinity of BFN.

The expected impacts from use of additional derating of BFN in combination with use of existing cooling towers on thermal conditions for water quality, reservoir stratification, DO concentrations, eutrophication, and condition of general reservoir biological communities would be minor, insignificant, and within the bounds of the previously permitted thermal discharge of the plant for three-unit operation. Therefore, no effects to any federally listed species are expected. The nature of the present TVA action with its limited geographical area of influence has"no potential for effects on other federally listed species.

TVA's corporate Environmental Policy commits the agency to protecting environmental resources of the Tennessee Valley. TVA's Environmental Principles include assessing the effects of TVA operations to ensure environmental compliance. TVA has monitored Wheeler Reservoir since 1985 to assure that plant operation does not adversely impact Wheeler Reservoir. In accordance with the NPDES permit and previous commitments (TVA, 1999; 2002), TVA will continue annual monitoring of reservoir conditions. This monitoring is to confirm results of thermal modeling that indicate no significant impact on a balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, in and on Wheeler Reservoir from the EPU of BFN Units 2 and 3. Annual monitoring results will be reported to the state of Alabama.

3.2.11. Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice 3.2.11.1. Socioeconomics BFN is located in Limestone County, Alabama, which is part of the Huntsville metropolitan area. The population of Limestone County in 2000 was 65,676 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population 2000). The primary labor market area for the plant consists of three metropolitan areas: Huntsville (Limestone and Madison Counties), Decatur Final Environmental Assessment 19

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project (Lawrenceand MorganCounties),and Florence(Colbertand LauderdaleCounties). The 2000 populationof this area was 631,193. Basedon2002 data,thelaborforcein UmestoneCountyis 31,275;the primarylabormarketarea has a laborforce of 311,789 (AlabamaDepartmentof IndustrialRelations,LaborMarketInformationDivision). The unemploymentrate in 2002was 5.3 percentin UmestoneCounty,whilethe averagein the primarylabormarketarea was 6.2 percent.

The proposedactionwould be one activitythat wouldoccurduringa plannedoutage,which is expectedto lastfor 35 days. Total employmentfor all activitiesduringthis outagewould peak at approximately1,000. Staffingwouldbeginaboutfour to five weekspriorto this peak, with destaffingscheduledto beginaroundday28 of the outage. This maximum employmentlevelwouldrepresentabout3.2percentofthecurrentlaborforceof Limestone Countyand aboutthree-tenthsof 1 percentof the laborforce in the primarylabormarket area.

In addition to the areas included in the primary labor market area, the Birmingham, Alabama and Nashville, Tennessee areas are likely sources of workers for the proposed activity. Workers from these areas generally would commute rather than relocate for the short duration of the proposed activity. Previous TVA experience at the BFN site and at other construction sites suggest that it is likely that no more than one-third of all the workers hired for construction or similar activities would move into the primary labor market area.

The remaining workers generally would already reside within the primary labor market area or in a location, such as the Birmingham or Nashville areas, close enough to commute on a temporary basis. Based on this, it is anticipated that the maximum impact from workers moving into the area would be about 300 to 350 workers, not all.resulting from this proposed action. Because of the very short-term nature of the work-about five weeks-and the short duration of the maximum employment level, very few workers who do move in are expected to bring families with them. It is not-likely that the increased population in the area due to all outage activities would exceed about 400 persons. However, it is possible that the demand for the required s~ills would make recruiting difficult, resulting in a somewhat larger number of workers moving temporarily into the local area.

Due to the short term of the project, the total impact on annual earnings and income in Limestone County and in the labor market area would be very small and insignificant.

Impacts on community services such as police, fire, and medical would also be very small and insignificant because of the small size of the impact on population, because the workers who move likely would be dispersed within the labor market area, and because of the short duration of the maximum impact.

3.2.11.2. Environmental Justice The populationof UmestoneCountyis 17.6percentminority, well below both the state of Alabama, with 29.7 percent, and the nation, wi~h30.9 percent (U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 200(]). The labor market area has a higher minority population share, 22.1 percent, still well below the state and national levels. The poverty rate in Limestone County is 12.3 percent, lower than the state average of 16.1 percent and about the same as the national average of 12.4 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 200(]). The poverty rate in the labor market area is 12.1 percent, lower than Umestone County, the state, and the nation.

20 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences As discussed above, the area around the plant has relatively lowpoverty "rates and small minoritypopulations. Almost all of the activityassociated with the proposed action would" occur inside the plant, further removing itfrom the population in the surrounding area. Also, no significant negative impacts to the environment are expected ifthe proposed action occurs. Therefore, no disproportionate negative impacts to disadvantaged populations are expected.

3.3. Cumulative Impacts The far-field effects computer modeling, which was described above, indicated that the operation of BFN Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP with existing cooling towers and derating would not result in significant increases in average reservoir temperature downstream of BFN at the Wheeler Reservoir forebay segment.

The cumulative effects of the planned restarting of BFN Unit 1 at 120 percent of OLTP in conjunction with operating Units 2 and 3 at 120 percent of OLTP were evaluated and addressed in TVA,2002, which found that withthe commitments noted therein, cumulative impacts would not be significant. That analysis of cumulative effects incorporated the assumption of BFN Units 2 and 3 operating at 120 percent of OLTP. For the EPU of BFN Units 2 and 3, maintaining thermal discharges withinthe current NPDES permit limitsby using existing cooling towers and derating would be the strategy employed untilthe planned restart of BFN Unit 1. At restart of BFN Unit 1, as described in the Final SEIS and ROD (TVA, 2002), the use of existing cooling towers, operation of an additional new cooling tower and derating as needed, would then become the combination employed to maintain BFN operations withincurrent permit limits.

3.4. Summary of TVA Commitments and Proposed MitigationMeasures Ifthis project is implemented, TVA would.use existing cooling towers and derate BFN Units 2 and 3 as necessary .to maintain compliance with thermal limitsspecified by the NPDES permit and to ensure that potential impacts to reservoir water and ecological conditions are insignificant.

In accordance with the NPDES permit and previous commitments (TVA, 1999; 2002), TVA willcontinue annual monitoring of reservoir conditions. This monitoringwillcontinue for three years followingimplementation of the EPU and is to confirm results of thermal modeling that indicate no significant impact on a balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife,in and on Wheeler Reservoir from the EPU of BFN Units 2 and 3.

Annual monitoring results willbe reported to the state of Alabama.

Spent fuel would be stored in an NRC licensed and approved facility.

FinalEnvironmental Assessment 21

Page intentionally blank Chapter 4 - Ust of Preparers CHAPTER 4'

4. LIST OF PREPARERS 4.1. NEPA Project Management Tomaszewski, Tina M.

Position: Senior NEPA Specialist, NEPA Project Manager Involvement: NEPA Compliance and Document Preparation Baxter, Dennis S.

Position: Zoologist- Aquatic Involvement: Endangered and Threatened Species - Aquatic Animals Brellenthin, John B.

Position: Manager, Environmental Policy and Strategy Involvement: Core Team Member/Reviewer Brogdon,JenniferN.

Position: SeniorEnvironmentalEngineer Involvement: SurfaceWater Eblen, James H.

Position: Economist (Contractor, TVA Retiree)

Involvement: Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Harper, Walter Position: Mechanical Engineer, Specialist Involvement: Computer Modeling Cooling Tower Use Higgins, John M.

Position: Water Quality Specialist Involvement: Surface Water Shiao, Ming C.

Position: Civil Engineer, Specialist Involvement: Computer Modeling, Water Quality Far-Field Effects Yeager, Bruce L.

Position: Senior NEPA SpecialistlNEPA Team Leader Involvement: Core Team Member/Reviewer 4.2. Other Contributors Austin, StevenW.

Position: NuclearLicensingEngineer Involvement: CoreTeam Member/Reviewer Final Environmental Assessment 23

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project Beasley,Craig W.

Position: Senior Manager,.Communication Involvement: CoreTeamMember/Reviewer Cooper, C. Rusty Position: Environmental Engineer Involvement: Core Team Member/Reviewer Hartwig, Frank E.

Position: Project Manager, TVA Nuclear Involvement: Core Team MemberlReviewer Hopping, Paul N.

Position: Technical Specialist Involvement: Core Team Member/Reviewer Johnson,TerryW.

Position: Manager,ResourceandTechnologyCommunications Involvement: CoreTeam Member/Reviewer Lowe, Greg W.

Position: Senior Manager, River Scheduling Involvement: Core Team MemberlReviewer Wilson, Charles L.

Position: TVA Nuclear Ucensing Involvement: Core Team Member/Reviewer Wright, Raymond J.

Position: Extended Power Uprate Engineering Manager Involvement: Core Team Member/Reviewer 24 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 5 - Supporting Information CHAPTER 5

5. SUPPORTING INFORMATION 5.1. Literature Cited ADEM. 2002. ADEM final listing decision for Wheeler Reservoir on the Tennessee River waterbody identification number AL.JWheeler_Res01pH temperature/thermal modification. Alabama Department.of Environmental Management, Water Quality Branch, Water Division.

Ahlstedt, S. A., and T. A. McDonough. 1993. Quantitative evaluation of commercial mussel populations in the Tennessee River portion of Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama.

Pages 38-49 in K. S. Cummings, A. C. Buchanan, and L. M. Koch (editors).

Conservation and management of freshwater mussels. Proceedings of an Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee (UMRCC) symposium, 12-14 October 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. UMRCC, Rock Island, Illinois.

Baxter, D. 5., and J. P. Buchanan. 1998. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Thermal Variance Monitoring Program - final report. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Environmental Compliance.

Baxter, D. 5., and K. D. Gardner. 2003. Biological monitoring of the Tennessee River near BrownsFerry NuclearPlantdischarge,2002. Tennessee ValleyAuthority, .

Resource Stewardship, Aquatic Biology Laboratory, Norris, Tennessee, 21 pages.

Colaw, L. W., and B. B. Carroll. 1982. Mallard-Fox mussel survey report. Unpublished report, Tennessee Valley Authority, Fisheries and Ecology Branch, Division of Water Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee, 4 pages.

Dycus, D. L., and T. F. Baker. 2000. Aquatic ecological health determinations for TVA reservoirs -1999. Tennessee Valley Authority, Water Management, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Gooch, C. H., W. J. Pardue, and D. C. Wade. 1979. Recent mollusk investigations on the Tennessee River, 1978. Unpublished report, Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Environmental Planning, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, 126 pages.

Henson, J. R., and R. J. Pryor. 1982. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - proposed barge facility. Unpublished report, Tennessee Valley Authority, Fisheries and Ecology Branch, Division of Water Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee, 4 pages.

Maceina, M. J., P. W. Bettoli, S. D. Finely, and V. J. DiCenzo. 1998. Analyses of the sauger fishery with simulated effects of a minimum size limit in the Tennessee River of Alabama. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:104-113.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Fact sheet on power uprates for nuclear plants. June 23, 2003 <httc://www.nrc.aov/readina-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/cower-ucrates.html> (July 23, 2003).

Final Environmental Assessment 25

-.. . ~.~. ..~._- ...-.-...-....-.-- .-. - --------

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project Parmalee, P. W., and A. E. Bogan 1998. The.Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. The Universityof TenriesseePress, Knoxville,pages 124 and 190.

Shiao, M. C, M. D. Bender, and G. E. Hauser. 1993. Two-dimensional water quality modeling of Wheeler Reservoir. TVAResource Group, Engineering Services, Hydraulic Engineering, WR28-1-3-105, Norris,Tennessee.

Tennessee ValleyAuthority. 1972. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1,2, and 3, final environmental impact statement. TVA Officeof Health and Environmental Science, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

. 1978a. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant preoperational fisheries resources report.

TVADivisionof Forestry, Fisheries, and WildlifeDevelopment, Norris, Tennessee.

. 1978b.Biologicaleffectsof intake Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, volume 4:

Effects of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant cooling water intake on the fish populations of Wheeler Reservoir. TVADivisionof Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, Norris, Tennessee.

. 1980. Fish entrainment and impingement at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama, for the years 1978 and 1~79. TVADivisionof Water Resources, Fisheries, and Aquatic Ecology Branch, Norris,Tennessee.

. 1995. Energy vision 2020 - integrated resource plan/programmatic environmental impact statement.

. 1997. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3 power uprate project final environmental assessment.

. 1999. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number AL 0022080 - renewal application.

. 2001. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant extended power uprate for Units 2 and 3 final environmental assessment.

. 2002. Final supplemental environmental impact statement for operating license renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama.

. 2003. TVA Natural Heritage Database. Norris, Tennessee.

Yokely, P., Jr. 1998. Mussel study near Hobbs Island on the Tennessee River for Butler Basin Marina. Unpublished report prepared for MST Engineering, Decatur, Alabama, 2 pages.

26 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 5 - Supporting Information 5.2. Glossary of Terms OF Degree Fahrenheit ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management ALARA As low as reasonably achievable Baseload The minimum amount of electric power or natural gas delivered or required over a given period of time at a steady rate. The minimum continuous load or demand in a power system over a given period of time usually not temperature sensitive.

BFN Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant CFR Code of Federal Regulation cfs Cubic feet per second Cooling Water Water pumped through the condensers of a steam-cycle power plant to extract heat from steam after it has exited the turbines in order to return it to a liquid state.

Cumulative Impacts In an EIS or EA, 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 nonfederal), private industry, or individual(s) undertakes such other actions.

Cumulative impacts can' result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

Derate Reduction in operating power production level.

DO Dissolved oxygen EA Environmental Assessment Effluent A gas or fluid discharged into the environment e.g. Latin term, exempli gratia, meaning for example" EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricopertera EPU Extended power uprates et al. Latin term et alii (masculine), et aliae (feminine), or et alia

'" (neutral) meaning "and others" Final Environmental Assessment 27

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project FONSI Findingof NoSignificantImpact ha hectare HWSF Hazardous Waste Storage Facility IDT InterdisciplinaryTeam i.e. Latinterm, id est, meaning "that is" kg kilogram Megawatt (MW) A unit of power equal to 1 millionwatts Megawatt-electric Term commonly used to define electricityproduced (MWe)

Megawatt-thermal Term commonly used to define heat produced (MWt) mgd Milliongallons per day mg/L Milligramsper liter N-16 (Nltrogen-16) An isotope of nitrogen NEDC(Nuclear Energy General Electric Company report designation usually followed Document Customer) by a number '

NEPA National Environmental PolicyAct NPDES National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OLTP Original,licensed thermal power Peak Load The maximum load consumer or produced by a unit or group of units in a stated period of time rem The unit of radia~iondose equivalent RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index ROD Record of Decision SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement TLD Thermoluminescent dosimeter TRM Tennessee River Mile 28 Final Environmental Assessment

Chapter 5 - Supporting Information TVA Tennessee ValleyAuthority Uprate To increase rated power output USFWS United States Fish and WildlifeService Final Environmental Assessment 29

Page intentionaih/ blank Appendix A - Tables APPENDIX A - TABLES Final Environmental Assessment A-1

Page intentionally blank Appendix Table A-1. Fish Species Collected in the Vicinity of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant by TVA during BFN Reservoir Monitoring Activities, 1995-2002 Cove Fall 2000 GillNet and Fall 2001 GillNet and Fall 2002 GillNet and Rotenone Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing 1995-1997 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 TRM 292.5 TRM295.9 Common Name Chestnut lamprey x - - - - - -

Spotted gar x - x - x x -

Longnosegar x - - - - - -

'"T1

r Bowfin x - - - - - -

~ Skipjackherring x x x x x x x m

J Gizzardshad x x x x x x x

< Threadfinshad x x x x x x x

,r

J Central stoneroller x - - x - - -

3 (1) Grass carp - - x - - - -

-:J

~ Spotfinshiner x - - x - - -

>>en Steelcolor shiner x - - - - - -

en (1) Commoncarp x - x x x - x en en Stripedshiner x - - - - - -

3 (1) Silverchub x - - - - - -

-:J Goldenshiner x - - x x - x Emeraldshiner x x x x x - x Ghost shiner x - - - - - -

Mimicshiner x - - - x - -

Bullheadminnow x - - x - - x Northernhog sucker x x x - - - x Smallmouthbuffalo x x x x x x x Bigmouth buffalo x - - - - - x ~

~

x x x x x x x .(1)

J Spotted sucker Silverredhorse x - - - - - - 0.

)CO River redhorse - x x - - - - >>

Black redhorse - x - x - x x

-t Golden redhorse x - - x - x - ~

>>. Shorthead redhorse x - - - - - - CD en c.>

J:.. Cove Fall 2000 Gill Net and Fall 2001 Gill Net and Fall 2002 Gill Net and I:P Rotenone Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing ~

II) 1995-1997 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 :rRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 "d'

~

Common Name z Black bullhead x - - - - - - c 9-Yellowbullhead x - - - - - -

Brownbullhead x - - - - - - m

"'U Blue catfish x x x x x x x [

Channelcatfish x x x x x x x C Flatheadcatfish x x x x x x x  :.

Blackstripetopminnow x - - - - - - (J)

I\)

S' Blackspotted x - - - - - - ~

0..

e!- topminnow Co) m Westernmosquitofish x - - - - - -

)

< Brooksilverside x x - - - - - ~

a'

) Inlandsilverside x - - x x x x

)

0..

(1) 3 White bass x x x x x x 0..

(1) "tJ

) x Yellowbass x x x x x x o.

2!

>>II) Hybridstripedx white - - x - x x x

=e (1)

II) bass C (1)

II)

II) Striped bass - x - x x x "tJ 3

(1) Redbreastsunfish x - - - - - - a CD

)

- Greensunfish x - - x x x x "tJ Warmouth x - x - x - - a Orangespottedsunfish x - - - - - - I Bluegill x x x x x x x Longearsunfish x x - x x x x Redearsunfish x x x x x x x Hybridsunfish x - - x - - -

Smallmouthbass x x x x x x x Spottedbass x x x x x x x Largemouthbass x x x x x x x Whitecrappie x - - x x x -

Black crappie x - - - x - -

Stricetaildarter x - - - - - -

Cove Fall 2000 GillNet and Fall 2001 GillNet and Fall 2002 GillNet and Rotenone Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing 1995-1997 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 TRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 lRM 292.5 TRM 295.9 Common Name Yellowperch x - x - - - -

Logperch x x x x x - -

Riverdarter x - - - - - -

Sauger x x x x x x x Freshwaterdrum x x x x x x x Mooneye - - - - x - -

-n Bluntnose minnow - - - - x - -

r

!!!. Hybridwalleye x - - - - x - -

m sauger

~

< Black buffalo - - - - - - x a'

~ 57 25 27 31 34 25 30 Number Species 3 Collected (1)

~

[

)-

(/)

(/)

(1)

(/)

(/)

3 (1)

~

~

.i

~

Q.

x'

)-

I

-t

~

)-, m 01

>>, OJ

0) AppendixTable A-2. AverageVital Signs MonitoringRFAI MetricScoresfrom 1993through2002 In the Vicinity of BrownsFerry NuclearPlant,WheelerReservoir ~:J en "11 Year CD

.. ~

Z c

()

Station Reservoir Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 2002 f..,

"1J BFN iii' Upstream 1 Wheeler TRM 295.91 43 1 1 45 1 35 1 42 1 30 k-<:;k1E(1iU 41 I 38 I 45 ;a.

Transition C

J CJ)

I\)

r Wheeler I Wheeler I TRM277 I 52 I 44 I 49 I 44 I 42 43 47

~

Co W

m I Forebay Downstream

J

< ~

(3' :J

J BFN Co CD 3

Co CD Downsram I Wheeler ITRM 292.5 43 42 43 "'D

J TransItion i

CD CJ)

CJ) C CD '0 CJ)

CJ) a 3

CD

J CD "D

.g, CD S!.

Appendix Table A-3. Recent (1994-2002)Benthic Index Scores Collected as Part of the VitalSigns Monitoring Program at Inflow,Transition (Upstream), and Forebay (Downstream)

Sites Year Site Reservoir Location 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Average 31 21 23 25 25 "T1 Upstream Wheeler TRM 347 25 25

i" Good

!!!. 30 m Upstream . Wheeler TRM 295.9 33 25 31 31 29 29

J Excellent

"" 27 o Downstream Wheeler TRM 291.7 31 23

J Good 3

(1)

J (Tributary 15 Embayment) Wheeler ERM6 15 13 15 15 15

~ Poor

(/) 18

(/)

(1) Downstream Wheeler TRM 277 19 15 23 19 17 13

(/) Poor

(/)

3 (1)

J Note: Scores that are considered very poor range from7-12, poor ranges from 13-18, fair ranges from 19-23, good ranges from 23-29, and excellent ranges from 30-35.

"0 "0

~

a.

x' I

-f

>>I ~

-..J ii"

(/)

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 2 and 3 Extended Power Uprate Project

. Appendix Table A-4. Mussel Species Collected by Alabama Game and Fish Division Near Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in 1999 CommonName ScientificName TAM292, October 1~14, 1999 Washboard Mega/onaias nervosa Pink heelsplitter Pot ami/us a/atus Threehom wartyback Ob/iquaria reflexa Mapleleaf Quadru/a quadru/a Threeridge Amb/ema p/icata Pimpleback Quadru/a pustu/osa Elephantear Elliptio crassidens Flat floater Anodonta suborbicu/ata Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena Fragile papershell Leptodea tragi/is Giant floater Pyganondon grandis Pistolari-* Tritogonia verrucosa TAM298, August 17 and October 20, 1999 Washboard Mega/onaias nervosa Pink heelsplitter Potamilus a/atus Pimpleback Quadru/a pustu/osa Threehom wartyback Ob/iquaria reflexa Threeridge . Amb/ema p/icata Elephantear Elliptio crassidens White heelsplitter Lasmigona comp/anata Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa Purple wartyback Cyc/onaias tubercu/ata Mapleleaf Quadru/a quadru/a Butterfly* Ellipsaria lineo/ata Giant floater* Pyganodon grandis Pink papershell* Potamilus ohiensis Flat floater* Anodonta suborbicu/ata

• collectedas deadshells A-8 Final Environmental Assessment

Appendix A Tables Appendix Table A-5. Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species Known to Occurand TheirFederaland State Status From .'

Tennessee River Miles274.9 to 310.7.

CommonName FederalStatus State Status Snails:

.. Anthonv'sriversnail Slender camDeloma E

E

. Armoredsnail E Mussels:

.. SDectaclecase AP,TS

.. Butterflv Pink mucket Rouah Diatoe E

E AS AP, KE,TE AP,TE

. Pink DaDershell Purole IiIliDUt AS AS Cravflsh:

. Troalobiticcravfish AS

. A troalobiticcrayfish AT Fish:

. SDrinaDiamvsunfish AP

. Tuscumbiadarter

.. Paddlefish Southerncavefish AP,TS AS AP,TS Federal Status Codes:

C - Identifiedcandidate E Endangered T Threatened State Status Codes:

First letter State Designation A - Alabama, G - Georgia,K- Kentucky,M ~ Mississippi,N - North Carolina, T - Tennessee, V - Virginia Second letter Status In That State E - Endangered P - Protected (Alabama) levelof endangermentnotspecified S - Various "special concern" categories: In Need of Management, Potential, Rare, etc.

T - Threatened Final EnvironmentalAssessment A-9