ML102870235

Bellefonte Plant Site, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Cover Through Chapter 3

ML102870235
Person / Time
Site:	Bellefonte
Issue date:	05/31/2010
From:	Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML102870235 (290)

Text

Document Type: EIS-Administrative Record Index Field: Final Environmental Document Project Name: Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Project Number: 2009-22 VOLUME 1 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SINGLE NUCLEAR UNIT AT THE BELLEFONTE PLANT SITE Jackson County, Alabama PREPARED BY:

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY MAY 2010

Page intentionally blank Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement May 2010 Proposed project: Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Plant Site Jackson County, Alabama Lead agency: Tennessee Valley Authority For further information Ruth M. Horton on the supplemental Senior NEPA Specialist environmental impact Tennessee Valley Authority statement, contact: 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Phone: 865-632-3719 Fax: 865-632-3451 E-mail: blnp@tva.gov For general information Andrea L. Sterdis on the project, contact: Senior Manager, NGD Project Development & Environmental Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street, LP 5A Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 Phone: 423-751-7119 E-mail: alsterdis@tva.gov Comments Must Be June 21, 2010 Submitted by:

Abstract: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposes to complete or construct and operate a single 1,100 to 1,260 megawatt nuclear generating unit at the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN) site located in Jackson County, Alabama.

TVA may choose to complete and operate one of the partially constructed Babcock and Wilcox pressurized light water reactors (B&W) or construct and operate a new Westinghouse AP1 000 advanced passive pressurized light water reactor (AP1000). Construction activities would incorporate existing facilities and structures and use previously disturbed ground within the 1,600-acre BLN site where possible. TVA has determined that the existing transmission system would.need to be upgraded to prevent overloading while transmitting electricity generated at BLN. TVA would use licensing processes that are already underway for the B&W and AP1000 technologies. TVA has prepared this document to inform decision makers and the public about the potential for environmental impacts that would result from a decision to complete or construct and operate a single nuclear generating unit at the BLN site. This document supplements the original 1974 Final EnvironmentalStatement, Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units I and 2 (TVA 1974a) for the BLN project and updates other related environmental documents, including the TVA 2008 environmental report entitled Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 3&4 COL Application, Part3 (TVA 2008a) for the construction and operation of AP1 000 units at the BLN site. TVA will use this information and input provided by reviewing agencies and the public to make an informed decision about locating a single nuclear generating unit at the BLN site.

Page intentionally blank Summary

SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION Demand for electricity in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power service area has grown at the average rate of 2.3 percent per year from 1990 to 2008. Although the 2008-2009 economic recession has slowed load growth in the short term and adds uncertainty to the forecast of power needs, economic recovery is expected and future power needs are projected to grow at a rate that requires additional generating capacity. TVA's medium-load forecast of future demands for electricity from its power system has identified the need for approximately 7,500 megawatts (MW) of additional capacity in the 2018-2020 time frame.

At the same time, TVA is striving to reduce fossil-fuel emissions and lower its delivered cost of power.

TVA proposes to complete or construct and operate a single 1,100- to 1,260-MW nuclear generating unit at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN) site located in Jackson County, Alabama. As part of its proposal, TVA is seeking to assure future power supplies, maximize the use of existing assets and avoid larger capital outlays by using those assets, and to avoid the environmental impacts of siting and constructing new power generating facilities elsewhere. Completing or constructing a single nuclear unit at the BLN site would meet a substantial portion of TVA's future generating needs and provide a low carbon-emitting power source at a significantly lower cost per installed kilowatt than other generation options.

Currently, there are two partially constructed Babcock and Wilcox pressurized light water reactors (B&W) with an expected rated capacity of 1,260 MW each at the BLN site. TVA may choose to complete and operate either one of these partially constructed units (Alternative B) or construct and operate a new Westinghouse AP1 000 advanced passive pressurized light water reactor (AP1 000) using some of the existing infrastructure (Alternative C). TVA will also consider taking no action at the Bellefonte site (Alternative A).

Under either of the Action Alternatives, TVA would use licensing processes that are already underway. TVA currently holds a construction permit for the two B&W units and has applied for a combined (construction and operating) license for two AP1 000 units. TVA's current proposal is to complete only one of these units. The considerable work that has been accomplished toward licensing the B&W and API 000 technologies would reduce the time and cost of bringing a single nuclear generating unit at BLN on line.

The purpose of this final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) is to inform decision makers, agencies, and the public about the potential for environmental impacts that would result from a decision to complete or construct and operate a single nuclear generating unit at the BLN site. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) was published on November 4, 2009.

This document supplements the original TVA 1974 Final Environmental Statement Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (1974 FES) for the BLN project and updates other related environmental documents including the TVA 2008 environmental report entitled Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 3&4 COL Application, Part3 (TVA 2008a) for the construction and operation of AP1 000 units at the BLN site. It also updates the need for power analysis. -This SEIS tiers from TVA's-Energy Vision 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (TVA 1995), a comprehensive environmental review of alternative means of meeting demand for power on the TVA system. In June 2009, TVA announced the preparation of a new Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to replace Energy Vision 2020. The new IRP is S-1

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site scheduled to be completed in early 2011. Given the long lead time for bringing a nuclear plant on line, completing the SEISfor BLN while simultaneously developing the new IRP will help ensure that a new generating unit could be built in time to meet the projected demand for base load energy.

PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT SEIS The draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) was published on November 4, 2009. Notice of Availability of the DSEIS was posted in the Federal Register November 13, 2009 (74 Federal Register 58626). Public comments were solicited until December 28, 2009. During the 45-day DSEIS public review period, TVA received comments from 39 individuals or entities. A public meeting was held on December 8, 2009.

In addition to responding to these comments in Appendix C, appropriate revisions were made to the FSEIS in support of the responses.

NEED FOR POWER Since the release of the DSEIS, changes in planning assumptions have been made as part of the normal business planning cycle. These changes are reflected in an updated load forecast. Additionally plans now include long-term lay-up of 1,000 to 2,000 MW fossil-fueled plants by 2015. The revised high, medium, and low load forecasts all still show the need for additional capacity by 2018-2020. The completion or construction and operation of a single nuclear unit at the BLN site would provide TVA's customers with reduced risk from volatile fuel prices; a supply of reliable, low-cost power from a proven high-energy producing resource; and afford increased operating flexibility in the face of increasing environmental constraints.

TVA has updated the base case in the need for power analysis in this FSEIS to include an Energy Efficiency and Demand Response (EEDR) program that reduces required energy needs by about 5,200 gigawatt-hours by 2019. An Enhanced EEDR program, which about doubles the reduction in energy use of the base case EEDR program in the 2018-2020 time period, also has been studied. With either set of modified assumptions, TVA must still add new generation in the 2018-2020 time frame to balance resources with the projected load requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TVA considered a number of alternatives to constructing and operating BLN 1&2 in its 1974 FES, including various sources of base load generation and alternative plant locations.

Alternative sites and energy options were also included in the 2008 environmental report (TVA 2008a) as part of the combined license application process for locating API 000 units (BLN 3&4) at the BLN site. In this FSEIS, TVA evaluates three generation alternatives and two transmission alternatives. The generation alternatives are Alternative A - No Action, Alternative B - Completion and Operation of a B&W Pressurized Light Water Reactor, and Alternative C - Construction and Operation of an AP1 000 Advanced Passive Pressurized Light Water Reactor. The transmission alternatives include No Action and an Action Alternative. All of these alternatives are within the bounds of alternatives considered in previous environmental reviews, which are incorporated herein by reference. Previous reviews also considered alternatives to nuclear generation, including energy sources not requiring new generating capacity, alternatives requiring new generating capacity, and combinations of alternatives. Alternative sites for additional nuclear generation were also considered. The FSEIS supplements the discussion of energy alternatives in response to comments received on the DSEIS, including additional discussion of renewable energy sources such as biomass, wind, and solar power.

S-2

Summary TVA conducted a study of the delivery of power produced from a single nuclear unit at the BLN site and determined that transmission network upgrades would be required to prevent overloading while transmitting electricity generated at BLN. These network upgrades represent the Action Alternative for the transmission system and consist of modifications to 222 miles of existing transmission lines and two existing switchyards. No new transmission lines would be needed under any alternative, and therefore no additional right-of-way (ROW) would be required. The decision whether to approve and fund a single nuclear generating unit would be made first. If either Alternative B (B&W) or Alternative C (AP1 000) were selected and implemented, the Action Alternative for the transmission system would be selected. The scope of work for the transmission Action Alternative is the same under Alternatives B and C.

Several evaluations in the form of environmental reviews, studies, and white papers have been prepared for actions related to the construction and operation of a nuclear plant or alternative power generation source at the BLN site. As provided in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1502), this FSEIS updates, tiers from, and incorporates by reference information contained in these documents about the BLN site and about completing or constructing and operating a single nuclear generating unit at the BLN site.

CHANGES IN THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Under the No Action Alternative for nuclear generation, TVA would continue to maintain the construction permits for BLN 1&2 in deferred status. In deferred status, any construction activities would be related to maintaining the existing plant infrastructure, including intake and discharge structures, cooling tower, and wastewater system. Under Alternatives B and C, construction activities would incorporate existing facilities and structures and use previously disturbed ground where possible. Both the B&W and AP1 000 unit would use the existing intake channel and pumping station, cooling towers, blowdown discharge diffuser, switchyard, and transmission system. Under Alternative B, a partially constructed B&W unit would be completed on previously cleared ground, and minimal new site clearing or grading would occur. The majority of the construction activities on plant systems and components would involve replacement or refurbishment of equipment contained within the current structures. Under Alternative C, the AP1 000 unit would be constructed on a new nuclear island located on vacant ground within the BLN project area. Construction of an AP1000 unit and associated structures is expected to require clearing of about 50 acres of forested land, and reclearing and grading of previously disturbed ground.

The FSEIS updates information about theaffected environment of the BLN site and the affected transmission lines. Potential environmental impacts of the no action and two nuclear generation alternatives are described in Chapter 3 and summarized in Table S-1 below. Potential environmental impacts of the two alternatives for transmission system upgrades and line reenergizing that would be needed to support the generation Action Alternatives are described in Chapter 4 and summarized in Table S-2 below. TVA would implement various mitigation measures to reduce or avoid environmental impacts under any of the Action Alternatives.

MITIGATION TVA has identified measures to mitigate the potential environmental impacts associated with completion or construction and operation of a nuclear unit at the BLN site. The following measures supplement those of earlier reviews that either were met during past construction or will be addressed by required permits and authorizations:

S-3

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site

• Avoid disturbance of archaeological site I JA1 11.

• Take appropriate steps to mitigate potential housing, traffic, and school impacts during plant construction in Jackson County as needed.

• In accordancewith the take permit issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April 15 2010, provide $30,000 for research and recovery of pink mucket mussels.

" For Alternative C, purchase wetland mitigation credits at an approved mitigation bank in compliance with a Clean Water Act Section 404/401 permit.

• For Alternative C, mitigate noise impacts through .use of noise dampening measures and limit blasting to daylight hours.

Should TVA select Alternative B or C, the following mitigation measures would be implemented to respond to the potential impacts of the proposed transmission system improvements. Prior to implementing any ground-disturbing work, TVA would:

o Survey areas to be disturbed where listed plant species have been previously reported to verify if the rare species are still present in the ROW. The location of any federally and-state-listed species resources would be identified on construction plans and avoided during construction activities.

• Survey wetlands in the areas that may be disturbed as a result of upgrading/reenergizing activities. Mitigation measures that avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to wetlands would be implemented to ensure no significant impacts or loss of wetland function occurs.

• In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (for which the property is located) and other consulting parties, develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE TVA's integrated assessment of the two alternatives (completing a B&W unit or constructing an AP1 000) has resulted in identifying a preferred project alternative for completing Unit 1 (one of the partially completed B&W units). The assessments conclude that from financial, schedule, and risk-minimization perspectives, this is the preferred generation option. In support of the preferred alternative, TVA also prefers upgrading the transmission systems.

NEXT STEPS TVA will make a decision on the proposed action no sooner than 30 days after the notice of availability of the FSEIS is published in the FederalRegister. This decision will be based on the project purpose and need and anticipated environmental impacts, as documented in the FSEIS, along with cost, schedule, technological, and other considerations. To document the decision, TVA will issue a record of decision.

S-4

Table S-1. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Three Alternatives Under Consideration Resource Attribute/Potential - Alternative Effects A - No Action B - One B&W Unit C - One API 00O Unit Temporary and minor impacts Temporary and minor effects from construction, from construction.

No impacts are anticipated to No impacts are anticipated to Chemical or thermal water supply from plant water water supply from plant water degradation of surface use. use.

Surface Water water quality; changes to No impacts or changes Near-field and far-field effects Insignificant effects on water hydrology and anticipated. (e.g., cumulative) to water quality similar to Alternative B, surface water. quality associated with cooling but slightly less due to smaller water discharge are not amount of water withdrawal expected to be significant. and blowdown discharge.

Minor impacts from chemical Minor impacts from chemical discharges. discharges.

q, No impacts expected to As with Alternative B, no U1 Chemical impacts to groundwater hydrology or impacts expected to Groundwater grudae groundwater quality; ult; No impacts expected. groundwater use on site or groundwater use groundwater on site oror hydrology changes in use of ll locally. Ininfcn impacts Insignificant impactsdtto groundwater use on site or groundwater. groundwater quality. No locally. Insignificant impacts to cumulative effects expected. groundwater quality. No cumulative effects expected.

Minor impacts from construction Mino !mpcts romand dredging.

or No anticipated adverse Minor impacts froman dr gi .

Construction modification to the impacts to the floodplain.- construction and dredging. All safety-related structures are located above the PMF and floodplain. All safety-related All safety-related structures Floodplain and Flooding of the plant site structures are located are and located above the PMP drainage PMFor MP drainagetolevels or are levels flood-proofed the resulting Flood Risk from the river, Town above the Probable theproProbableh levels. The new administrative Maximum Flood (PMF) are flood-proofed to the building would be located above Creek, or Probable and PMP drainage levels resulting levels, the 100-year and Flood Risk Maximum Precipitation or are flood-proofed to the Profile elevations.

(PMP). resulting levels. No cumulative effects to flood Cl risk. No cumulative effects to flood risk. 3 1,2

Cln zC:

" .Attribute/Potential .Alternative 9-CD Resource Effects A - No Action BB-One B&W Unit C - One AP1000 Unit W

Impacts to 12.2 acres of Destruction of wetlands or wetlands with no net loss of wetland function due to in-kind Wetlands degradation functions. of wetland No impacts. No impacts. mitigation within the watershed, iiainwtintewtrhd CD No indirect or cumulative CO CD impacts expected.

Effects similar to Alternative B Minor impacts to benthos from but slightly less dredging.

dredging intake channel, to CD)

Destruction of aquatic aquatic communities from Impacts from thermal discharge Aquatic Ecology organisms; degradation or No impacts. thermal discharge, and impingement and destruction of aquatic impingement, and entrainment minor and less than habitat. entrainment. Alternative B due to smaller intake water volumes.

CI) No cumulative effects

0) No cumulative effects.

Removal or degradation Insignificant impacts from Similar to Alternative B. Minor of terrestrial vegetation, minor vegetation clearing. No direct impacts from removal of Terrestrial Ecology wildlife habitat, and/or No impacts indirect or cumulative effectsand wildlife. haiiected onative grass. No indirect or wildlife. expected. cumulative effects expected.

No impacts from site No impacts from site construction or runoff.

construction or runoff.

Little or no impact to Indiana Adverse direct, indirect, and bats from removal of low-quality cumulative impacts to the pink potential roost habitat with Endangered and harassment of federally mucket mussel from dredging some moderate-quality potential Endangerednadbharassmentoftfederall Threatened listed or state-listed No impacts. and towing barges. roost trees.

Species species including impacts Minor indirect effects from Adversedirect, indirect, and to their critical habitat. stress of potential mussel host cumulative impacts to the pink fish from thermal effluent; mucket from dredging and negligible effect of towing barges. Fewer impingement/entrainment of individuals affected'than under potential host fish. Alternative B.

Attribute/Potential -Alternative Resource Effects A - No Action B - One B&W Unit C - One AP1000 Unit Operational impacts to pink mucket and other aquatic species same as Alternative B.

Degradation of the values No direct or indirect impacts. No direct or indirect impacts.

Natural Areas or qualities of natural No impacts. Minor cumulative effects. Minor cumulative effects.

areas.

Minor impacts from Minor impacts from construction Degradation or elimination construction and operation, and operation, noise, and Recreation of recreation facilities or No impacts. noise, and withdrawal of water. withdrawal of water. No opportunities. No cumulative effects. cumulative effects.

Archaeology and Damage to archaeological No impacts. No impacts. Mark and avoid No impacts. Mark and avoid Historic Structures sites or historic structures. site 1JA1 11. site 1JA1 11.

Construction of new buildings Minor, temporary impacts offset by removal of existing during construction. Minor buildings; construction impacts Effects on scenic quality, impact of vapor plume. minor. Minor impact of vapor cI: Visual Visul dgraatin of visual degradation ofvisal additional impact.

Noo aditinalimpct. Lplume.

Little or no additional impacts resources. to scenic quality. Minor Little or no additional impacts to cumulative impacts to regional scenic quality. Minor visual setting. cumulative impacts to regional visual setting.

Small to moderate impacts Small to moderate impacts from from temporary noise during temporary noise during blasting Generation of noise at hydrodemolition and other and other construction.

Noise levels causing a nuisance No impact. construction.

to the community.

Minor impacts during Minor impacts during operation.

operation.

Changes in population, No impact. No substantial change in No substantial change in employment, income, and population; no significant population; no significant Socioeconomics tax revenues. adverse effects; minor adverse effects; minor and Environmental beneficial impacts. beneficial impacts.

Justice Disproportionate effects No impact. No disproportionate impact. No disproportionate impact. C, on low income and/or 33 I minority populations. I

z

-.- Attribute/Potential - -Alternative - _.. . .. .. .......

0 CD Resource " ... EABO

.EfectsA - No Action B - One B&W Unit:.' C One AP1000;Unit Changes in availability of No impact. Minor to potential significant Minor to potential significant housing. adverse impacts during adverse impacts during construction; minor impacts construction; minor impacts during operation. Potentially during operation. Potentially CD apply measures to mitigate apply measures to mitigate CD demand for housing. demand for housing.

Effects on water supply, No impact. Minor and insignificant with the Minor and insignificant with the wastewater, schools, exception of significant exception of significant increase CD police, fire and medical increase in demand for in demand for schools during services. schools during construction; construction; moderate increase moderate increase in demand in demand for schools during for schools during operation. operation.

Changes in land use, land No impact. No change in designated land No change in designated land C0 acquisition, land use. Minor indirect impact use. Minor indirect impact from conversion or road from increased residential use. increased residential use.

locations.

Elevated levels of traffic No impact. Impacts on transportation Impacts on transportation from construction corridors from construction corridors from construction workforce and deliveries. workforce and deliveries would workforce and deliveries would be minor on all roads except be minor on all roads except for for County Road 33 where County Road 33 where temporary minor to moderate temporary minor to moderate impacts are expected. impacts are expected.

Operational effects expected Operational effects would be to be minor. minor; impacts would be minor.

Cumulative effects No impact. Minor impact, minor Minor impacts, minor cumulative effects. cumulative effects.

Resource Attribute/Potential . Alternative. -

RocEffects A - No Action B - One B&W Unit C - One AP1000 Unit Quantity of construction waste No impact related to No direct or cumulative greater than under Alternative Solid and Generation and disposal construction; Minor impacts; minor indirect impacts B.. No direct or cumulative of solid and hazardous indirect impact of off-site during construction and impacts; minor indirect impacts waste. disposal in permitted operation from off-site disposal during construction and facilities, in permitted facilities, operation from off-site disposal in permitted facilities.

No adverse seismic effects No adverse seismic effects Seismology Seismic adequacy. No change. anticipated. anticipated.

Radiological emissions Small radiological doses to Impacts would be similar to resulting in increases of No impacts expected. workers and members of the Alternative B.

air pollutants. public from routine radioactive emissions during normal plant operation. Releases would be well below the regulatory limits; impacts are expected to (0l Co be insignificant. Calculated Air Quality impacts from design-basis accident releases would be well below the regulatory limit and therefore insignificant.

Gasoline and diesel Minor impacts from vehicular Minor impacts from vehicular emissions from vehicles No impacts expected. and equipment emissions, and equipment emissions, andemuis fmveh s controlled to meet applicable controlled to meet applicable and equipment. regulatory requirements. regulatory requirements.

Annual doses to the public well Annual doses to the public well Effects to humans and within regulatory limits; no within regulatory limits; no nonhuman biota from observable health impacts. observable health impacts.

normal radiological Doses to nonhuman biota well Doses to nonhuman biota well releases. below regulatory limits; no below regulatory limits; no noticeable acute effects. noticeable acute effects.

C, 33

,ý2

Table S-2. Summary of the Environmental Imoacts of the Two Transmission Alternatives TaeSm S. of te Ea fAlternatives CD Resource I AttributelPotential Effects No Action Action a)

Chemical or thermal degradation of Minor, temporary impacts during Surface Water surface water quality; changes to No impacts. upgrade activities. Minor impacts Surfacegysurfaceqges water Wat tduring routine maintenance. No CD hydrology and surface water use. cumulative impacts.

CD Chemical impacts to groundwater Minor impacts to groundwater quality Minor impacts to groundwater 0

Groundwater quality; changes in use of from ROW maintenance, quality from ROW maintenance.

groundwater. CD)

Minor direct and indirect impacts from No impacts from ROW clearing; no Aquatic Ecology Degradation of water quality; ROW maintenance. No cumulative destruction of aquatic organisins. maintenance as compared to No impacts. Action.

Removal or degradation of terrestrial Impacts to plants and wildlife on the Terrestrial Ecology vegetation, associated wildlife No local or regional impacts. affected ROWs would be temporary, habitat, and wildlife. minor and insignificant.

1P Mortality, harm, or harassment of Not likely to adversely affect any 0 Endangered and federally listed or state-listed No impacts. federally listed species or adversely Threatened species. modify critical habitat.

With avoidance, minimization, and Wetlands degradation of wetland functions. No impacts. mitigation, no significant impacts are expected.

Construction or modification to a With adherence to Executive Order Floodplains floodplain. No floodplains affected. (EO) 11988, no impacts.

Minor direct impact to natural areas Degradation of the values or. No impacts. on ROWs, no impact to natural Natural Areas qualities of natural areas. areas nearby.

Degradation or elimination of No impacts. Minor impact from refurbishing lines Recreation recreation facilities or opportunities. and routine maintenance.

Land Use Changes in land use and effects to No changes to current land use. Minor disruption during upgrade uses of adjacent land. activities.

Minor short-term impacts, during Visual Effects on scenic quality, No impacts. construction and minor long-term degradation of visual resources. impacts from taller structures.

Resource Attribute/Potential Alternative Effects No Action Action Potential for adverse impact to archaeological sites and/or historic structures. Effects would be avoided or mitigated in accordance Archaeology and Damage to archaeological sites or No impacts. with the memorandums of Historic Structures historic structures. agreement (MOAs) developed in consultation with Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer(s).

Changes, at local and regional scales, in the human population; Socioeconomics employment, income, and tax No impacts. Minor impacts during construction.

revenues; and demand for public services and housing.

Environmental Disproportionate effects on low Justicoenincomesand/orminoritypopulations.l Justice income and/or minority populations. No disproportionate effects. No disproportionate effects.

CIn Potential effects of electromagnetic No significant impacts from EMF; no Operational Impacts fields (EMF), lightning strike hazard, No impacts. alteration of line grounding, minor electric shock hazard, and generation of noises and odors. noise, no odors.

Cl 3

3

,2

Page intentionally blank Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS - VOLUME 1 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION...........................................................I 1.1 Decision to be Made ..................... I............................................................ 2 1.2 Background .......................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 The Bellefonte-Site .......................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Historical Qverview of Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2........................... 2 1.2.3 Combined License Application for Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4..........................................................................................S 1.3 TVA Power System.................................................................................. 6 1.4 Need for Power...................................................................................... 6 1.4.1 Power Demand............................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Power Supply................................................................................ 9 1.4.3 Resource Plan ............................................................................. 11 1.4.4 Effect of Alternatives on Long-Term Resource Plan .................................... 15

.1.4.5 Average Cost of Power.................................................................... 17 1.4.6 Summary.................................................................................... 18 1.5 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process ............................................ 18 1.6 Public Review Process............................................................................. 19 1.6.1 Scoping ........... ......................... .......... .......... .... 19 1.6.2 Draft Review and Preparation of FSEIS ................................................. 20 1.7 Other Pertinent Environmental Reviews and Documentation .................................. 20 1.8 Permits, Licenses, and Consultation Requirements ............................................ 24 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION..................................... 27 2.1 Alternative A - No Action.......................................................................... 27 2.2 Alternative B- Completion and Operation of a Single B&W Pressurized Light Water Reactor ............................................................................... 28 2.2.1 Facility Description for Single Unit Operation............................................ 28 2.2.2 Use of Other Existing Structures and Systems.......................................... 33 2.2.3 Current Status of Partially Constructed Facility .................... 35 2.2.4 Proposed Plant Construction Activities................................................... 44 2.3 Alternative C - Construction and Operation of a Westinghouse AP1000 Advanced Passive Pressurized Light Water Reactor ........................................... 46 2.3.1 Facility Description for Single Unit Operation ............................................ 47 2.3.2 Use of Partially Constructed Facility ...................................................... 53 2.4 Other Energy Alternatives Considered ........................................................... 55 2.4.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity .................................. 55 2.4.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity....................................... 58 2.4.3 Consideration of Other Alternatives and Combination of Alternatives................. 62 2.4.4 Summary ...... *** * .. ..... *..**..... .................................................. 63 2.5 Alternative Sites Considered ...................................................................... 64 2.5.1 Identification and Screening of Potential Sites .......................................... 64 2.5.2 Review of Alternative Sites................................................................ 67 2.6 Transmission and Construction Power Supply .................................................. 68 2.6.1 Description of Current System and Needs............................................... 68 2.6.2 Construction Power Supply ............................................................... 69 2.6.3 Alternatives Considered ................................................................... 69 2.6.4 Proposed Refurbishments and Upgrades Under the Action Alternative .................................................................................. 71 2.7 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................ 75 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 2.7.1 Nuclear Plant Licensing and Construction ............................................................. 76 2.7.2 Nuclear Plant O peration ....................................................................................... 86 2.7.3 Transm ission System ............................................................................................. 89 2.8 Identification of Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 89 2.9 Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................................... 91 3.0 NUCLEAR GENERATION ALTERNATIVES ON THE BELLEFONTE SITE -

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................. 93 3.1 Surface W ater Resources ............................................................................................... 93 3.1.1 Surface W ater Hydrology and W ater Q uality ................................ ............................. 93 3.1.1.1 Affected Environm ent ..................................................................................... 93 3.1.1.2 Environm ental Consequences ........................................................................... 96 3.1.2 Surface W ater Use and Trends ............................................................................. 99 3.1.2.1 Affected Environm ent ...................................................................................... 99 3.1.2.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 100 3.1.3 Hydrotherm al Effects of Plant O peration .................................................................. 104 3.1.3.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 104 3.1.3.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 112 3.1.4 Chem ical Additives for Plant O peration .................................................................... 113 3.1.4.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 113 3.1.4.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 119 3.2 G roundwater Resources ...................................................................................................... 120 3.2.1 Affected Environm ent ............................................................................................... 120 3.2.2 Environm ental Consequences ................................................................................. 126 3.3 Floodplain and Flood Risk .................................................................................................. 127 3.3.1 Affected Environm ent .............. ......................... .......... ...... 127 3.3.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 129 3.4 W etlands .............................................................................................................................. 130 3.4.1 Affected Environm ent ............................................................................................... 130 3.4.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 131 3.5 Aquatic Ecology ................................................................................................................... 135 3.5.1 Affected Environm ent .............................................................................................. 135 3.5.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 139 3.6 Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................................................... 141 3 .6 .1 P la n ts ..................................................................................................................... . .14 1 3.6.1.1 Affected Environm ent ......................................................................................... 141 3.6.1.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................... 144 3 .6 .2 W ild life ...................................................................................................................... 14 5 3.6.2.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 145 3.6.2.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 145 3.7 Endangered and Threatened Species ................................................................................. 146 3.7.1 Aquatic Anim als ........................................................................................................ 147 3.7.1.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 147 3.7.1.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 149 3.7.2 Plants ....................................................................................................................... 151 3.7.2.1 Affected Environm ent ........................................................................................ 151 3.7.2.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 151 3.7.3 W ildlife ................................................................................ .............. 152 3.7.3.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 152 3.7.3.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 153 3.8 Natural Areas ....................................................................................................... 154 3.8.1.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 154 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Contents 3.8.1.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 155 3.9 Recreation......................................................................................... 156 3.9.1.1 Affected Environment ...................................................... .......... 156 3.9.1.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 156 3.10 Archaeological Resources and Historic Structures ............................................ 158 3.10.1 Affected Environment..................................................................... 158 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................... 159 3.11 Visual Resources................................................................................. 159 3.11.1 Affected Environment..................................................................... 159 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................... 162 3.12 Noise .............................................................................................. 163 3.12.1 Affected Environment..................................................................... 163 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................... 163 3.13 Socioeconomics ............................................................. ...................... 165 3.13.1 Population................................................................................. 165 3.13.1.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 165 3.13.1.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 166 3.13.2 Employment and Income ................................................................ 166 3.13.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 166 3.13.2.2 Environmental Consequences ..... ................................................. 167 3.13.3 Low-Income and Minority Populations................................................... 168 3.13.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 168 3.13.3.2 Environmental Consequences ............. !*--*............................ *.....

-170 3.13.4 Housing.................................................................................... 171 3.13.4.1 Affected Environment.................................................................. 171 3.13.4.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 172 3.13.5 Water Supply and Wastewater........................................................... 173 3.13.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 173 3.13.5.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 174 3.13.6 Police, Fire, and Medical Services ...................................................... 174 3.13.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 174 3.13.6.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 175 3.13.7 Schools.................................................................................... 176 3.13.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 176 3.13.7.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 176 3.13.8 Land Use .................................................................................. 177 3.13.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 177 3.13.8.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................ 178 3.13.9 Local Government Revenues ........................................................... 178 3.13.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 178 3.13.9.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 179 3.13.10 Transportation............................................................................. 179 3.13.10.1 Affected Environment ................................................................. 179 3.13.10.2 Environmental Consequences ....................................................... 180 3.13.11 Cumulative Effects........................................................................ 183 3.14 Solid and Hazardous Waste ..................................................................... 184 3.14.1 Affected Environment..................................................................... 184 3.14.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................... 187 3.15 Seismology........................................................................................ 190 3.15.1 Affected Environment..................................................................... 190 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................... 192 Final Supplemental Environmental Impa'ct Statement iii

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 3.16 Climatology and Meteorology, Air Quality, and Global Climate Change ............................. 192 3.16.1 Clim atology and Meteorology ................................................................................... 192 3.16.1.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 192 3.16.1.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................ 195 3.16.2 Air Q uality ................................................................................................................. 204 3.16.2.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 204 3.16.2.2 Environmental Consequences ................................. 206 3.16.3 G lobal Clim ate Change ............................................................................................. 207 3.16.3.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 207 3.16.3.2 Environm ental Consequences ....................... :.................................................... 210 3.17 Radiological Effects of Norm al O perations .......................................................................... 214 3.17.1 Affected Environment ......................................... 214 3.17.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 216 3.17.3 Radiological Monitoring ........................................................................................... 225 3.18 Uranium Fuel Use Effects ................................................................................................... 227 3.18.1 Radioactive W aste ................................................................................................... 227 3.18.1.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 227 3.18.1.2 Environm ental Consequences .......................................................... :.................. 228 3.18.2 Spent Fuel Storage ................................................................................................... 236 3.18.2.1 Affected Environm ent ......................................................................................... 236 3.18.2.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 238 3.18.3 Transportation of Radioactive Materials ................................................................... 241 3.18.3.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 241 3.18.3.2 Environm ental Consequences .......................................... I................................... 242 3.19 Nuclear Plant Safety and Security ...................................................................................... 244 3.19.1 Design-Basis Accidents ............................................................................................ 244 3.19.1.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 244 3.19.1.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 247 3.19.2 Severe Accidents ...................................................................................................... 249 3.19.2.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 249 3.19.2.2 Environm ental Consequences ............................................................................. 250 3.19.3 Plant Security ............................................................................................................ 251 3.19.3.1 Affected Environm ent .......................................................................................... 251 3.19.3.2 Environm ental Consequences ........................................................................... 253 3.20 Decom m issioning ................................................................................................................. 253 3.20.1 Affected Environm ent ............................................................................................... 253 3.20.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 255 4.0 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A ND ENVIRO NM ENTA L CO NSEQ UENCES ..................................................................... 257 4.1 Surface W ater .................................................................................................... .... 257 4.1.1 Affected Environm ent ............................................................................................... 257 4.1.2 Environm ental Consequences .......................................................................  !.......... 260 4.2 G roundwater ....................................................................................................................... 261 4.2.1 Affected Environm ent ............................................................................................... 261 4.2.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 263 4.3 Aquatic Ecology .................................................................................................................. 264 4.3.1 Affected Environm ent ............................................................................................... 264 4.3.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 264 4.4 Vegetation ...... ............................................... 265 4.4.1 Affected Environm ent .............................................................................................. 265 4.4.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 267 iv Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Contents 4 .5 W ild life ................................................ .................................................................................. 2 67 4.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 267 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 268 4.6 Endangered and Threatened Species ................................................................. ................ 269 4.6.1 Aquatic Animals ........................................................................................................ 269 4.6.1.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 269 4.6.1.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 271 4 .6 .2 P la nts ........................................................................................................................ 27 2 4.6.2.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 272 4.6.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 273 4 .6 .3 W ild life ...................................................................................................................... 274 4.6.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 274 4.6.3.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 277 4 .7 W e tla nds .............................................................................................................................. 2 78 4.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................... ........................... a.............. 278 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences .......................... ....................................................... 279 4.8 Floodplains .......................................................................................................................... 279 4.8.1 Affected Environment .......................... .................................................................... 279 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences ................................... 280 4.9 Natural Areas ................................................... 280 4.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 280 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................. 284 4.10 Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 285 4.10.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 285 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................... 285 4 .1 1 La nd Use .......................................... I................................................................................... 2 85 4.11.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 285 4.11.2 Environm ental Consequences ................................................................................ 286 4.12 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................ 286 4.12.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 286 4.12.2 Environm ental Consequences................................................................................. 286 4.13 Archaeological Resources and Historic Structures .............................................................. 287 4.13.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 287 4.13.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 288 4.14 Socioeconom ics .................................................................................................................. 288 4.14.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................ 288 4.14.2 Environm ental Consequences .................................................................................. 289 4.15 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................... 289 4.15.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................... 289 4.15.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................. 289 4.16 Operational Impacts ............................................................................................................. 290 4.16.1 Electric and Magnetic Fields ..................................................................................... 290 4.16.1.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 290 4.16.1.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 292 4.16.2 Lightning Strike Hazard ............................................................................................ 292 4.16.2.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 292 4.16.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 292 4.16.3 Noise and Odor ......................................................................................................... 293

• 4.16.3.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 293 4.16.3.2 Environmental Consequences ..................................... ........................................ 293 5.0 OTHER EFFECTS .................................................... 295 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement v

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 5.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 295 5.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the Hu ma n E nv iro n m e nt ............................................................................................................ 2 97 5.2.1 Short-Term Uses and Benefits ................................................................................. 298 5.2.2 Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Environmental P ro d u c tiv ity ............................................................................................................... 30 1 5.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................... 302 5.3.1 Irreversible Environmental Commitments ................................................................. 304 5.3.2 Irretrievable Environmental Commitments ............................................................... 305 5.4 Energy Resources and Conservation Potential ....:.............................................................. 307 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................ 309 6.1 NE PA P roject Managem ent ................................................................................................ 309 6 .2 O the r C o ntrib uto rs ................................................................................................................ 3 10 7.0 DISTRIBUTION OF FSEIS .................................................. 321 7.1 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the FSEIS Were Sent and to Whom an E-Link was Provided ................................ 321 7 .2 DS E IS P ress R e lease .......................................................................................................... 32 5 7.3 Information Open House Paid Advertisement ..................................................................... 326 7 .4 O pe n Ho use Ha nd o ut .......................................................................................................... 328 8.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................... 333 G LO S S A RY ...................................................................................................................................... 349 INDE X ............................................................................................................................................ 3 63 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Changes in TVA Emissions From 2010 to 2019 by Pollutant Type ......................... 14 Table 1-2. Effect of One BLN Nuclear Unit on TVA's Annual Cost of Power ............................ 17 Table 1-3. Environmental Reviews and Documents Pertinent to the Bellefonte Nuclear P la n t S ite ..................................................................................... .... ...... ....... . . 2 3 Table 1-4. Permits Held or Canceled Since Year 2006 ............................................................ 24 Table 1-5. Federal, State, and Local Environmental Authorizations ....................................... 24 Table 2-1. Transmission Lines Affected by Proposed Operation of a Single Nuclear Unit at th e BLN S ite ..................................................................................................... . . 75 Table 2-2. Summary of Generation Alternative Characteristics ............................................... 77 Table 2-3. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Three Alternatives Under Consideration ........................................................ 79 Table 2-4. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Two Transmission Upgrade A lte rn a tiv e s ....................................................................................................... ............. 8 4 Table 2-5. B&W and AP1 000 Water Use ................................................................................. 87 Table 2-6. Spent Fuel Quantity Determination for BLN Single Unit Operation ......................... 88 Table 3-1. Ecological Health Indicators for Guntersville Reservoir, 2008 ..................... 95 Table 3-2. Surface Water Withdrawals in Guntersville Watershed ................... ;..................... 99 Table 3-3. B&W and AP1000 Water Use .................................................................................... 104 Table 3-4. NPDES Discharge Limits for BLN Outfall DSNO03 to the Tennessee River ............. 108 vi Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Contents Table 3-5. Inventory of Private Wells and Springs Located Within 2-Mile Radius of BLN, 19 6 1 Da ta ................................................................................................................... 12 3 Table 3-6. RFAI Scores Upstream and Downstream of BLN During 20091 ................................ 135 Table 3-7. Percent Cover of Major Habitat Types on the BLN Site ............................................. 142 Table 3-8. Federally Listed and State-Listed Aquatic Species Present in Jackson County, A la b a ma ..................................................................................................................... 14 8 Table 3-9. State-Listed Plants Found Within 5 Miles of the BLN Site and Federally Listed Species Documented in Jackson County, Alabama ......................... I........................ 152 Table 3-10. Em ploym ent and Incom e in 2008 ............................................................................... 167 Table 3-11. Hazardous Waste Storage/Disposal Capacity Available to BLN ............................... 187 Table 3-12. Earthquakes Within 200 Miles of BLN (February 2005-December 2008)1 ................ 190 Table 3-13. Comparison of Atmospheric Stability Data Collected at BLN (Percent O c c u rre n ce ) ................................................................................................................ 193 Table 3-14 B&W Unit Station Vent X/Q Values Used for Calculating MEI Doses at BLN ............ 202 Table 3-15. BLN B&W Unit Turbine Building Vent X/Q Values Used for Calculating MEI Do s e s ......................................................................................................................... 202 Table 3-16. BLN AP1000 Unit X/Q Values Used for Calculating MEI Doses ................................ 202 Table 3-17. BLN B&W Unit 50 Percent Probability-Level Accident X/Q Values (sec/m3) ............. 203 Table 3-18. BLN AP1000 Unit 50 Percent Probability-Level Accident X/Q Values (sec/m3) ........ 203 Table 3-19. Current Ozone Nonattainment State Recommendations Near BLN .......................... 206 Table 3-20. Current PM2.5 Nonattainment Designations Near BLN ............................................. 206 Table 3-21. Public Water Supplies Within a 50-Mile Radius Downstream of BLN ........................ 217 Table 3-22. Recreational Use of Tennessee River Within 50-Mile Radius Downstream of B LN............................................................................................................................. 2 17 Table 3-23. BLN Annual Discharge for a Single B&W Unit via Liquid Pathway ............................ 217 Table 3-24. BLN Annual Discharge for a Single AP1000 Unit via Liquid Pathway ....................... 218 Table 3-25. BLN Doses From Liquid Effluents for B&W Unit per Year ......................................... 219 Table 3-26. BLN Doses From Liquid Effluents for AP1 000 Unit per Year ..................................... 220 Table 3-27. BLN Maximum Individual Doses From Gaseous Effluent for the B&W Unit Compared to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Limits ................................................. 222 Table 3-28. BLN Maximum Individual Doses From Gaseous Effluent for the AP1000 Unit Compared to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Limits ................................................. 222 Table 3-29. Collective Gaseous Doses for the BLN B&W Unit Compared to 40 CFR Part 19 0 Lim its ................................................................................................................... 223 Table 3-30. Collective Gaseous Doses for the AP1000 Unit Compared to 40 CFR Part 190 Lim its ............................... ........................................................................................... 223 Table 3-31. Population Dose Summary for the BLN B&W and AP1000 Units .............................. 224 Table 3-32. Total Doses (Liquid and Gaseous) to Biota for Single Nuclear Unit as C om pared to the Regulatory Lim it ............. ............................................................... 225 Table 3-33. Estimated Volumes of Solid Radwaste for a Single BLN B&W Unit .......................... 234 Table 3-34. Expected Volumes of Solid Radwaste for a Single AP1000 Unit ............................... 234 Table 3-35. Spent Fuel Quantity Determination for BLN Single Unit Operation .......................... 236 Table 3-36. ISFSI Construction for a Single BLN Unit .................................................................. 238 Table 3-37. Environmental Impact of ISFSI Operation for a Single BLN Unit ............................... 240 Table 3-38. B&W Unit 50 Percent Probability-Level X/Q Values (sec/m3) .................................... 246 Table 3-39. AP1000 Unit 50 Percent Probability-Level X/Q Values (sec/m3) ................................ 247 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement vii

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Table 3-40. Summary of Design-Basis Accident Atmospheric Doses for a B&W Unit ............ 247 Table 3-41. Summary of Design-Basis Accident Doses for an AP1 000 Unit ....................... 248 Table 3-42. Severe Accident Analysis Results, Total Risks.......................................... 250 Table 3-43. Severe Accident Indi vidual Annual Risks, B&W Unit ................................... 251 Table 3-44. Severe Accident Individual Annual Risks, AP1000 Unit................................ 251 Table 4-1. State Classification and 303(d) Listing of Major Streams Crossed ................... 258 Table 4-2. Federally Listed Aquatic Animal Species Present in Counties Affected by Proposed Transmission Line Upgrades ................................................. 270 Table 4-3. Federally Listed Terrestrial Plant Species Known Within and Near (Within 5 Miles) the ROWs Subject to Upgrades/Actions and From the Counties Where Work Would Occur....f.............................................................. ...... 272 Table 4-4. Federally Listed Terrestrial Animals Reported From Jackson, Limestone, and Morgan Counties, Alabama; Dade, Catoosa, and Walker Counties, Georgia; and Bedford, Coffee, Hamilton, Marion, and Sequatchie Counties, Tennessee.....274 Table 4-5. Number of Federally Listed or State-Listed Species of Terrestrial Animals, Caves, and Migratory Bird Aggregations Within 3 Miles of Each Transmission Line Associated With the Action Alternative............................................. 275 Table 4-6. Natural Areas Within 3.0 Miles of the Transmission Lines Proposed for Reenergizing or Upgrade.................................................................. 281 Table 5-1. Construction- and Operation-Related Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts...................................................................................... 295 Table 5-2. Summary of the Proposed Action's Principal Short-Term Benefits Versus the Long-Term Impacts on Productivity...................................................... 299 Table 5-3. Summary of Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Environmental R esources ..........................................................303 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Bellefonte Locator Map.................................. .................................... 3 Figure 1-2. Actual and Forecast Net System Requirements by Fiscal Year.......................... 8 Figure 1-3. 2010 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Type, Based on 35,900 MW......................... 12 Figure 1-4. 2019 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Type Based on 43,100 MW ......................... 12 Figure 1-5. 2010 Base Case - Generation (GWh) .....................................14 Figure 1-6. Alternative A - No Action With No Nuclear Expansion................................... 15 Figure 1-7. Alternative B - Bellefonte B&W ............................................................ 16 Figure 1-8. Estimated Generation by Fuel Type With Modified Assumptions ....................... 17 Figure 2-1. B&W Site Plan............................................................................... 29 Figure 2-2. B&W Reactor Coolant System............................................................. 31 Figure 2-3. Exclusion Area Boundary for Alternatives B and C....................................... 36 Figure 2-4. Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Entrance......................................................... 39 Figure 2-5. B&W Containment Buildings............................................................... 40 Figure 2-6. View From BLN Parking Lot - Administration Building, Turbine Building, Containment Buildings, Cooling Towers, and Switchyard ............................... 40 Figure 2-7. Unit 1 Turbine Generator ................................................................... 41 Figure 2-8. Unit 1 Main Control Room .................................................................. 42 Figure 2-9. Cable Spreading Room..................................................................... 42 viii viii Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Contents Figure 2-10. Unit 1 Makeup High-Pressure Injection Pump ....................................................... 43 Figure 2-11. Unit 1 Large Bore Valve, Small Bore Valves, Piping ................................................... 43 Figure 2-12. A P 1000 S ite P la n ................................................................................................. . . 49 Figure 2-13. AP1 000 Reactor Coolant System .......................................................................... 51 Figure 2-14. Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Scenarios ..................... 58 Figure 2-15. Transmission Line Rights-of-Way Affected by the Action Alternatives ................... 73 Figure 2-16. Typical Pressurized Light Water Reactor - Reactor Power Conversion System and Reactor Coolant System ................................................................................. 87 Figure 2-17. AP1000 Simplified Design - Fewer Components ................................................... 89 Figure 3-1. Guntersville Reservoir Ecological Health Ratings, 1994-2008 ................................ 95 Figure 3-2. Areas to be Dredged Under Alternative B (B&W) or Alternative C (AP1000) ...... 98 Figure 3-3. B&W Unit 1 Water Intake and Discharge Facilities ................................................... 101 Figure 3-4: B&W Unit 2 Water Intake and Discharge Facilities ................................................... 102 Figure 3-5. AP1000 Unit 3 Water Intake and Discharge Facilities ............................................... 103 Figure 3-6. Outfalls for NPDES Permit AL0024635 of November 2009 ....................................... 106 Figure 3-7. Diffuser for Blowdown Discharge, Outfall DSNO03 .................................................... 107 Figure 3-8. Water Wells and Springs Within 2-Mile Radius of BLN ............................................. 122 Figure 3-9. Groundwater Wells Within 1-Mile Radius of the BLN Site - 1990 ............................. 124 Figure 3-10. BLN B&W G roundw ater W ells .................................................................................... 125 Figure 3-11. Wetlands Shown in Relation to the B&W Site Plan (Alternative B)............................ 132 Figure 3-12. Wetlands Shown in Relation to the AP1000 Site Plan (Alternative C) ....................... 134 Figure 3-13. Vegetation Cover Types on the Bellefonte TVA Property .......................................... 143 Figure 3-14. BLN Recreation Instream Use .................................................................................... 157 Figure 3-15. Creeks Edge Development Near BLN ....................................................................... 161 Figure 3-16. Road and Highway System in Jackson County Providing Access to the BLN S ite ............................................................................................................................. 18 1 Figure 3-17. EAB Distance for B&W Reactor Unit Layout .............................................................. 196 Figure 3-18. EAB Distance for AP1 000 Reactor Units ................................................................... 197 Figure 3-19. B&W Reactor Plant Vents and Building Heights ....................................................... 198 Figure 3-20. AP1 000 Reactor Plant Vents and Building Heights ........... ........................................ 199 Figure 3-21. Maximum Atmospheric Dispersion (X/Q) Value Receptor Locations .......... .............. 200 Figure 3-22. BLN 100 Kilometer Wilderness Area .......................................................................... 205 Figure 3-23. Man-Made Carbon Dioxide Emission Percentages in 2004 ................ 209 Figure 3-24. Tons of C02 Equivalent Emitted per Gigawatt Hour .................................................. 212 Figure 3-25. Possible Pathways to Man Due to Releases of Radioactive Material ....................... 215 Figure 3-26. B&W Tritiated Liquid Waste Treatment System ......................................................... 229 Figure 3-27. B&W Nontritiated Liquid Waste Disposal System ...................................................... 230 Figure 3-28. AP1000 Liquid Radwaste System .............................................. 231 Figure 4-1. Level IV Ecoregions Crossed by Transmission Lines Requiring Upgrades or Actions to Support Operation of a Single Nuclear Unit at the BLN Site ..................... 266 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ix

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site LIST OF APPENDICES - VOLUME 2 Appendix A - TVA August 2009 Letter Requesting Deferred Status and NRC January 2010 Letter Authorizing BLN Units 1 and 2 Deferred Status Appendix B - NRC Reports on 2009 BLN Inspection for Transition to Deferred Status Appendix C - Responses to Agency and Public Comments Appendix D - Sensitive Area Review Process Appendix E - CORMIX Modeling Results Appendix F - Wetlands Field Delineation and Habitat Assessment Forms Appendix G - Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI), Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI)

Scores, and Historical Fish Species Occurrences Appendix H - Agency Consultation Appendix I - BLN Meteorological Tower Data, April 1, 2006, to September 24, 2008 Appendix J - BLN Meteorological Tower Data, Comparison of Data From Different Periods Appendix K - Tornadoes in Jackson County, Alabama, 1980 to 2008 Appendix L - Power System Operations Environmental Protection Procedures Right-of-Way Vegetation Management Guidelines Appendix M - Tennessee Valley Authority Environmental Quality Protection Specifications for Transmission Line Construction Appendix N - Tennessee Valley Authority Transmission Construction Guidelines Near Streams Appendix 0 - State-Listed Animal and Plant Species Present in Areas Affected by Transmission Line Work X Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS 1974 FES Final Environmental Statement Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 7Q1 0 Lowest flow over 7 consecutive days that occurs once every 10 years At Symbol, Abbreviation for the Word At OC Degree Celsius OF Degree Fahrenheit Plus or Minus

§ Section 3

pg/m Micrograms per Cubic Meter AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic AC Alternating Current ACSS Aluminum Conductor, Steel Supported ADCNR Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management AEA Atomic Energy Act AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission AIA Authorized Inspection Agency Ala. Alabama ALARA As Low as Reasonably Achievable ALDOT Alabama Department of Transportation AMA American Medical Association ANSS Advanced National Seismic System ANO Arkansas Nuclear One ANSI American National Standards Institute AP1000 Units Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 or BLN 3&4 (Westinghouse Advanced Passive Pressurized Light Water Reactors)

APE Area of Potential Effects APHIS Animal and Plant Health Information Service AREOR Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report AREVA AREVA NP Inc.

ARPA Archaeological Resources ProtectionAct ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers B&W Babcock and Wilcox B&W Units Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 or BLN 1&2 (Babcock and Wilcox Pressurized Light Water Reactors)

BA Biological Assessment BEA U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis BFN Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant BLN Bellefonte Nuclear Plant BO Biological Opinion BMPs Best Management Practices BP Containment Bypass Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Xl

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site BREDL Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League BTU British Thermal Units CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage CCP Coal Combustion Products CEQ Council on Environmental Quality A two-dimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water quality model CE-QUAL-W2 for reservoirs CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator CFE Early Containment Rupture Before Core Relocation CFEL Early Containment Failure by Leakage CFER Early Containment Failure by Rupture CFI Early Containment Rupture After Core Relocation CFL Late Containment Failure CFR Code of Federal Regulation cfs Cubic Feet per Second CI Containment Isolation Systems Failure CLWR Commercial Light Water Reactor FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement for the Productionof Tritium in a CLWR FEIS CommercialLight Water Reactor CO 2 Carbon Dioxide COGEMA Compagnie G6n6rale des Matibres Nucl~aires COL Combined License COLA Combined License Application COLA ER Combined License Application Environmental Report COLA FSAR Combined License Application FinalSafety Analysis Report CORMIX Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System CRP Conservation Reserve Program CSP Concentrating Solar Power CTBD Cooling Tower Blowdown CWA Clean Water Act DAW Dry Active Waste dB Decibel dBA A-weighted Decibel DBA(s) Design-Basis Accident(s)

DCD Design Control Document DCOP Delivered Cost of Power DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DO Dissolved Oxygen DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOI U.S. Department of Interior DOT Department of Transportation DR Demand Response DRPDSM Demand Response/Demand Side Management xii Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols DSEIS Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement DSEP Detailed Scoping, Estimating, and Planning DSM Demand-Side Management DSN Discharge Serial Number EAB Exclusion Area Boundary ECM&D Engineering, Construction, Monitoring, and Documentation EE Energy Efficiency EEDR Energy Efficiency/Demand Response EF Enhanced Fujita Scale (used to estimate tornado wind speeds) e.g. Latin term, exempli gratia, meaning "for example" EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMF Electromagnetic Field Energy Vision Energy Vision 2020 - Integrated Resource Management Plan and Final 2020 FEIS ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement (TVA 1995)

EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPRI Electric Power Research Institute Index for measuring health of benthic macroinvertebrate community (measures EPT Ephemoptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera taxa families)

ER Environmental Report ERCW Essential Raw Cooling Water ESA Endangered Species Act ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan ESS Ecologically Significant Sites Latin term, et alfi (masculine), et aliae (feminine), or et alia (neutral), meaning et al. "and others" etc. Latin term et cetera, meaning "and other things" "and so forth" et seq. Latin term et sequential,meaning "and the following one" FAA Federal Aviation Administration FES Final Environmental Statement FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement or Final EIS FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FRP Flood Risk Profile FSA Farm Service Agency FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ft 2 Square Feet Ga. Georgia gal Gallon(s)

GCC Global Climate Change GHG Greenhouse Gases GIS Geographic Information System gm/sec Grams per Second gpm Gallons per Minute Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement xiii

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site GWh Gigawatt-Hours HIC(s) High Integrity Container(s)

HPA Habitat Protection Area HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning HVN Hartsville Nuclear Plant HWSF Hazardous Waste Storage Facility IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IC Intact Containment ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection i.e. Latin term, id est, meaning "that is" IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPEEE Individual Plant Examination for External Events IRP Integrated Resource Plan ISFSI Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation kg Kilogram km Kilometer km 2 Square Kilometer kV Kilovolt kW Kilowatt kWe Kilowatt Electric kWh Kilowatt-Hour Ib Pound(s) lb/hr Pounds per Hour Ldn Day-Night Noise Level LLRW Low-Level Radioactive Waste LLRWPAA Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident LPZ Low Population Zone m2 Square Meter M Magnitude MA Managed Area MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System Man-rem Unit of Radiation Dose to an Individual Max Maximum mbLg Lg Wave Magnitude MEI Maximally Exposed Individual mG Milligauss MGD Millions of Gallons per Day MH Murphy Hill Min Minimum xiv Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MOA(s) Memorandum(s) of Agreement MPC Multipurpose Canister mph Miles per Hour mrad Millirad mrem Millirem msl Mean Sea Level MTU Metric Ton Uranium MVA Megavolts-Ampere MW Megawatt MWa Megawatt Annual Generation/Annual Hours MWD Megawatt-Days MWe Megawatt Electric MWt Megawatt Thermal MWh/year Megawatt Hours per Year N/A Not Applicable NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCDC National Climatic Data Center NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NH 4 CI Ammonium Chloride NHPA National HistoricPreservationAct NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences No(s). Number(s)

NOA Notice of Availability NOI Notice of Intent NO) Nitrogen Oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service NQAP Nuclear Quality Assurance Plan NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory NSRC Norfolk Southern Railway Company NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guidance Document NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pa Annual Average Power (MW)

PBN Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCP Process Control Program Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement XV

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Person-rem Unit of Collective Radiation Dose to a Given Population PM Particulate Matter PM 2.5 Particulate matter having a diameter of less than 2.5 microns PMF Probable Maximum Flood PMP Probable Maximum Precipitation PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ppm Parts per Million PPA Power Purchase Agreement PPS Protection Planning Site PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment PSA Probabilistic Safety Assessment psig Pound-Force per Square Inch Gauge PSAR Preliminary Safety Analysis Report PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment PV Photovoltaic PWR(s) Pressurized Light Water Reactor(s)

QA ,Quality Assurance Radwaste Radioactive Waste RBI Reservoir Benthic Index RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index RIMS II Regional Input-Output Modeling System Economic Model ROD Record of Decision ROI Region of Interest ROS Reservoir Operations Study Reservoir Operations Study FinalProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact ROS FEIS Statement (TVA 2004)

ROW(s) Right(s)-of-Way rpm Revolutions per Minute RV Recreational Vehicle SACE Southern Alliance for Clean Energy SALP NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance SAR Sensitive Area Review SCCW Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SEPA Southeastern Power Administration SERC SERC Reliability Corporation SFP Spent Fuel Pool SGB Steam Generator Blowdown SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SNA State Natural Area SMZ Streamside Management Zone xvi Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

.Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols SO 2 Sulfur Dioxide SOW Scope of Work SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure SQG Small Quantity Generator SQN Sequoyah Nuclear Plant SRM Sequatchie River Mile SRP Standard Review Plan SSCs Structures, Systems, and Components STO Saltillo SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWA Small Wild Area TBD To Be Determined TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation TEDE Total Effective Dose Equivalent Tenn. Tennessee TCRs Tree Growth Regulators TNC The Nature Conservancy TPS-TOM TVA Transmission Operations and Maintenance TRM Tennessee River Mile TVA Tennessee Valley Authority TVAPSA TVA Power Service Area TWRA Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency U Uranium UFC Uranium Fuel Cycle U0 2 Uranium Dioxide U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. U.S. Code USGS U.S. Geological Survey USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VS Vital Signs vs. Versus WAW Wet Active Waste WBN Watts Bar Nuclear Plant WCF Widows Creek Fossil Plant WEC Westinghouse Electric Company WHO World Health Organization WMA Wildlife Management Area WOA Wildlife Obervation Area X/Q Atmospheric Dispersion Factors YCN Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement XVil

Page intentionally blank Chapter 1 CHAPTER 1 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates the largest public power system in the country. From 1990 to 2008, demand for electricity in the TVA power service area grew at an average rate of 2.3 percent. The 2008-2009 economic recession has slowed load growth in the short term and adds uncertainty to the forecast of power needs; however, economic recovery is expected and future power needs are expected to grow at a rate that requires additional generating capacity. TVA's medium forecast analysis of future demands for electricity from its power system has identified the need for at approximately 7,500 megawatts (MW) of additional capacity in the 2018-2020 time frame (see Section 1.4).

TVA proposes to complete or construct and operate a single 1,100- to 1,260-MW nuclear generating unit at the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN) site located in Jackson County, Alabama. As part of itsproposal, TVA is seeking to assure future power supplies; maximize the use of existing assets and avoid larger capital outlays by using those existing assets; and to avoid the environmental impacts of siting and constructing new power generating facilities elsewhere. Completing or constructing a single nuclear unit at the BLN site would meet a substantialportion of TVA's future generating needs and provide a low carbon-emitting power source at a significantly lower cost per installed kilowatt than other generation options.

Currently, there are two partially constructed Babcock and Wilcox pressurized light water reactors (B&W) with an expected rated capacity of 1,260 MW each at the BLN site. TVA may choose to complete and operate either one of these partially constructed units (Alternative B) or construct and operate a new Westinghouse AP1 000 advanced passive pressurized light water reactor (AP1000) using some of the existing infrastructure (Alternative C). TVA will also consider taking no action at the Bellefonte site (Alternative A).

Under any of the proposed construction alternatives, TVA would use licensing processes that are already underway. TVA currently holds construction permits for the two B&W units (BLN 1&2) and has applied for combined (construction and operating) licenses for two AP1000 units (BLN 3&4). TVA's current proposal is to complete only one nuclear generating unit. The considerable work that has been accomplished toward licensing the B&W and AP1 000 technology will reduce the time and cost of bringing a single nuclear generating unit at BLN on line' The purpose of this final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) is to inform decision makers, agencies, and the public about the potential for environmental impacts that would result from a decision to complete or construct and operate a single nuclear generating unit at the BLN site. This document supplements the original Final Environmental Statement, Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units I and 2 (1974 final environmental statement [FES]; TVA 1974a) for the BLN project and updates pertinent information discussed and evaluated in related environmental documents identified in Section 1.7, including the 2008 environmental report (ER) for the construction and operation of two AP1000 units at the BLN site (TVA 2008a). In doing so, TVA has updated the power needs analysis and information on environmental, cultural, recreation, and socioeconomic resources. TVA will use this information, along with input from reviewing agencies and the public, to make an informed decision about locating a single nuclear generating unit at the BLN site. This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) tiers from TVA's Energy Vision 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (TVA 1995), a comprehensive environmental Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 1

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site review of alternative means of meeting demand for power in the TVA system. Energy Vision 2020 is described further in Section 1.7. In June 2009, TVA announced the preparation of a new Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to replace Energy Vision 2020. The new IRP is scheduled to be completed in early 2011. Given the long lead time for bringing a nuclear plant on line, completing the SEIS for BLN while simultaneously developing the new IRP will help ensure that a new generating unit could be built in time to meet the projected demand for base load energy.

Chapter 1 includes a historic overview of TVA's activities related to the BLN site; a brief description of the TVA power system; a need for power analysis, a description of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and public involvement; a listing of past documents related to the BLN site; and a list of permits, licenses and approvals.

In response to comments on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS), information was added to Chapter 1 to describe the evaluation processes that will inform TVA's decision makers regarding addition of a single nuclear unit at the BLN site and some information was updated including the Need for Power section.

1.1. Decision to be Made TVA will decide whether to approve and fund the completion or construction and operation of a single nuclear unit at the BLN site and upgrade its transmission system to support electric generation load from the BLN site.

Over the past few years, TVA has conducted various activities that have led to the development of two potential nuclear generation options for the Bellefonte site. These activities have included licensing interactions with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), financial assessments, engineering evaluations, need for power analyses, and risk.

evaluations. All of these evaluations will be used in the decision-making process.

1.2. Background 1.2.1. The Bellefonte Site The BLN site is located on a 1,600-acre peninsula on the western shore of Guntersville Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 392, near the town of Hollywood and the city of Scottsboro in Jackson County in northeast Alabama (Figure 1-1). Scottsboro, Alabama, located 7 miles southwest of the site is the largest city within a 10-mile radius of the site.

The three largest population centers (defined as having more than 25,000 residents) in the region are Huntsville, Alabama; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Gadsden, Alabama. The BLN site is located 38 miles east of downtown Huntsville, Alabama; 44 miles southwest of downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee; and 48 miles north of downtown Gadsden, Alabama.

Guntersville Reservoir is an impoundment of the Tennessee River and is operated by TVA as part of its integrated management of the Tennessee River system.

1.2.2. HistoricalOverview of Bellefonte NuclearPlant Units I and 2 TVA submitted an application to construct and operate two B&W reactors at its BLN site on May 14, 1973. The design of the BLN 1&2 reactors is an evolution of the earlier B&W 177 model, with seven units currently operating in the United States. The 205 fuel assembly model at BLN is larger and includes many other safety and operational improvements over the earlier designs. Although larger, the basic design, operation, and maintenance 2 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 Figure 1-1. Bellefonte Locator Map Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 3

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site philosophy is the same as the current fleet of pressurized light water reactors (PWRs) operating in the United States. TVA issued an FES addressing the construction and operation of BLN 1&2 in May 1974 (TVA 1974a), and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (now called the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC) issued its FES in June 1974 (AEC 1974). NRC issued construction permits for both units on December 24, 1974,

• On February 1, 1978, TVA filed an application for operating licenses for BLN 1&2, which included an OperatingLicense Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (TVA 1978a) and an OperatingLicense ER (TVA 1976). NRC docketed TVA's Operating License Application on June 6, 1978, and published a Notice of Hearing Opportunity on TVA's Operating License Application on July 17,1978 (43 FederalRegister 30628). There were no requests for a hearing or petitions to intervene filed in response. Construction of BLN 1&2 continued until the mid-1 980s when forecasted load growth began to decrease and TVA halted work on the two units in 1988. When TVA requested deferred status for the two units in 1988, Unit 1 was approximately 90 percent complete, and Unit 2 was approximately 58 percent complete.

In 1993, when TVA considered resuming construction on the B&W units, a white paper was prepared to review the 1974 FES and to update information on existing environmental conditions (TVA 1993a). TVA determined that neither the plant design nor environmental conditions had changed in a manner that materially altered the environmental impacts described in the FES. At the same time, TVA stated it would continue to monitor the situation and if changes occurred that materially affected impact projections in the FES, a supplement would be prepared.

The 1997 final EIS for the Bellefonte Conversion Project (TVA 1997) considered construction and operation of five optional types of fossil fuel generation, four of which involved plants with total electricity production capacity equivalent to BLN 1&2 (approximately 2,400 MW). The Conversion EIS substantially updated the description of the affected environment at BLN and the potential for environmental impacts from new construction. The proposed combustion turbine plant was not constructed.

TVA maintained the plant in deferred status and, in 2003, NRC extended the construction permits for BLN 1&2 to the year 2011 and 2014, respectively. Subsequently, TVA's Board of Directors approved the cancellation of BLN 1&2 in November 2005 in order to facilitate consideration of the BLN site for other possible uses. By letter dated April 6, 2006, TVA submitted a site redress plan (TVA 2006) to the NRC along with a request for withdrawal of the construction permits. Subsequently, NRC withdrew the BLN 1&2 construction permits on September 14, 2006. Under the redress plan, TVA maintained environmental permits and equipment associated with ongoing activities at BLN, including a training center and an electrical substation. Some equipment or structures not identified as necessary for these ongoing activities were sold for reuse or abandoned in place as part of an investment recovery program. The construction activities that will be necessary to complete the units are largely refurbishment, replacement, analysis, and testing activities. The existing structural plant footprint is not expected to change.

In August 2008, in response to changes in power generation economics since 2005 and the possible effects of constraints on the availability of the worldwide supply of components needed for new generation development, TVA requested reinstatement of the construction permits for BLN 1&2. Reinstatement would allow TVA to resume preservation and maintenance activities. The NRC reinstated TVA's construction permits for BLN 1&2 in 4 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 terminated plant status in March 2009 pending reestablishment of the quality assurance (QA) programs, physical conditions, and records quality necessary to move the license back to deferred status.

Following reinstatement, TVA (1) revised its Nuclear Quality Assurance Plan (NQAP) to acknowledge the new plant status; (2) established the necessary programs, policies, and procedures to warrant BLN 1&2 being placed in deferred status; and (3) resumed preservation and maintenance activities aimed at protecting selected plant assets, including building repairs to eliminate leaks, and preservation of site documents. TVA has also instituted asset preservation activities to maintain the, intake and discharge facilities, cooling towers, wastewater system, and transmission switchyards. In accordance with the NQAP, the lapse in QA oversight that occurred in the period from withdrawal of the construction permits through March 2009 was entered into the Corrective Action Program. In addition, TVA implemented work process controls to prevent construction-related activities from being conducted until NRC approval is given to reactivate construction.

By letter dated August 10, 2009, TVA requested that the NRC authorize placement of BLN 1&2 in deferred plant status in accordance with NRC's order reinstating the construction permits (see Appendix A). NRC conducted a BLN site inspection for deferred status the week of October 19, 2009. NRC issued Inspection Reports 05000438/2009601 and 05000439/2009601 on December 2, 2009. The NRC concluded that TVA has established the necessary programs to support transition to deferred status, consistent with the Commission Policy Statement for Deferred Plants. The inspection reports are included as Appendix B.

By letter dated January 14, 2010, the NRC authorized placement of BLN Units 1 and 2, .into "deferred plant" status (see Appendix A). With this authorization, TVA has placed the plant into "deferred plant" status.

1.2.3. Combined License Application for Bellefonte NuclearPlant Units 3 and 4 In 2006, TVA formally joined NuStart Energy Development LLC, aconsortium consisting of nine member utility companies and two reactor vendors.. The purpose of this consortium is to demonstrate the new 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 licensing process for completing a combined license application (COLA) and to complete the design engineering for two selected reactor technologies, one of which is the AP1000 reactor. In choosing the BLN site as the AP1 000 COLA site, TVA and NuStart recognized that a substantial portion of the existing BLN 1&2 equipment and ancillary structures (e.g., cooling towers, intake structure, transmission switchyards) could be used to support a new facility and that their use could reduce the cost of new construction. A COLA was submitted to the NRC in October 2007 with TVA as the applicant of record. The COLA described the siting of two AP1 000 reactors, BLN 3&4, with an estimated reactor power level of 3,400 megawatts thermal (MWt) and an expected net output each of 1,100 megawatts electric (MWe) at the BLN site. The BLN COLA included an FSAR and an ER. In October 2008, TVA submitted Revision 1 of the COLA ER (TVA 2008a), and in January 2009, Revision 1 of the COLA FSAR (TVA 2009a). Although TVA was the applicant of record for the demonstration, TVA had not proposed to construct these advanced reactors at the BLN site or elsewhere.

In April 2009, NuStart transferred the initial licensing efforts and reference plant designation for the AP1 000 from BLN 3&4 to Southern Company's Plant Vogtle. The transfer of the reference designation will help the NRC complete the reference plant licensing process Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 5

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site sooner and help move the industry closer to new plant construction and commercial operation of the AP1000 technology. Notwithstanding the transfer of the reference plant designation to Plant Vogtle, TVA is continuing to pursue a combined license (COL) for BLN 3&4 to preserve future base load generation options. Since July 2009, as part of their review process, NRC has issued Safety Evaluation Reports with Open Items on all FSAR chapters except Chapter 6 and Sections 2.4, 3.7, and 3.8.

Reinstatement of the construction permits for BLN 1&2 and efforts to return the units to deferred plant status do not affect TVA's current plans to pursue a COL for BLN 3&4, and the license information submitted to the NRC for the purpose of supporting the COLA remains valid. Should TVA decide to restart construction on a B&W unit, TVA would address the resulting impacts on the BLN COLA. Likewise, should TVA choose to construct an AP1 000 unit, TVA would address the resulting impacts on its construction permits for BLN 1&2.

1.3. TVA Power System TVA is an agency and instrumentality of the United States, established by an act of Congress in 1933, to foster the social and economic welfare of the people of the Tennessee Valley region and to promote the proper use and conservation of the region's natural resources. One component of this mission is the generation, transmission, and sale of reliable and affordable electric energy.

TVA operates the nation's largest public power system, producing 4 percent of all electricity in the nation. The agency serves an 80,000-square-mile region encompassing most of Tennessee and parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. The major load centers are the cities of Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville, Tennessee; and Huntsville, Alabama. The population of the service territory in 2008 was estimated to be 9 million people. TVA delivers electricity to 155 local power distributors and 58 directly served large industries and federal facilities. The total number of businesses and residential customers served in 2008 was 4,571,600. TVA supplies almost all electricity needs in Tennessee, 31 percent in Mississippi, 24 percent in Alabama, and 26 percent in Kentucky. Its contribution to the electricity needs in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia is 3 percent or less. The TVA Act requires that the TVA power system be self-supporting and operated on a nonprofit basis, and the TVA Act directs TVA to sell power at rates as low as are feasible.

Dependable capacity on the TVA power system is about 37,000 MW. TVA generates most of this power with three nuclear plants, 11 coal-fired plants, nine combustion-turbine plants, a combined-cycle plant, 29 hydroelectric dams, a pumped-storage facility, a wind farm, a methane-gas cofiring facility, and several small renewable generating facilities. A portion of delivered power is obtained through long-term power purchase and lease agreements.

About 60 percent of TVA's annual generation is from fossil fuels, predominantly coal; 30 percent is from nuclear; and the remainder is from hydroelectric and other renewable energy resources. TVA transmits electricity from these facilities over almost 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Like other utility systems, TVA has power interchange agreements with utilities surrounding the Tennessee Valley region and purchases and sells power on an economic basis almostdaily.

1.4. Need for Power Electricity is a just-in-time commodity. The resources needed to produce the amount of electricity demanded from a system must be available when the demand is made. If the 6 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 demand cannot be met or reduced through managed demand response programs, forced reductions and curtailments in service (i.e., brownouts or blackouts) result. One of TVA's most important responsibilities is ensuring that it is able to meet the demand for electricity placed on its power system. Thousands of businesses, industries and public facilities, and millions of people depend on TVA every day to supply their power needs reliably.

To meet this responsibility, TVA forecasts the future demand and the need for additional generating resources in the region it serves. A need for additional power exists when future demand exceeds the capabilities of currently available and future planned generating resources. Because planning, permitting, and construction of new generating capacity and transmission requires a long lead time, TVA must make decisions to build new generating capacity well in advance of the actual need.

This section updates the need for power analysis in the original BLN 1974 FES and subsequent pertinent publications (see Section 1.7). It shows the circumstances when demand exceeds supply, given the current forecasts and assumptions. TVA's method of forecasting demand and its analysis of a large number of supply- and demand-side management resources (options) that could meet forecasted demand are addressed in Energy Vision 2020 (TVA 1995).

Terms used in this section have the following meanings:

1. Demand, also called load, is used to describe the amount of energy required in a specific time period and is typically measured in MW.

2. Peak demand is the maximum load during a specific time period, which could be annually, seasonal, or monthly.

3. Capacity is used to describe the output rating of a generator and is measured in MW.

4. Generation is used to describe how much energy or electricity is produced over a specified time frame, and it is typically measured in gigawatt-hours (GWh).

1.4.1. PowerDemand The primary factor affecting the demand for power is economic growth. A large portion of the economic growth in the TVA region is dependent on the manufacturing sector, and the region benefits from its favorable location at the center of the southern U.S. automotive industry. Even as job growth in the manufacturing sector is declining, job opportunities still exist, and continued migration into the TVA region supports strong population growth.

While some of this population growth stems from jobs in retail businesses serving the existing population, a growing part is "export" services that are sold to areas outside the TVA region. Notable examples include corporate headquarters such as Nissan in Nashville and Service Master in Memphis as well as industries in the still-growing music business centered in Nashville. In addition, the TVA region has become attractive to retirees looking for a moderate climate in an affordable area, which has led to additional population growth to support service industries.

Nevertheless, future growth is expected to be lower than historical averages as a result of a number of factors including the impacts of the 2008-2009 recession and subsequent recovery, the trend of declining U.S. manufacturing, and the projected loss of some TVA customer load. Increased financial market regulation, tighter credit conditions, as well as large federal budget deficits may all work toward restraining growth to a level lower than Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 7

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site what was previously predicted. Although the TVA region is expected to retain its comparative advantage in the automotive industry, as exemplified by the new Volkswagen auto plant under construction in Chattanooga, Tennessee, reduced long-term prospects for the U.S. automotive industry will also have an impact on the regional industry. These changes in the economic outlook could persist in the long term with overall gross domestic product growth for both the TVA region and the nation being slightly below previous expectations.

No matter what the economic environment holds, TVA is committed to providing reliable, low-cost power to meet the needs of all residential, directly served industrial customers and distributor-served commercial and industrial customers (local utilities delivering power to other customers). In order to fulfill this mission, TVA strives to predict future demand for electricity accurately by using historical sales and announced plans of large industrial customers to use electric power, combined with state-of-the-art load-forecasting techniques, such as advanced econometric models, that calculate the demand for electricity based on (1) the level of economic activity, (2) the price of electricity, (3) the prices of available alternative fuels, and (4) increased efficiencies from new conservation and technology. To address the uncertainty inherent in single-point forecasts, inputs such as inflation rates, electricity prices, and the price of fuel are evaluated across probable ranges to develop high, medium, and low future scenarios. TVA also utilizes advanced analytical techniques such as Monte Carlo simulation of select key random variables like load, fuel prices, and weather to help it assess the overall robustness of its long-term plans.

Figure 1-2 shows TVA's actual and forecast net system requirements, which consists of sales to all distributor-served and directly served customers, plus distribution and transmission losses. The three load forecast scenarios are based on economic drivers and other assumptions updated in August 2009 and are described in detail below.

300,000

-Actual

-High Forecast 250,000 - Medium Forecast

-LowForecast 200,000 -- --

100,000 50,000 0

Figure 1-2. Actual and Forecast Net System Requirements by Fiscal Year 8 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 Historically, net system requirements grew at an average rate of 2.3 percent (1990-2008) before the recent economic downturn. The medium-load forecast, which shows a reduction in demand through 2010 and 1.3 percent average annual growth from 2010 through 2030, is used to provide a projection of future power needs with the high and low forecasts being used to help make more informed power supply decisions by considering the uncertainty associated with a future outside of normal expectations. Further details on the three alternative scenarios are as follows:

a Medium. The medium-load forecast reflects TVA's "expected" inputs and outcomes and assumes demand and energy grow at a rate similar to that expected for overall economic growth. Distributor and direct-served customers who have not already given notice of departing' (i.e., receiving their electrical power from a non-TVA source) are assumed to renew their power supply contracts continually through the planning period. In addition, TVA considers changes in demand based on input from its direct-served customers and distributors. TVA sales outside its service territory continue to be guided by the "fence" provisions of the TVA Act.2 o High. The high forecast assumes higher demand and energy usage are driven by a combination of favorable economic conditions and retail electricity and gas price assumptions. It also assumes additional industrial growth in the directly served sector. Net system requirements are projected to grow at a rate of 2.0 percent for the 2010-2030 time period in the high load forecast. It would be highly unlikely that the actual load would exceed the high forecast given the range of possible outcomes used in the forecast.

o Low. The low forecast assumes lower demand and energy usage are driven by a combination of unfavorable conditions, including assumptions for economic growth and retail electricity and gas prices. There is an assumed industrial load reduction in the directly served sector. Net system requirements are projected to grow at a rate of 0.3 percent for the 2010-2030 time period in the low load forecast. It would be highly unlikely that the actual load would fall below the low forecast given the range of possible outcomes used in the forecast.

1.4.2. PowerSupply TVA is a dual-peaking system with high demand occurring in both the summer and winter months. For example, the annual peak demand in 2008 occurred in August, while in 2009, the annual peak occurred in January. Winter peaks are expected to continue for the next couple of years; thereafter, the forecasted peak load or the highest demand placed on the TVA system is projected to be in the summer months. To ensure that enough capacity is available to meet peak demand in most circumstances, including unforeseen contingency, additional generating capacity beyond that which is needed just to meet peak demand, is necessary. This additional generating capacity, known as "reserve capacity" or "total reserves", must be large enough to cover the loss of the largest single operating unit (contingency reserves), be able to respond to moment by moment changes in system load (regulating reserves) and replace contingency resources should they fail (replacement 1 Distributors who have recently departed are Paducah (December 2009) and Princeton (January 2010). No further notices of departure have been filed.

2 TVA is limited in the sale and delivery of power outside the area for which it was the primary source of power supply on July 1, 1957.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 9

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site reserves). Total reserves must also be sufficient to cover unplanned unit outages, load forecasting error including abnormal weather, and undelivered purchased capacity, among other uncertainties. As typical for the utility industry, TVA plans for total reserves of between 12 and 20 percent of total system load, depending on the age of current resources, as required by North American Electric Reliability Corporation reliability standards. TVA optimizes its mix of generating assets, and purchases to meet these standards.

TVA's generating supply consists of a combination of existing TVA-owned resources, budgeted and approved projects (such as new plant additions and uprates to existing assets), and power purchase agreements. This supply includes a diverse portfolio of coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas and oil, market purchases, and renewable resources designed to provide reliable, low-cost power while reducing the risk of disproportionate reliance on any one type of resource. Each type of generation can be categorized, based on its degree of utilization, into base load, intermediate, or peaking generation.

Base load generators 3 are primarily used to meet continuous energy needs, because they have lower operating costs and are expected to be available and operate continuously throughout the day. However, they typically have higher capital costs. This type of generation typically comes from larger coal plants and nuclear plants that can provide continuous, reliable power over a period of uniform demand. Some energy providers may consider combined-cycle plants for incremental base load generation needs; however, historically, natural gas prices, when compared to coal and nuclear fuel prices, make combined cycle an expensive option for larger continuous generation needs.

Intermediate resources are primarily used to fill the gap in generation between base load and peaking needs. These units are required to cycle with more or less outputas the energy demand increases and decreases over time (usually during the course of a day).

Intermediate units are more costly to operate than base load units, but cheaper than peaking units. This type of generation typically comes from natural gas-fired combined-cycle plants and smaller coal plants. Renewable resources (such as wind and solar), which are intermittent in nature and have capacity factors typically well below 50 percent, are increasingly being used as a source of intermediate generation. Energy storage technologies can be integrated into a solar or wind project to increase the availability of the generated energy, as discussed in Section 2.4.

Peaking units, conversely, are only expected to operate during shorter duration high-demand periods and are essential for maintaining system reliability requirements, as they can ramp up quickly to meet sudden capacity changes. Typical peaking resources include natural gas-fired combustion turbines and hydroelectric generation (which is also used to help regulate the system, but could be limited due to water supply) and renewable resources.

Once a load forecast has been developed, TVA determines ifthe combination of existing and planned resources is sufficient to meet the projected demand. If a capacity need is identified, TVA conducts expansion-planning studies to select the combination of resources 3 Base load capacity consists of all resources with expected capacity factors greater than or equal to 85 percent. Base load demand is that portion of forecasted net system requirements occurring at loads equal to or less than average load (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Standard Review Plan, NUREG 1555, October 1999).

10 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 that provides the lowest-cost combinations of options while not subjecting customers to excessive levels of risk. The options considered range from resources that do not require the construction of new generation, such as power purchases, repowering existing units, and energy conservation, as well as installation of new generating capacity. Section 2.4 discusses the range of options considered. Section 1.4.3 presents the mix of resources currently projected to meet future demand.

1.4.3. Resource Plan TVA employs a variety of analytical tools and models to develop its long-term resource plans, including production cost models that consider many variables including fuel costs, variable operating and maintenance expenses, and the type of generating unit in order to simulate future demands for each unit in the TVA portfolio.. To ensure that future demand needs are accurately identified, the most current approved assumptions and forecasts available are used as inputs to the modeling.

Since the publication of the DSEIS, a number of changes in planning assumptions have been made as part of the normal business planning cycle. These include adjustments in reserve requirements, forecasted hydropower production (due to the end of the 2005-2009 Southeast U.S. drought), fuel and emissions allowance prices, and an updated load forecast, as presented in Subsection 1.4.1. In addition, TVA entered into certain long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) in late 2009 and early 2010 for wind energy as a result of its December 2008 Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy and/or Clean Energy Sources. These PPAs are now part of the long-term resource plan.

TVA also further refined its plans for reducing emissions from its coal-fired power plants beyond current levels. As part of its response to changing regulatory environment, TVA is increasingly utilizing emission-control equipment, such as scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction systems, and moving away from reliance on cap-and-trade programs for nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), and mercury. For example, changes in National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particles and technology requirements for controlling mercury emissions influence the approach toward emission control. The response to theseanticipated emissions-reduction requirements have also resulted in plans to place certain fossil assets in long-term lay-up and/or expedite existing plans for placing fossil assets in long-term lay-up. These changes have been incorporated into the long-term resource plan used as the base case for the need for power analysis, resulting in a foreseeable capacity reduction of 1,000 to 2,000 MW by 2015.

The base case for this SEIS includes an Energy Efficiency and Demand Response (EEDR) program that is predicted to reduce energy needs by about 5,200 GWhs in the 2018-2020 time period. An Enhanced EEDR program, which almost doubles the reduction in energy use of the base case EEDR program in the long run, has also been developed. Section 2.4.1 provides a more detailed discussion of both programs. This need for power analysis includes a sensitivity study to show the impact of the Enhanced EEDR program on the long-term resource plan with the proposed nuclear unit.

The analysis performed for this SEIS and discussed in Subsection 1.4.4 below shows that additional capacity and energy is needed by the 2018-2020 time frame. Overall needs increase approximately 7,500 MW in capacity and 22,000 GWh of energy from 2010 to 2019 in the medium-load case. For the high-load case, an additional 12,700 MW in capacity is needed over the same period. Furthermore, the low-load case shows the need for 1,800 MW of additional capacity.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 11

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Capacity TVA's existing capacity in 2010 and projected capacity in 2019 in its current business plan consists of a mix of coal, nuclear, natural gas, and renewable resources, market purchases, and EEDR programs, as shown in Figures 1-3 and 1-4, respectively. Market purchases are almost always derived from gas-fired resources and therefore are classified as "Gas and Oil" in Figures 1-3 and 1-4. The required capacity to meet the annual peak load increases from 35,876 MW in 2010 to 43,092 MW in 2019.

Gas Expan sion 0%

I Nuclear Expansion 0%

Nuclear Gas and Oil 18%

31%

EEDR 1% Coal 35%

Renewables 15%

Figure 1-3. 2010 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Type, Based on 35,900 MW Nuclear Expansion I3%

Gas Expansion 10% ., -Nuclear k 18%

Gas and Oil Coal

%28%

6%

Renewables 14%

Figure 1-4. 2019 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Type Based on 43,100 MW Currently, renewable resources consist primarily of generation from TVA hydro plants and power purchases from the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) for generation from 12 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) hydro plants. The amount of renewable resources in the TVA portfolio is projected to increase in 2019 relative to 2010 due to the addition of long-term contracts for the purchase of renewable wind energy from outside the TVA region, as announced late 2009 and early 2010. The renewable resources as a percentage of TVA's total capacity decreases slightly (from 15 percent in 2010 to 14 percent in 2019) because the forecasted peak load also grows. TVA anticipates acquiring additional renewable resources beyond these recent announcements.

The EEDR portion of the base case capacity mix increases from 1 percent in 2010 to 6 percent in 2019. While the specific programs and mix of EEDR continue to evolve, they are currently designed in the base case to achieve approximately 1,400 MW summer peak demand reduction by 2012, reaching 2,700 MW by 2019. This corresponds to energy reductions of approximately 1,800 GWh by 2012 and 5,200 GWh by 2019.

The projected decrease in coal capacity from 35 percent in 2010 to 28 percent in 2019 is the result of lower, capacity on units where air pollution control equipment has been installed 4 and the long-term lay-up of 1,000 to 2,000 MW of existing coal units, as discussed previously.

The increase in nuclear capacity from 18 percent in 2010 to 21 percent in 2019, comprised of both existing and planned nuclear capacity expansion, includes already approved additions such as the startup of TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 2 and the uprate of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1. The proposed completion of one nuclear unit at the BLN site is included in the nuclear expansion portion of the 2019 capacity mix.

The portion of the capacity mix using gas and oil is 31 percent in both 2010 and 2019. This includes an increase from the natural gas combined-cycle plant that is proposed to be located at John Sevier Fossil Plant. Gas-fired capacity expansion and market purchases based on natural gas are included by 2019 to assure that TVA has adequate reserves to meet growing peak load requirements.

Generation The generation profile differs from the capacity profile because the actual output from the installed capacity (how much is generated from a unit) depends on a number of different variables including fuel costs, variable operating and maintenance expenses, and the type of demand being met (e.g., base load, intermediate, or peaking). Capacity factor is the total energy a plant produces during a period of time divided by the energy the plant would have produced at full capacity during that same period of time. TVA's nuclear capacity factor is 90 percent or higher, which reflects a higher contribution of nuclear generation than a coal plant with a 70 to 80 percent capacity factor, or a combined-cycle capacity factor of 20 to 70 percent, or a simple-cycle combustion turbine at 5 percent or less.

TVA's current and future expected energy mix in the base case consists of coal, nuclear, natural gas, renewable resources, market purchases (which are mostly natural gas-fired),

and EEDR programs, as shown in Figure 1-5 for the period from 2010 to 2028. Existing resources consist of generating units currently owned by TVA, approved capacity addition projects, and power purchase agreements. Planned resources are those selected in expansion planning studies as the combination of resources that provides the lowest-cost long-term resource plan and mitigates fuel, technology, or other supply-side risk.

The operation of air pollution control equipment on coal-fired plants reduces the generating capability of the units.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 13

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 220,000 I

210,000 200,000 190,000 180,000 170,000 o 160,000 150,000 140,000 130,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Existing Thermal Units Existing Renewables Nuclear Expansion SGas Expansion 1 EEDR Figure 1-5. 2010 Base Case- Generation (GWh)

As shown in Figure 1-5, the majority of TVA's generation from existing resources comes from thermal (coal, gas, and nuclear) units and PPAs, with the remainder from renewable resources. The generation from existing thermal units declines after 2016 due to reductions in coal unit capacity and planned long-term lay-up of units. Renewable resources increase from 2010 to 2014 due to the recently purchased wind generation.

The projected resources consist of EEDR and natural gas-fired generation through 2017 supplemented by nuclear expansion beginning in 2018. The nuclear expansion consists of the completion of nuclear units at the Bellefonte site although that has yet to be proposed and would depend on a number of factors including future events. TVA anticipates acquiring additional renewable resources to meet future capacity needs through PPAs, but planning has not progressed to the point where they can be included in the base case.

By relying less on carbon-emitting sources, there are significant reductions in emissions from TVA's coal- and gas-fired generation. The projected changes in emissions from the TVA system in the long-term resource plan between 2010 and 2019 are shown in Table 1-

1. Emissions of SO 2, NOx, and mercury are cut by over half from 2010 levels. Carbon dioxide (C02) emissions are reduced by 1.3 percent.

Table 1-1. Changes in TVA Emissions From 2010 to 2019 by Pollutant Type Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxide Carbon Dioxide Mercury

-68 -52 -1.3 -60 _

14 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 1.4.4. Effect of Alternatives on Long-Term Resource Plan Three generation alternatives to the base case long-term resource plan have been evaluated:

• Alternative A - No Action

" Alternative B - Completion and Operation of a B&W Pressurized Light Water Reactor at Bellefonte

" Alternative C - Construction and Operation of an AP1 000 Advanced Passive Pressurized Light Water Reactor at Bellefonte The expected energy mix for the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) is shown in Figure 1-6 for the period from 2010 to 2028. The long-term supply needs of the TVA region are met only by EEDR resources and natural gas expansion in the No Action Alternative. There are no nuclear expansions beginning in 2018, as there is in the base case. There is more generation from TVA's existing coal and gas resources because the incremental cost of running the existing units is less expensive than adding new gas units. Consequently, the No Action Alternative results in higher emissions in 2019 than the base case. Therefore, there is less reduction in SO 2 , NOx, and mercury emissions from 2010 levels in the No Action Alternative-1 percent less for SO 2 and 2 percent less for NOx and mercury. CO 2 emissions in 2019 increase by 5.6 percent from 2010 levels in the No Action Alternative instead of decreasing by 1.3 percent as in the base case.

The expected energy mix for Alternative B is shown in Figure 1-7 for the period from 2010 to 2028. Alternative B has a very similar energy mix to base case. The portion of the generation from nuclear expansion attributable to the Bellefonte B&W alternative is shown as the darker green. Emissions reductions for Alternative B are virtually the same as Table 1-1.

220,000 210,000 200,000 190,000 -

180,000 170,000 160,000 150,000 140,000 130,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Existing Thermal Units Existing Renewables Gas Expansion 1 EEDIR Figure 1-6. Alternative A - No Action With No Nuclear Expansion Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 15

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 220,000 210.000 200,000 190.000 160,000 Resources 180.000 170,000 160,000 150,000 140,000 130,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Existing Thermal Units Existing Renewables i Alternative B r Other Nuclear Expansion

- Gas Expansion ý EEDR Figure 1-7. Alternative B - Bellefonte B&W The expected energy mix for Alternative C has very similar impacts to the generation profile as Alternative B and is therefore not represented graphically. Emissions reductions for Alternative C are virtually the same at Table 1-1.

TVA conducted a sensitivity study to analyze the effect of the Enhanced EEDR program discussed in Subsection 2.4.1 on the expected energy mix for Alternative B and is shown in Figure 1.8. The Enhanced EEDR program leads to reductions in 3,500 MW of capacity and approximately 10,500 GWh in electric generation by 2019. Figure 1-8 shows that increasing EEDR resources results in less gas expansion and market purchases based on gas and less generation by existing TVA coal and gas resources. Existing and planned nuclear generation is unaffected, meaning nuclear generation is the same with an Enhanced EEDR program as in the base case. Adding more EEDR resources results in an additional 0.5-1.0 percent reduction in 2019 SO 2 , NO., and Mercury emissions relative to 2010, as compared to the base case (Table 1-1). CO 2 emissions are reduced by 3.4 percent instead of 1.3 percent.

16 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 220,000 210,000 200.000 190,000 180,000 170,000 160,000 150,000 i Resources 140,000 130,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Existing Thermal Units - Existing Renewables Alternative B Other Nuclear Expansion Gas Expansion iEEDR Figure 1-8. Estimated Generation by Fuel Type With Modified Assumptions Future development and improvement of the EEDR portfolio will be influenced by many things including program measurement and verification results, the economic performance of current programs, and technology advancement and penetration in the marketplace. If EEDR programs are proven successful, TVA could further reduce reliance on its carbon-emitting generation sources.

1.4.5. Average Cost of Power The annual cost of power in 2018-2024 for the base case and all alternatives is shown in Table 1-2. The annual cost of power does not include the payments in lieu of taxes, fuel cost adjustment, and other minor costs, but is otherwise consistent with the delivered cost of power shown in the DSEIS. Differences between alternatives and the base case using the annual cost of power have the same trends as differences using the delivered cost of power indicator.

Table 1-2. Effect of One BLN Nuclear Unit on TVA's Annual Cost of Power Base Case 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.1 8.3 Alternative A - No Action with No Nuclear Expansion 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.4 7T8 8.2 8.4 Alternative B - Bellefonte B&W 6.6 6.8 7 7.3 7.6 7.9 8.1 Alternative C - Bellefonte AP1 000 6.6 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.8 8.1 8.3 Change from Revised Base Case Alternative A - No Action with No Nuclear Expansion (0.18) (0.13) (0.08) (0.07) (0.08) 0.04 0.05 Alternative B - Bellefonte B&W (0.11) (0.13) (0.11) (0.11) (0.21) (0.23) (0.22)

Alternative C - Bellefonte AP1000 (0.02) (0.04) (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.00) (0.01)

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 17

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The annual cost of power for all three alternatives is lower than the cost of power in the base case. The cost of power for the No Action Alternative loses its cost advantage compared to the base case over time and becomes more costly than the base case by 2023 because it relies only on natural gas expansion and EEDR to provide for future energy needs. A B&W unit would be less costly than the base case and would increase its cost advantage over time relative to the base case because of the lower operating cost and lower capital cost of the B&W unit. The annual cost of an AP1 000 unit would not be significantly less expensive than the base case. Operation of a B&W unit would be the least costly alternative for providing additional generation by 2020 and overall the most cost-effective alternative for providing base load energy.

1.4.6. Summary The Need for Power analysis shows that the demand for capacity and energy in the TVA region exceeds what TVA's existing resources can provide. Required reductions in emissions from TVA coal-fired units have resulted in plans to add emissions controls and long-term lay-up of existing coal units. Consequently, the generation from existing TVA resources is projected to decrease in the future.

TVA anticipates using a mix of resources, including EEDR programs, renewable resources, natural gas-fired generation, and nuclear generation to provide the additional future needs.

Given the magnitude of the capacity and energy need, and to avoid the risk of relying on only one fuel or technology, no single resource can meet all of the future energy and capacity requirements.

The decision anticipated in this SEIS is the choice of the next capacity addition to the TVA portfolio. Given the future capacity and generation needs and analyzing a number of different resource mixes, TVA has determined that adding a nuclear unit at the BLN site is the most cost-effective alternative to meet a portion of these future needs. A nuclear unit at the BLN site would (1) supply reliable, low-cost power from a proven high-energy-producing resource; (2) afford increased operating flexibility in the face of increasing environmental constraints; and (3) provide TVA's customers with additional fuel cost stability to reduce risk from volatile fuel prices.

1.5. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process The NEPA process, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their proposed actions on the environment before making decisions. If anaction is expected to have a significant impact on the environment, the agency proposing the action must develop a study for public and agency review. This study, called an EIS, is an analysis of the potential impacts to the natural and human environment from the proposed action, as well as from a range of reasonable alternatives. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR §1505.1) require federal agencies to make environmental review documents, comments, and responses. a part of each agency's administrative record. When an agency proposes substantial changes to a previously reviewed action and/or significant new circumstances or information are present, agencies are directed to prepare supplements to previously prepared ElSs (40 CFR §1502.9). TVA is preparing this SEIS to update information in the BLN 1974 FES and other pertinent reviews relative to its proposed action to complete or construct and operate a single nuclear unit at the BLN site.

In compliance with 40 CFR §1501.7, TVA prepared and issued a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare this SEIS. The NOI was published on August 10, 2009 (74 Federal Register 18 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 40000). This NOI briefly described the proposed action, reasonable alternatives, and probable environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIS. Because of the number of environmental reviews, including public involvement, that have been developed related to the BLN project over the last 35 years, TVA did not solicit public scoping comments as part of the NOI consistent with 40 CFR §1 502.9(c)(4).

At the close of the DSEIS publiccomment period, TVA responded to the comments received and incorporated any required changes into the FSEIS. TVA has completed consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). The completed FSEIS will be sent to those who received the DSEIS or submitted comments on the DSEIS. It will also be transmitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who will publish a notice of its availability in the FederalRegister.

TVA will make a decision on the proposed action no sooner than 30 days after the notice of availability (NOA) of the FSEIS has been published in the FederalRegister. This decision will be based on the project purpose and need, anticipated environmental impacts as documented in the FSEIS, along with cost, schedule, technological, and other considerations. To document the decision, TVA will issue a record of decision (ROD). The ROD normally includes (1) what the decision was; (2) the rationale for the decision; (3) what alternatives were considered; (4) which alternative was considered environmentally preferable; and (5) any associated mitigation measures and monitoring, and enforcement requirements.

1.6. Public Review Process 1.6.1. Scoping NEPA regulations require an early and open process, known as the scope of the evaluation, for deciding what should be discussed in an environmental review. However, additional public scoping is not required for an SEIS per 40 CFR §1502.9(c)(4).

As described below, the BLN site and the B&W and AP1 000 technologies have received extensive environmental review, including public comments, over the last 35 years.

Extensive internal scoping, including compilation and review of the documents listed in Table 1-3 and review of the COLA ER (TVA 2008a) and NRC public scoping related to the COLA, was conducted by a TVA interdisciplinary team. In addition, TVA has considered records related to public review of the SEIS for Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2(TVA 2007a) completed in connection with the Watts Bar Unit 2 operating license application.

Based on these reviews and an assessment of the proposed action, TVA has determined that the scope of the FSEIS should include the following topics:

• Surface Water and Groundwater Resources

• Floodplains and Flood Risk

• Wetlands

• Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology

• Endangered and Threatened Species

• Natural Areas

" Recreation

• Archaeological Resources and Historic Structures Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 19

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site

• Visual Resources

• Noise o Socioeconomics, including environmental justice

• Solid and Hazardous Waste

• Seismology (i.e., earthquakes) o Climatology and Meteorology, Air Quality, and Global Climate Change

• Radiological Effects of Normal Operations

• Uranium Fuel Use Effects (radioactive waste, spent fuel, and transportation)

" Nuclear Plant Safety and Security

• Decommissioning

• Transmission System Improvements 1.6.2. Draft Review and Preparationof FSEIS The DSEIS for the Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Plant Site was posted on TVA's Web site on November 4, 2009. Copies of the draft were mailed to state, local, and federal agencies and organizations listed in Section 7.1. EPA published an NOA on November 13, 2009 (74 FederalRegister 58626). A press release describing opportunities for commenting on the DSEIS, including an information open house, was issued on November 10, 2009 (see Section 7.2). Paid advertisements for the open house (see Section 7.3) were published in seven regional newspapers between December 2 and December 7, 2009 (listed in Section 7.3).

An information open house was held on December 8, 2009, at the Goose Pond Civic Center in Scottsboro, Alabama, from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. Central Standard Time. Forty-nine people registered. During the open house, comments on the draft could be made orally to a court reporter, on the Internet by computer, or by written comment form. A copy of the open house handout is included in Section 7.4.

TVA accepted comments on the DSEIS from November 13 until December 28, 2009.

Comments were received from 35 individuals and four federal and state agencies. Many of the commenters supported nuclear power, while others voiced general concerns about the use of nuclear power. Many comments focused on the age of existing structures, water quality, reactor design, the safety of nuclear power, air quality, spent fuel, radwaste, alternative sources of energy and conservation, and socioeconomic impacts. Some comments raised concerns about the need and cost of power. A listing of all comments received and TVA's responses to these comments are included in Appendix C.

This FSEIS reflects revisions in support of the responses to comments on the DSEIS including an updated need for power analysis, more analysis of transportation effects in Subsection 3.13.10 and an expanded treatment of global climate change in Subsection 3.16.3.

1.7. Other Pertinent Environmental Reviews and Documentation Past Documents Related to the BLN Site Several evaluations in the form of environmental reviews, studies, and white papers have been prepared for actions related to the construction and operation of a nuclear plant or alternative power generation source at the BLN site. The following paragraphs describe some of the most pertinent documents. These documents are available on TVA's Web page at http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/index.htm. As provided in the regulations 20 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 (40 CFR §1502) for implementing NEPA, this SEIS updates, tiers from, and incorporates by reference information contained in these documents about the BLN site and about nuclear plant construction and operation.

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating BLN 1&2 were addressed comprehensively in TVA's 1974 FES (TVA 1974a). The FES concluded that the principal ways the plant will interact with the environment are (1) releases of small quantities of radioactivity to the air and water, (2) releases of minor quantities of heat and nonradioactive wastewaters to Guntersville Reservoir and major quantities of heat and water vapor from the plant's cooling towers into the atmosphere, and (3) a change in land use from farming to industrial.

By 1993, when TVA drafted a white paper in support of TVA's 120-day notice to NRC for resumption of plant construction, most of the construction effects had already occurred.

The white paper reviewed 10 aspects of TVA's proposal in its 1974 FES that had changed or were likely to change. It concluded that most of the changes involved design modifications or changes in expected operational practices that would improve safety or lessen potential environmental impacts. Because none of the changes were determined to materially affect impact projections in TVA's 1974 FES, TVA concluded that the FES would not have to be supplemented. However, TVA subsequently chose not to resume construction.

Environmental conditions at the BLN site have been comprehensively reviewed three more times since 1993. The 1997 Final EIS for the Bellefonte Conversion Project (TVA 1997) considered construction and operation of five optional types of fossil fuel generation, four of which involved plants with total electricity production capacity equivalent to BLN 1&2 (approximately 2,400 MW). The Conversion EIS substantially updated the description of the affected environment at BLN, and the potential for environmental impacts from new construction. The proposed combustion turbine plant was not constructed.

In the late 1990s, TVA participated as a cooperating agency with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on an environmental review evaluating the production of tritium at one or more commercial light water reactors (CLWR) to ensure safe and reliable tritium supply for U.S. defense needs. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor (DOE 1999) addressed the completion and operation of BLN 1 &2 and updated the environmental analysis of their operation. TVA adopted this DOE FEIS in May 2000. TVA's current proposal to complete additional generating capacity at the BLN site does not involve the production of tritium. The CLWR FEIS includes pertinent information on spent nuclear fuel management, health and safety, decommissioning, and other topics.

Most recently in 2007, as a part of a COLA process, TVA, as a member of the NuStart Consortium, prepared and submitted to NRC a comprehensive ER for the construction and operation of two AP1000 nuclear units at the BLN site (see Subsection 1.2.3). In addition to updating the description of environmental conditions at the BLN site and some operational aspects of the cooling water system, the COLA ER fully describes the environmental effects of constructing and operating two AP1 000 units. The ER also contains a discussion of alternative sites and energy resource options. The ER was revised in response to NRC requests for additional information, and COLA ER Revision 1 (hereafter referred'to as the COLA ER) was issued in October 2008 (TVA 2008a).

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 21

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Other Related Documents In addition to documents directly related to the BLN site, two other TVA documents are relevant to this SEIS. In December 1995, TVA completed a comprehensive environmental review of alternative means of meeting demand for power on the TVA system through the year 2020, published as Energy Vision 2020 - IntegratedResource Management Plan and Final ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement (TVA 1995; hereafter referred to as Energy Vision 2020). Deferral and/or completion of BLN 1&2, individually or together, were among the resource options evaluated in that FEIS, but not as the preferred alternative.

The alternative adopted by the TVA Board following completion of the Energy Vision 2020 was a portfolio of various supply- and demand-side energy resources. Completion of BLN Units 1 and/or 2 was not part of this portfolio.

In Energy Vision 2020, TVA made conservative assumptions about the expected capacity factor (performance-roughly how much a unit would be able to run) of its nuclear units.

This capacity factor was used in conducting the economic analyses of nuclear resource options. TVA nuclear units, consistent with nuclear industry performance in the United States, now routinely exceed this earlier assumed capacity factor, which changes the earlier analyses for BLN 1&2, and the increased capacity factor is used in the current consideration of completing the unit (see Section 1.4, Need for Power).

On June 15, 2009, TVA announced its intent to conduct a new comprehensive study and EIS entitled IntegratedResource Plan: TVA's Environmental and Energy Future. This new plan will replace Energy Vision 2020 and is scheduled to be completed by 2011. In order to meet the anticipated demand for base load power, TVA must make a decision on a single nuclear unit at BLN before the new IRP is completed. The proposal set out in the BLN FSEIS supports TVA's efforts to reduce its carbon footprint and the need to make beneficial use of the existing infrastructure at the BLN site.

In February 2004, TVA issued its Reservoir OperationsStudy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (ROS FEIS) evaluating the potential environmental impacts of alternative ways of operating the agency's reservoir system to produce overall greater public value for the people of the Tennessee Valley (TVA 2004). The ROS FEIS evaluated, among other things, the adequacy of the water supply necessary for reliable, efficient operation of TVA generating facilities within the operating limits of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and other permits. A ROD for the ROS FEIS was subsequently issued in May 2004. Although operation of a single nuclear unit was not included in the ROS FEIS analysis, the reservoir operations described therein are adequately robust and flexible to encompass the operation of a nuclear plant with a closed-cycle cooling system, which uses only a minor amount of the river flow passing the BLN site (see Section 3.1). Furthermore, BLN's location on a mainstream reservoir ensures TVA control of flows. The assumptions for reservoir operations resulting from the ROS FEIS review and the cumulative effects analysis as it pertains to the operation of BLN are incorporated by reference in the present evaluation and used in.the hydrothermal analysis (see Subsection 3.1.3).

In addition to the documents mentioned above, Table 1-3 provides a more complete listing of relevant environmental documents pertaining to the construction and operation of a nuclear plant or alternative power generation source at the BLN site.

22 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 Table 1-3. Environmental Reviews and Documents Pertinent to the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Site Document Title Date Type TitleDate FES FinalEnvironmental Statement, Bellefonte NuclearPlant May 24, 1974 FES __Units 1 and 2 (TVA 1974a)

FinalEnvironmental Statement Related to Construction of Bellefonte NuclearPlant Units I and 2, Tennessee FES Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-439 (AEC June 4, 1974

.1974)

Bellefonte NuclearPlant Units I and 2 Environmental FER 1 Report, OperatingLicense Stage, Volumes 1-4 (TVA January 1, 1976 1976)

Bellefonte NuclearPlant Units I & 2, Final Safety Original as updated Analysis Report, Amendment 30 (TVA 1991) through 1991 White Environmental Impact Statement Review, Bellefonte March 1993 Paper NuclearPlant White Paper(TVA 1993a)

Energy Vision 2020 - Integrated Resource Plan and FEIS/ROD FinalProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement, December 1995 and Record of Decision (TVA 1995)

FEIS FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement for the Bellefonte October 1997 Conversion Project(TVA 1997)

FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement for the Production FEIS of Tritium in a CommercialLight Water Reactor (DOE March 1999 1999)

Record of Decision and Adoption of the Department of ROD/ Energy FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement for the May 19, 2000 Adoption Productionof Tritium in a CommercialLight Water Reactor (TVA 2000)

Guntersville ReservoirLand Management Plan, Jackson FEIS and Marshall Counties, Alabama, and Marion County, August 2, 2001 Tennessee (TVA 2001)

Reservoir OperationsStudy FinalProgrammatic FEIS Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision May 19, 2004 (TVA 2004)

FEA 2 PlantEnvironmental Final Redress, JacksonAssessment Bellefonte Nuclear County, Alabama (TVA 2006) January 2006 ER Bellefonte NuclearPlant Units 3&4, COL Application, October 2008 Part3, EnvironmentalReport, Revision I (TVA 2008a)

Bellefonte NuclearPlant Units 3&4, COL Application, FSAR Part2, FinalSafety Analysis Report, Revision 1 (TVA January 2009 2009a)

FEA 2 Activities at Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Related to Future July 2008 Site Use, Jackson County Alabama (TVA 2008b)

Final Environmental Report 2 Final Environmental Assessment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 23

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 1.8. Permits, Licenses, and Consultation Requirements Federal and state environmental laws establish standards for radiation exposure in the general environment (areas outside of the NRC-regulated area) and for sources of air pollution, water pollution, and hazardous waste. TVA will obtain applicable permits by submitting construction and operation plans and specifications for review by the appropriate government agencies. Environmental permits contain specific conditions governing construction and operation of a new or modified emission source, describe pollution abatement and prevention methods to reduce pollutants, and contain emission limits for the pollutants that will be emitted from the facility.

TVA has maintained the BLN site in regulatory compliance following the cancellation of the construction permits by NRC in September 2006. Table 1-4 lists permits that have been cancelled since 2006 and those that are still active.

Table 1-5 lists federal, state, and local authorities evaluated for potential applicability to the proposed project.

Table 1-4. Permits Held or Canceled Since Year 2006 Type of Permit/Authorization Expiration Additional Information Type___fPermit/Authorization_ D'ate NPDES Permit AL0024635 11/30/2014 Still active Cancelled September 2006; NRC Construction Permit for Unit 1 - CPPR-122 10/01/2011 Reinstated March 9, 2009, to a "terminated plant" status Cancelled September 2006; NRC Construction Permit for Unit 2 - CPPR-123 10/01/2014 Reinstated March 9, 2009, to a "terminated plant" status Air Permit for Synthetic Minor Source Operation Permit #705-0021-X002 (two 115.2 million British Cancelled June 2007; thermal units/hour auxiliary boilers (No. 2 diesel oil None auxiliary boiler building sold fuel) and dismantled Air Permit for Synthetic Minor Source Operating Permit #705-0021-X004 (two 7,000-kilowatt [kW] None Still[active diesel generators)

Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA) None Still active EPA Identification No. AL5640090002 Table 1-5. Federal, State, and Local Environmental Authorizations Statute/Agency Authority Activity Covered U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 10 CFR Part 50; 10 Construction and Operation for Commercial Nuclear Commission (NRC) CFR Part 52 Plant.

Endangered Species Act 16 United States Code Consultation with USFWS for potential impacts to (ESA) USFWS (U.S.C.) §1531 et seq. federally listed threatened or endangered species.

Native American Graves 25 U.S.C. §3001 et Provides for the repatriation of Native American Protection and Repatriation human remains or cultural items that are excavated Act seq. from or inadvertently discovered on federal lands.

American Indian Religious 42 U.S.C. §1996 Protection and preservation of traditional religions of Freedom Act Native Americans.

24 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 Statute/Agency Authority, Activity Covered National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia 16 USC 470 et Consultation with SHPO for potential impacts to Historical Commissions; s §§. historic properties listed in the National Register of SHPO; Federal Advisory seq. Historic Places.

Council on Historic Conservation Preconstruction letter of notification to FAA results in Object Affecting Navigable Title 49, Subtitle VII; a written acknowledgment certifying that no hazards Space; Federal Aviation 14 CFR Part 77 would result from constructing and operating the Administration (FAA) BLN Units 1 and 2. Similar acknowledgment may need to be obtained for the proposed project.

14 U.S.C. §§81, 83, 85, Navigation markers authorization to protect river U.S. Coast Guard 633; 49 U.S.C. navigation from hazards connected with construction

§1655(b) activities in a river. TVA complies voluntarily.

Clean WaterAct (CWA) Section 404 permit for the discharge of dredge or fill material into the waters of the United States. Concerned with placement of structures, working in or altering waters, and aquatic U.S. Army Corps of 33 U.S.C. §1344; 33 resources including wetlands. Alteration of Engineers (USACE) U.S.C. §1341 jurisdictional wetlands requires compensatory mitigation if such impacts cannot be avoided. A state Section 401 certification that the action does not violate state water quality standards must be obtained prior to application for a USACE Section 404 permit.

EPA/Alabama Department of 42 U S.C. §§7661-Environmental Management 7661f; Title 22, Construction permit and operating permit for Alabama Code, emission of air pollutants from the proposed project.

(ADEM) Chapter 28 33 U.S.C. §1342; Title Existing permit identifies outfalls through which EPA/ADEM 22, Alabama Code, wastewater may be discharged. Permit may need to Chapter 22 be modified for the proposed project.

33 U.S.C. §1342; Title Storm water runoff control for construction and EPA/ADEM 22 Alabama Code, individual sites Chapter 22 RCRA; Alabama Hazardous 42 U.S.C. §6901 et Waste Management and seq.; Title 22, Alabama Permit for construction of a disposal facility.

Minimization Act Code, Chapter 30 RCRA; Alabama Hazardous 42 U.S.C. §6901 et Waste Management and seq.; Title 22, Alabama Permit for disposal of nonhazardous waste.

Minimization Act Code, Chapter 30 RCRA; Alabama Hazardous 42 U.S.C. §6901 et Transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of Waste Management and seq.; Title 22 Alabama hazardous waste.

Minimization Act Code, Chapter 30 Requires federal agencies to protect and enhance the quality of the environment; develop procedures Executive Order (EO) 11514 to ensure the fullest practicable provision of timely (Protection of Enhancement 40 CFR §§1500-1508 public information and understanding of federal of Environmental Quality) plans and programs that may have potential environmental impacts so that the views of interested parties can be obtained.

EO 11988 (Floodplain 10 CFR §1022; 18 CFR Requires federal agencies to avoid floodplain Management) Part 725 impacts to the extent practicable.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 25

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Statute/Agency Authority Activity Covered EO 11990 (Protection of 10 CFR §1022; 18 CFR Requires federal agencies to avoid any short- and long-term adverse impacts on wetlands wherever Wetlands) Part 725 there is a practicable alternative.

26 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 CHAPTER 2 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION TVA considered a number of alternatives to constructing and operating BLN 1&2 in its 1974 FES, including various sources of base load generation and eight alternative plant locations. In subsequent environmental reviews, as part of the COLA process, TVA evaluated the construction and operation of AP1 000 units (BLN 3&4) at the BLN site, which also included alternative sites and energy resource options. In this FSEIS, TVA discusses in detail three generation alternatives and two transmission alternatives. The nuclear generation alternatives include: Alternative A - No Action, Alternative B - Completion and Operation of a B&W Pressurized Light Water Reactor, and Alternative C - Construction and Operation of an AP1000 Advanced Passive Pressurized Light Water Reactor. These alternatives are described below in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, respectively. The transmission alternatives, described in Section 2.6, include an Action and a No Action Alterative. All of these alternatives were considered in previous environmental reviews or reports (see Section 1.7), which are incorporated herein by reference. The project area for the nuclear generation alternatives, shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-12, is defined as the area within the BLN site where all construction activity would occur for either Alternative B or C.

The project area.includes the south security checkpoint on Bellefonte Road shown in the map inset of Figure 2-1.

These previous reviews also addressed alternatives to nuclear generation, including energy sources not requiring new generating capacity (i.e., power purchases; repowering, reactivating, uprating, or extending service life of existing plants; and DSM). Alternatives requiring new generating capacity (e.g., coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, and renewable sources) were also assessed, as were combinations of alternatives. A discussion of alternative energy sources considered is provided in Section 2.4. Section 2.5 describes the site screening process, identification of candidate sites, and the selection of the BLN site as the preferred site for additional nuclear generation.

Section 2.7 compares the alternatives for a single nuclear generating unit at the BLN site and summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts of the three generation alternatives and two transmission system alternatives. Mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize impacts to resources are described in Section 2.8, and TVA staff's preferred alternative is addressed in Section 2.9.

In response to public and agency comments on the DSEIS, information was added to Chapter 2 to clarify the comparison of the two reactor technologies, explain the Detailed Scoping, Estimating, and Planning (DSEP) process, and enhance the discussion of energy alternatives.

2.1. Alternative A - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, TVA would continue to maintain the construction permits for BLN 1 &2 in deferred status. In deferred status, no construction would occur, and no power would be generated on site. TVA would continue to maintain selected plant systems and the physical plant to prevent deterioration, including major components such as the intake and discharge structures, cooling towers, and wastewater system. The switchyards and the transformer yard on site would continue to be maintained in an active state. TVA would continue to use the simulator building. TVA has refurbished the construction administration building to provide office space for personnel assigned to study the feasibility Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 27

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site of completing BLN 1&2, and TVA would continue to maintain facilities to house personnel.

The on-site staff would total approximately 50 persons.

The existing containment, turbine, and auxiliary buildings would not be demolished. Other structures not identified as necessary would continue to be sold, dismantled, and removed from the site, or demolished. Such structures, most of which are metal and wood warehouses, are located in the western portion of the site. Any demolition wastes generated would be disposed of in appropriately permitted solid waste or other disposal facilities. Equipment identified as unnecessary would have the power disconnected and would either be reused at other TVA facilities, sold for reuse elsewhere, or abandoned in place. TVA has both agency and site processes and procedures in place to safely handle the demolition and removal of the identified equipment, structures, and fuels or lubricants in an environmentally sound manner. TVA would continue to conduct periodic site inspections to ensure that none of the equipment or materials would cause environmental, health, or safety problems. In deferred status, TVA would also perform basic maintenance of key equipment and structures.

TVA would continue regulatory compliance activities that include monitoring and maintenance of equipment used to assure compliance with NPDES and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) programs. In addition, monitoring reports, demolition permits (10-day notifications), and permits applicable to the entire site would be maintained. These measures would continue as long as TVA has ownership of the BLN site. The NPDES permit, an Air Permit for Synthetic Minor Source Operation related to diesel generators, and a RCRA permit remain active. Maintaining and complying with these existing permits and regulations would ensure the stability of the site until such time that TVA may decide if, or how, the site would be utilized. Such a future decision would be subjected to the appropriate environmental review at that time. Under the No Action Alternative, TVA would continue to pursue the BLN 3&4 licensing activities leading to the issuance of a COL in order to preserve future generation options.

2.2. Alternative B - Completion and Operation of a Single B&W Pressurized Light Water Reactor Under Alternative B, TVA would complete and operate one B&W pressurized light water reactor, either BLN Unit 1 or Unit 2, as described in TVA's 1974 FES (TVA 1974a) and Bellefonte FSAR (TVA 1978a). The B&W facility descriptions provided in Subsection 2.2.1 are based on the contents of these documents.

2.2.1. FacilityDescriptionfor Single Unit Operation Each of the two B&W pressurized light water reactors is rated at 3,600 MWt (core thermal) with a stretch capability of 3,760 MWt, and an expected electrical output of 1,260 MW. The station operating life is expected to be at least 40 years.

The plant structures (see Figure 2-1) presently consist of two reactor containment buildings, a control building, a turbine building, an auxiliary building, a service building, a condenser circulating water pumping station, two diesel generator buildings, a river intake pumping station, two natural draft cooling towers, a transformer yard, a 500-kilovolt (kV) switchyard and a 161-kV switchyard, two spent nuclear fuel storage pools, and sewage treatment facilities. Additionally, there are office buildings to house engineering and other personnel.

Entrance roads, parking lots, railroad spurs, and a helicopter landing pad are in place and are capable of supporting a construction project.

28 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

("

x~

N Sat~on I

G-W.Nk, He-h, Legend Structures Existng Structure L] Peninsula Area Refurbished Building Switchyard I New Structure Road

- Security Railroad Water Irtake Vehicle Harrier System Laydown Waei bodyW+ E Figure 2-1. B&W Site Plan 29 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Page intentionally blank Chapter 2 Reactor Power Conversion System and Reactor Coolant System The nuclear steam supply system design for each unit comprises a pressurized light water reactor, the reactor coolant system, and associated auxiliary fluid systems. The reactor coolant system (see Figure 2-2) is arranged in two, closed coolant loops connected in parallel to the reactor vessel. Each loop contains two reactor coolant pumps and a once-through steam generator. An electrically heated pressurizer is connected to one of the loops.

Once-Through Steam Generators (2)

Reactor Coolant Pressurizer Pumps (4)

Source: AREVA 2009a Figure 2-2. B&W Reactor Coolant System The reactor core consists of 205 fuel assemblies, 72 control rod assemblies, and eight axial power shaping rod assemblies. Each 12-foot fuel assembly provides for 264 fuel rods, 24 rod guide tubes, and one instrumentation tube positioned in a 17 by 17 array. The core is designed to operate approximately 18 months between refueling (DOE 1999).

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 31

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The reactor and reactor coolant system have three primary safety functions. First, the system is designed to provide conditions for the reactor coolant temperature, pressure, flow, and core power that allow adequate heat removal from the fuel. This safety function maintains the integrity of the fuel cladding, which is the primary barrier to the release of radioactive fission products. Second, the reactor coolant system is designed to maintain its integrity under all operating conditions, which functions as a second barrier to the release of fission products that may escape the fuel cladding. Third, the system is able to place the reactor core in a safe shutdown condition, assuming.failure of a supporting system or failure of the reactor coolant system itself. Several supporting systems aid in performing these.

safety functions.

The reactor building for each unit consists of a post-tensioned concrete primary containment structure and a free-standing reinforced concrete secondary containment structure. The primary containment, which houses the reactor power conversion and coolant systems, has a leak-tight 0.25-inch-thick steel liner. This primary containment is surrounded by a free-standing secondary containment composed of a reinforced concrete shell designed to maintain a slight vacuum in the annulus between the primary containment and the secondary containment to assure in-leakage into the annulus. The primary containment has a design pressure of 50 pound-force per square inch gauge (psig) and is designed to withstand the internal pressure associated with any design-basis loss-of-coolant accident. The secondary containment is designed to resist various combinations of seismic activity, wind, tornado forces, external missiles, snow loads, and external water pressure for normal and accident conditions.

The turbine generator system is designed to change the thermal energy of the steam flowing through the turbine into rotational mechanical work, which rotates a generator to provide electrical power. Each turbo-generator is a tandem compound, four-flow, two-stage reheat, 1,800 revolutions per minute (rpm) machine, manufactured bythe Brown Boveri Corporation. The expected net generator electrical output is 1,260 MW at rated (licensed) power levels.

Cooling Water Systems The component cooling water system provides cooling water for various system components and heat exchangers during both normal and accident conditions. The component cooling water system is a closed cooling system consisting of two separate cooling loops per unit and acts as an intermediate heat sink. This heat is then rejected to the essential raw cooling water. The essential raw cooling water system is designed to remove heat loads from safety-related equipment and systems. It consists of a total of eight main essential raw water cooling water pumps for both units, located in the intake pumping station to supply water from the river to the components to be cooled, and to discharge the water into the cooling tower basins. The intake pumping station is also equipped with four traveling water screens, and four screen wash pumps prevent the screens from becoming clogged with debris.

The intake channel directly connects to the main river channel at all reservoir levels, including loss of the downstream Guntersville Dam. The ultimate heat sink for the B&W units is the water source and associated routing structures, exclusive of the intake pumping station, which is used to remove waste heat from the plant under all conditions. The water source (also called the ultimate heat sink) is the Tennessee River, including the complex of TVA-controlled dams upstream of the plant intake, Guntersville Dam, and the plant intake channel. The ultimate heat sink is designed to perform the principal safety function, 32 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 throughout the plant's life, of dissipating essential equipment heat loads after an accident and during normal conditions including startup, power generation, shutdown, and refueling.

Engineered Safety Features Engineered safety features are used to reduce the potentia! radiation dose to the general public from the result of a maximum hypothetical accident to below the guideline values of 10 CFR Part 100. The potential dose is reduced by immediate and automatic isolation of all reactor building fluid penetrations that are not required for limiting the consequences of the accident. This action eliminates these penetrations from becoming potential leakage paths.

Long-term potential releases following the accident are minimized by reducing the reactor buildings' pressure to nearly atmospheric pressure within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, thereby reducingthe driving potential for fission product escape.

In addition, the engineered safety features would cool the core, maintaining it in a coolable geometry should the worst postulated loss-of-coolant accident occur. This is accomplished by the emergency core cooling system, which includes the core flooding, high-pressure injection, and low-pressure injection systems. The core flooding system consists of two accumulator tanks directly connected to the reactor vessel via check valves. The tanks contain borated water with a nitrogen overpressure that provides automatic injection of the contained water through the check valves into the reactor vessel whenever the reactor coolant system pressure falls below the nitrogen pressure in the tank. The high-pressure injection system uses the high-pressure reactor makeup pumps to pump water from a borated water source into the cold leg reactor coolant piping near the reactor vessel inlet nozzles. The low-pressure injection system uses the decay heat removal pumps to take suction from a borated water source and pump this water through the decay heat removal heat exchangers directly into the reactor vessel through the core flood nozzles. After injection is complete, the coolant is recirculated by the low- and high-pressure injection pumps from an emergency sump below the reactor coolant system through the decay heat removal heat exchanger and back to the reactor vessel.

Each of the two nuclear units in the plant is provided with an independent electric power system to supply plant auxiliaries and provide instrumentation and control power. Each nuclear unit is provided with two diesel generators as standby power supplies in the event of a loss of all off-site power. Each diesel generator supplies power to one of the two redundant and independent Class IE power trains in each nuclear power unit. The capacity of the diesel generators would allow either one of the two generators per unit to supply safe shutdown or accident loads for its unit.

2.2.2. Use of Other Existing Structures and Systems Natural Draft Cooling Tower The existing cooling towers are closed-cycle, natural draft hyperbolic cooling towers. Each concrete tower is 474 feet high and has a basin with a diameter of 412 feet. This type of condenser cooling water system enables theplant to operate with a minimum thermal effect on the Tennessee River, because the system cycles cool water from the cooling towers through the condensers and discharges the warmed water back to the cooling towers in a closed system rather than discharging it to the river. As a result, closed-cycle cooling systems use substantially less water because the cooling water is continually recirculated through the main condenser and only makeup water for normal system losses is required.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 33

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Intake Channel and Pumping Station The intake pumping station is located at the end of the intake channel extending 1,200 feet from the Guntersville Reservoir shoreline. The intake channel is centered in a natural draw on the west side of the reservoir. When constructed, the channel was excavated to rock to create a 200-foot-wide man-made channel from the reservoir to the intake pumping station.

In addition, a 25-foot-wide trench was excavated, into the rock along the centerline of the channel bottom and extends an additional 760 feet beyond the shoreline to the main river channel. This trench is angled to slope downward toward the intake pumping station from elevation 566.5 feet at the main river channel to elevation 565.5 feet near the intake pumping station. An intrusion barrier would be installed across the intake channel to provide security for the intake channel and~pumping station. Approximately 11,100 cubic feet of dredged material would be removed from a total of 1,960 feet of intake channel (pumping station to main river channel), This proposed plant activity is described in greater detail in Subsection 2.2.4.

Blowdown Discharge Structure The blowdown discharge system, which is designed to disperse water from the cooling tower,is discussed in greater detail in Subsection 3.1.3 Transmission Lines and Switchyards Existing transmission lines and switchyards would be used. The transmission system is discussed in Section 2.6 and Chapter 4 of this SEIS.

Barge Unloading Dock A barge unloading dock is located just north of the blowdown vault on the west bank of Guntersville Reservoir approximately 4,600 feet south of the intake channel. This facility was constructed with steel pilings to permit use of the facility throughout the operating life of the plant. Upgrades to the barge unloading dock are discussed in Subsection 2.2.4.

Railroad Spur Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSRC) owns and operates a railroad line, which runs through Scottsboro and Hollywood. TVA owns and controls a railroad spur that connects the BLN site to the NSRC mainline about 3 miles northwest of the BLN site. The rail spur would be refurbished and used to support delivery of components and equipment small enough to ship by rail.

Meteorological Tower The existing meteorological tower was built in 2006. For a B&W unit, a taller tower may be needed to describe atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics for operation of Unit 1 or 2. If necessary, either the height of the existing 55-meter tower would be increased or a new tower would be built that provides sufficient meteorological data. The existing instrumentation would be used on the taller tower. See Subsection 2.3.2 for additional information about the existing meteorological tower.

Exclusion Area Boundary The exclusion area boundary (EAB) is the boundary on which limits for the release of radioactive effluents are based. The EAB is the same for both the B&W and AP1 000 alternatives and is shown in Figure 2-3. This boundary was originally established as the licensing basis for BLN 1&2 and has not changed. The EAB follows the site property boundary on the land-bound side, the Tennessee River side, and the lower portion of Town Creek. The EAB extends beyond the site property boundary to the opposite shore of Town 34 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Creek on the northwest side of the property. No residents live in this exclusion area. No unrestricted areas within the site boundary area are accessible to the public. The Town Creek portion of the EAB is controlled by TVA. The property is clearly posted and includes actions to be taken in the event of emergency conditions at the plant. The site's physical security plan contains information on actions to be taken by security personnel in the event of unauthorized persons crossing the EAB. The land and water inside the exclusion area is owned or controlled by TVA and is in the custody of TVA.

2.2.3. CurrentStatus of PartiallyConstructedFacility As described in Section 1.2, following deferral, BLN 1&2 were placed in a preventive maintenance and lay-up program to preserve plant assets. Over the years, the scope of this program was reduced when it was determined to be more economical to refurbish/replace certain plant components rather than continue the lay-up and preservation programs. The preservation maintenance and lay-up programs were continued until August 2005. Equipment maintained under this program would be evaluated to determine if it must be replaced or refurbished prior to completion and operation of a BLN unit.

In November 2005, TVA cancelled construction of BLN 1&2. TVA subsequently requested withdrawal of the construction permits from the NRC, and the NRC formally terminated the permits in 2006. After termination of the construction permits, TVA began an effort to recover sunk costs at the BLN site by disposing of plant assets. Some high value plant equipment was removed as part of these investment recovery activities. The BLN Redress EnvironmentalAssessment (TVA 2006) discussed the need to remove equipment or structures not identified as necessary for other site activities. The items removed included piping, tanks, pumps, heat exchangers, valves, strainers, batteries, fans and motors, air compressors; shop equipment, and minor buildings. Other items removed included diesel generator fuel and other oils and lubricants. These buildings, equipment, fuel, and lubricants would be replaced as needed under Alternative B.

All major plant structures, including the reactor, auxiliary, control, turbine, and office and service buildings, and plant cooling towers were constructed for both Units 1&2 and remain intact. Some new construction would be required for the completion of either unit. The original power stores warehouse building has been removed and would need to be rebuilt.

The auxiliary boiler building has been removed and would need to be replaced. It is expected that any new construction of buildings would occur on previously disturbed land.

No new water intakes or outfalls are needed. The majority of the construction activities on plant systems and components would involve replacement or refurbishment of equipment contained within the current structures. As shown on Figure 2-1, all new construction support buildings, laydown areas, and parking areas except for the south security checkpoint would be situated on previously disturbed land within the original plant footprint.

As part of an update of the cost and schedule to complete BLN 1&2 that was completed in May 2008, TVA contracted with AREVA NP. Inc. (AREVA) to assess the condition of selected plant features. AREVA conducted inspections of four mechanical systems, plant electrical systems/equipment, and plant civil/structural features in order to determine their condition. The inspections found BLN, accounting for removed equipment, was in generally good condition.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 35

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Legend r-J OLN Exdusiiý, Af Oournddrv N r-7 srni~ rNudv PlairtT-ý.Iv Pi;v~ DQTýJY W-7 E 0 0~

N4~ S Figure 2-3. Exclusion Area Boundary for Alternatives B and C 36 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 TVA has completed a DSEP project to expand upon the AREVA effort and provide a more detailed assessment of the existing plant configuration and the requirements to complete engineering and construction. Experts in the area of construction, estimating, budgeting, and project controls have reviewed the elements to complete this project. The DSEP process was independently reviewed by a panel of experts to ensure that nothing major was overlooked. As a result of this review, refinements were made to the overall process that has resulted in a quality estimate and schedule.

The purpose of the DSEP project was to define the scope of completion, to develop licensing strategy, to determine the material condition of BLN 1 &2, to define schedule and cost for completion and startup, to determine project risk, and to provide a reliable basis for decision-making. The study included physically inspecting and evaluating systems, structures, and components currently installed in the plant. It also provided a comprehensive assessment of the additional engineering, materials, components, and construction needed to complete the unit. The DSEP addresses all these factors and provides a high confidence level estimate for the cost and schedule to complete a B&W unit.

Because Bellefonte was previously estimated in detail for completion, the intent of this DSEP was to identify differences in the previous estimates with respect to investment recovery activities, withdrawal of construction permits, and subsequent suspension of the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B QA program, suspension of the preventive maintenance and lay-up program, and removal of environmental controls within the plant. In addition, regulatory changes and industry initiatives now require changes to the facility that were not known or included in the previous estimates. Obsolescence requires additional investigation to support long-term reliable operation of the units.

During the DSEP period that was conducted during 2009 and 2010, a detailed review of most major systems, components, and structures was conducted. This effort included over 100,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of review by experts in engineering and plant systems. This allowed options to be evaluated based on current condition, including age and obsolescence of plant equipment.

A comprehensive evaluation of the reactor and other primary systems, as well as the controls for those systems, was conducted. A review was also completed on the turbine generator and the secondary plant systems, as well as, controls for those systems.

The plant utilizes a very efficient design. The secondary system will be more efficient than other operating commercial nuclear plants due to the use of once-through steam generators, a superheated steam cycle, and extensive use of reheat to limit heat loss in the secondary systems. Design features such as improved instrument and controls, steam generators, and turbine design will be modernized while still maintaining the original high efficiency.

BLN Structures The structural condition of the existing facilities, with regard to structural integrity and safety requirements, have been evaluated. The initial engineering review performed to evaluate the potential for completing BLN 1 or 2 was conducted to determine if the existing completed seismic Category I structures could be documented to comply with the latest NRC seismic requirements. The designation of seismic Category I refers to safety-related structures, systems, and components that are designed and built to withstand the maximum potential earthquake stresses for the particular region where a nuclear plant is sited, without Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 37

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site loss of capability to perform their safety functions. A detailed review was performed to determine the effects of applying Bellefonte site-specific seismic criteria based on the requirements of Appendix S of 10 CFR Part 50. The results of this evaluation determined that the BLN seismic Category I safety-related structures would be able to withstand the effects of a seismic event as defined by the new criteria. These results have been reviewed by a panel of nuclear industry seismic experts who independently confirmed the results of the evaluation. The study does conclude that some internal supporting structures would require modifications, and these modifications are included in the completion estimate for the project. The original design of nonsafety-related structures, not governed by the NRC requirements, continues to meet current industrial building codes. In addition, detailed walkdowns of both the safety-related and nonsafety-related structures were performed during the DSEP to identify degradation or structural issues. No detrimental issues related to either type of structure were identified related to subsidence or settlement.

Review of the existing structures (through DSEP evaluations) to identify other structurally related considerations, including infestations, roofing integrity, and pavement structures was conducted. These evaluations considered historical water infiltration. Some water infiltration has occurred at the site mainly due to groundwater in-leakage through construction joints. A DSEP evaluation has validated the structural integrity of the affected buildings, and the project estimate carries an estimate for remediation of in-leakage sites.

In addition, the existence of mold in the lowest elevations of the plant due to damp conditions has been evaluated. An industrial hygienist has evaluated the mold and provided approved methods for remediation. The structural integrity of roofing has also been evaluated, and a remediation plan is being implemented. Roofing systems for the turbine building were replaced in 2009. The project facility plan includes repair or replacement of the remaining roofing systems and is in the completion estimate.

The DSEP process evaluated plant structures for completion, including required updates associated with applicable codes and standards necessary to secure an operating license for the facility. The majority of the plant is constructed to seismic Category I requirements as set forth by the NRC. These facilities are made of high-strength concrete and steel supports that provide a robust structure for a long life. Commercial nuclear plants operating in the United States today are built to these standards, and the majority of plants have been granted a 20-year extension to the original 40-year operating life. As part of the life extension review, plants are required to address aging effects on the seismic Category I structures. In general, aging effects outside of normal maintenance practices have not been identified by the industry for these structures. Based on the extensive reviews conducted thus far, the seismic Category I structures for Bellefonte are intact and require minor maintenance to meet current requirements. As for the remainder of the plant structures outside of seismic Category I requirements, these were likewise built to stringent industrial standards, with minimal maintenance required to meet current standards.

The existing B&W structures, systems, and components have been evaluated against the current standards for terrorism threats, including impacts of large commercial aircraft. The facilities (seismic Category I structures) that contain the pressurized water reactor are complete, with minor modifications necessary to meet new regulatory requirements.

Security requirements for nuclear power plants have been significantly upgraded since September 11, 2001, including the development of contingency plans to address 'beyond design basis' events. The BLN design will meet those licensing requirements and regulations, including those regarding aircraft impact, as are all currently licensed nuclear plants nationwide.

38 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Existing Unit 1 structures are complete; seismic Category I safety-related structures comply with current NRC criteria, and nonsafety-related structures meet applicable industrial requirements. Figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 provide a visual reference for the current status and condition of the existing BLN.

Figure 2-4. Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Entrance Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 39

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Figure 2-5. B&W Containment Buildings Figure 2-6. View From BLN Parking Lot - Administration Building, Turbine Building, Containment Buildings, Cooling Towers, and Switchyard 40 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 B&W Systems and Components The DSEP has developed a detailed status of the existing plant systems and components.

When original construction was ceased, BLN 1&2 were substantially complete with the vast majority of plant structures, systems, and components installed and tested.

Evaluations of the existing systems and components have been performed to determine what equipment can be "used as is" and what refurbishment and replacement activities are necessary to complete the plants. Selected piping and components were salvaged during the investment recovery period in selected areas of the plant, although structures within the power plant were generally unaffected. In addition, obsolescence issues, changes in regulatory requirements, or industry best practices would require replacement of selected installed systems and components. Furthermore, refurbishment of some existing equipment would be required to ensure reliable operation in the future. As previously discussed, when construction of BLN 1&2 was halted in 1988, completion of the units was estimated at 90 percent and 58 percent, respectively. The DSEP shows that additional resources (time, manpower, and capital) will be needed to complete either unit following the investment recovery activities and to meet current construction standards. Therefore, the current completion estimate is 55 percent for Unit 1 and 35 percent for Unit 2. It should be noted that major construction is not anticipated to be required to complete the units, but the bulk of the resources will be used for internal refurbishment/modification.

Figures 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11 show various plant systems and components.

Figure 2-7. Unit I Turbine Generator Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 41

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Figure 2-8. Unit I Main Control Room Figure 2-9. Cable Spreading Room 42 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Figure 2-10. Unit I Makeup High-Pressure Injection Pump Figure 2-11. Unit I Large Bore Valve, Small Bore Valves, Piping Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 43

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Quality Assurance Records A total of 52,828 as-constructed drawings were prepared by the end of the original construction process. The original QA construction records have been confirmed to be available. Specific areas verified for completeness during DSEP include the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Section III records for safety-related weld and material procurement and installation. These records were reviewed by the Authorized Inspection Agency (AIA), Hartford Steam Boiler Global Standards, and determined to be available, accessible, and maintained per the AIA's required storage quality level. NRC's December 2, 2009, Inspection Report, Transition to Deferred Status (see Appendix B),

concluded that the QA records and the Bellefonte programs and procedures meet NRC QA requirements.

2.2.4. ProposedPlant ConstructionActivities BLN Units 1&2 were being constructed on a staggered schedule, with Unit 1 scheduled for completion approximately two years before Unit 2. So, while construction of major buildings and supporting infrastructure were substantially completed for both units during the initial construction phase, in general, Unit 1 construction is further along than Unit 2. The identified major activities that would be required to complete the constructibn scope for BLN Unit 1 or 2, as well as planned enhancements, are listed below. Activities for either unit would be similar, but Unit 2 would require the completion of final piping structural supports, installation of instrumentation, installation of small piping and valves, insulation, and the completion of architectural features.

The following list of completion activities is based on cost and schedule information developed during the DSEP:

" Replace the two steam generators, which were affected by investment recovery activities (note: as described above, each B&W unit has two steam generators).

The original steam generator tubing and shell sections were removed for salvage value and, as such, are damaged beyond repair. The replacement steam generators will be designed to incorporate industry lessons and will employ materials consistent with those used in operating plant steam generator replacement projects and new plant steam generator designs. A more complete description of the steam generator replacement process follows this list.

& Replace the existing analog and solid state instrumentation and controls systems with digital technology comparable to those utilized in new reactor designs.

" Replace the turbine rotating assemblies to ensure that the maximum energy can be extracted from the steam. This, in combination with the primary and secondary designs, would ensure one of the most efficient steam cycles in the country and would be better than new construction-type design.

" Replace major pumps, motors, heat exchangers, and tanks, and remove piping as part of investment recovery.

" Refurbish major equipment, such as reactor coolant pumps, control and instrumentation, diesel generators, and plant electrical breakers.

" Upgrade plant barge unloading dock in order to receive and unload steam generators and other major plant equipment. No dredging in the area of the barge unloading dock is required for construction of a B&W unit.

44 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2

" Remove silt from the intake channel. From the pumping station to the shoreline (a distance of approximately 1,200 feet), approximately 10,000 cubic yards of dredged material would be removed. From the shoreline to the main river channel (a distance of approximately 760 feet), approximately 1,100 cubic yards of dredged material would be removed. Dredged material would be disposed of in an on-site spoils area above the 500-year flood elevation.

• Replace transmission system equipment utilized for plant operation, such as switchyard breakers.

Upgrade a cooling tower, so that it would perform at 100 percent of original design capacity. Typical modifications of other TVA natural draft cooling towers have included (but are not limited to) modifying and extending distribution piping headers, replacing existing and adding spray nozzles, and adding or replacing fill material.

Comparable modifications would be anticipated, but the exact nature of the cooling tower upgrades would be determined later.

o Update the plant control room and build a new simulator for operator training.

" Replace auxiliary boiler and auxiliary boiler building.

" Perform code inspection, documentation, and reconciliation to meet ASME standards.

" Install an intrusion barrier to provide security for the intake pumping station and intake channel.

" Construct security upgrades including addition of checkpoints and portals.

" Construct site facilities including nonplant-related administrative, maintenance, construction, fabrication, supply chain, and training buildings.

Steam Generator Replacement The existing steam generator tubing and portions of the shell were removed for salvage value during investment recovery activities. The remainder of the old steam generators would be removed, similar to the installation of the new steam generators discussed below.

The new steam generators would be transported from the fabrication facility by rail and/or barge to the BLN site. Once there, the replacement steam generators would be offloaded onto steel saddles for temporary storage. Two options for off loading could be used, based on contractor preference:

• Gantry crane. A gantry crane was used during the original BLN 1&2 construction, and the existing foundations may support the new gantry crane. However, some additional excavation may be needed for the foundation caissons.

" Barge drive off. Using this method, the barge interior cells would be filled with river water and stabilized at the height of the riverbank, and then a multiwheeled hauler vehicle would be driven onto the barge and under the steam generators. The vehicle would then rise up to lift' the steam generators and drive off the barge.

The existing barge off-loading area would require some improvements, including excavation and foundation work for use with either barge off-loading system. The road leading from the barge off-loading to the BLN containment would be cleared of vegetation by grading and adding gravel to provide a level path for the multiwheeled hauler vehicle to travel.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 45

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Some steel piping on the old Unit I steam generator was removed from the inside, but the containment buildings are still intact. The remainder of the old steam generators would be removed as one piece, similar to the installation of new steam generator discussed below.

After exiting the containment, the old steam generators would be placed on existing slabs and cut up and sold for scrap. The preferred method of old steam generator removal and installation of the new steam generators is discussed below:

" Removal of old and installation of new steam generators would use the existing equipment hatch for passage in and out of containment.

• The steel plenum of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) inside containment just inside the equipment hatch would be cut to provide an opening approximately 14 feet by 14 feet. Next, a similar-size hole would be cut into the reactor pool concrete wall. This cut would either be done with chipping hammers or with the use of hydrodemolition equipment.

• A rail system would be installed from the outside of containment to the inside of the reactor pool. A multiwheeled cart would be set on the rail system to move the steam generators out and in.

" A temporary rigging device would be set on top of the polar crane girders for lifting the old steam generators from the cubicle tothe multiwheeled cart. The old steam generator would be moved out of containment. An outside lift system would remove the old steam generators from the cart to a multiwheeled hauler vehicle, which would move them to a slab to be cut up and sold for scrap.

• In a reverse manner, the new steam generators would be taken from the storage slab by the multiwheeled hauler vehicle to a gantry crane outside containment, placed on the cart, rolled into containment on the rail system, upended in the reactor pool by a temporary lifting device, and placed in the steam generator cubicle.

In preparation for installation of the replacement steam generators into the containment building, some excavation and foundation work would be needed to install an outside lift system. The area next to the containment would be excavated as necessary and then backfilled back to the existing plant grade after the replacement. The steel and concrete components would be replaced to safety and engineering standards. Waste concrete would be transported to an appropriately permitted disposal site.

In general,, the steam generator replacement process would entail activities and effects typical of other on-site construction activities including site reclearing, minor demolition and new construction, and equipment replacement. A hydrodemolition process, using a high-pressure water jet, could be used to remove concrete while leaving the steel reinforcement bar intact. The process would use approximately 450,000 gallons of water, likely from the local municipal source, and produce a water and concrete slurry. This wastewater would be captured, sampled, treated, and released through an approved NPDES discharge point.

2.3. Alternative C - Construction and Operation of a Westinghouse API1000 Advanced Passive Pressurized Light Water Reactor Under Alternative C, TVA would construct and operate a single AP1 000 advanced passive pressurized light water reactor on the BLN site. The following AP1000 facility description is based on COLA FSAR Revision 1 (TVA 2009a) and COLA ER Revision 1 (TVA 2008a) 46 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 content, and AP1000 Design CertificationDocument, Revision 17 (Westinghouse Electric Company [WEC] 2008). Existing main structures that would be used under Alternative C are discussed in Subsection 2.3.2.

2.3.1. FacilityDescription for Single Unit Operation The nuclear steam supply system for the AP1 000 is a Westinghouse-designed advanced passive pressurized light water reactor. The rated thermal power of the reactor is 3,400 MWt, with a nuclear steam supply system rating of 3,415 MWt (core plus reactor coolant pump heat), and an expected electrical output of 1,100 MW. The plant design life is 60 years.

An AP1000 power block complex is composed of five principal building structures: nuclear island, turbine building, annex building, diesel generator building, and radwaste building (see Figure 2-12). Each of these is constructed on an individual reinforced concrete foundation basemat. All safety-related structures, systems, and components are located on the nuclear island. The structures located off the nuclear island are neither safety-related nor seismic Category I.

The nuclear island is composed of the containment building, shield building, and auxiliary building. The containment building, a seismic Category I structure, is a freestanding cylindrical steel containment vessel with elliptical upper and lower heads. The containment vessel confines the release of airborne radioactivity following postulated design-basis accidents and provides shielding for the reactor core and reactor coolant system during normal operations. The containment building is surrounded by a seismic Category I reinforced shield building. In conjunction with the internal structures of the containment building, the shield building provides the required shielding for the reactor coolant system and the other radioactive systems and components housed in the containment. The shield building also protects the containment vessel and reactor coolant system from the effects of tornados and tornado-produced missiles. The auxiliary building is a seismic Category I reinforced concrete structure, which provides protection and separation for seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located outside the containment building.

The auxiliary building shares a common basemat with the containment building and the shield building. The nuclear island structures are designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as hurricanes, floods, tornados, and earthquakes without loss of capability to perform safety functions. The nuclear island is designed to withstand the effects of postulated internal events such as fire and flooding without loss of capability to perform safety functions.

The annex building is a combination of reinforced concrete and steel-framed structure with insulated metal siding. The annex building provides the main personnel entrance to the power generation complex, includes the health physics facilities, and provides personnel and equipment access ways to and from the containment building and the rest of the radiological control area via the auxiliary building.

The diesel generator building is a single-story, steel-framed structure with insulated metal siding. The building houses two identical slide-along diesel generators separated by a three-hour firewall. The diesel generators provide backup power for plant operation if normal power sources are disrupted.

The turbine building is a steel column and beam structure that houses the main turbine, generator, and associated fluid and electrical systems. It also houses the makeup water Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 47

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site purification system and provides weather protection for the laydown and maintenance of major turbine/generator components.

The radwaste building includes facilities for segregated storage of various categories of waste prior to processing, for processing by mobile systems, and for storing processed waste in shipping and disposal containers. Additional plant structures include warehouses, administration/office buildings, switchyard, transmission towers, entrance roads, parking lots, and railroad spur.

The overall plant arrangement for an AP1 000 unit is designed to minimize the building volumes and quantities of bulk materials (concrete, structural steel, rebar) consistent with safety, operational, maintenance, and structural needs to provide an aesthetically pleasing effect. Half of the plant would be constructed off site and transported to the site as modules. Natural features of the site would be preserved as much as possible and utilized to reduce the plant's impact on the environment. Landscaping for the site, areas adjacent to the structures, and the parking areas would blend with the natural surroundings to reduce visual impacts.

Reactor Power Conversion System and Reactor Coolant System The major components of an AP1 000 reactor are a single reactor pressure vessel, two steam generators, and four reactor coolant pumps for converting reactor thermal energy into steam. A single, high-pressure turbine and three low-pressure turbines drive a single electric generator. The steam and power conversion system is designed to remove heat energy from the reactor coolant system via the two steam generators and to convert it to electrical power in the turbine generator.

The reactor contains fuel rods assembled into 157 mechanically identical fuel assemblies, along with control and structural elements. A fuel assembly is 14 feet long in a 17 by 17 square array. The core is designed to operate approximately 18 months between refueling outages.

The API 000 reactor coolant system (see Figure 2-13) is designed to remove or to enable the removal of heat from the reactor during all modes of operation, including shutdown and accident conditions. The system consists of two heat transfer circuits, each with a steam generator, two reactor coolant pumps, and a single hot leg and two cold legs for circulating reactor coolant. The system also includes a pressurizer, interconnecting piping, valves, and instrumentation needed for operational control and safeguards actuation. All reactor coolant system equipment is located in the reactor containment.

During operation, the reactor coolant pumps circulate pressurized water through the reactor vessel and the steam generators. The water is heated as it passes through the core to the steam generators where the heat is transferred to the steam system. The water is returned to the reactor (core) by the pumps, and the process is repeated.

The turbine generator system is designed to change the thermal energy of the steam flowing through the turbine into rotational mechanical work, which rotates a generator to provide electrical power. It consists of a double-flow, high-pressure turbine and three double-flow, low-pressure turbines. It is a six-flow, tandem compound, 1,800-rpm machine.

The turbine system includes stop, control, and intercept valves directly attached to the turbine and in the steam flow path, crossover and crossunder piping between the turbine cylinders and the moisture separator reheater. The turbine generator has an expected net generator electrical output of 1,100 MW for a reactor thermal output of 3,415 MWt.

48 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

I 114 Legend Existing Structure Road / Parking New Structure Haul Road Security Rail Spur Water Intake - -- Vehicle Barrier System Laydown Fence Line N BI Bellefonte Project Area [ Waterbody Switchyard W+ E D 500 i.M00 I.5= 2,0wo S Figure 2-12. AP 1000 Site P1an 49 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Page intentionally blank Chapter 2 STEAM GENERATOR STEAM GENEERATOR L ANE

• ,COOLANJT PUMPS INJECTION NOZZLE REACTOR VESSEL Source: WEC 2008 Figure 2-13. AP1000 Reactor Coolant System Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 51

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The AP1 000 unit design includes an independent electric power system. Two on-site standby diesel generators, each furnished with its own support subsystems, provide power tothe selected plant nonsafetý-related alternating current (AC) loads for a single AP1 000 unit. Two ancillary AC diesel generators, located in the annex building, provide power for Class 1E post-accident monitoring, for control room lighting and ventilation, and for refilling the passive containment cooling system water storage tank and the spent fuel pool, when no other sources of power are available. Another on-site diesel generator provides backup power for the site technical support center.

Raw Water System The raw water system supplies water from the intake to the circulating water system and the service water system to make up for water that has been consumed and discharged as part of the system operations. The circulating water system supplies cooling water to remove heat from the main condensers, the turbine building closed cooling water system heat exchangers, and the condenser vacuum pump seal water heat exchangers under varying conditions of power plant loading and design weather conditions. The- service water system supplies cooling water to remove heat from the nonsafety-related component cooling water system heat exchangers in the turbine building. The raw water system supplies water to the circulating water system cooling tower (natural draft cooling tower) and the service water system cooling tower (mechanical draft cooling tower) to make up for water consumed as the result of evaporation, drift (water droplets swept out of the tops of the cooling towers in a moving air stream), and blowdown (water released to purge solids).

At the intake pumping station, the raw water is first strained by trash rakes and then passes through the traveling screens. Once in the raw water system, the water in each line is further strained. For the circulating water system, a back-washing feature of the strainers removes debris and sends it back to Guntersville Reservoir. A small portion of the raw water is used to supply two, 100-percent capacity screen wash pumps, and the remainder of the flow provides makeup to the circulating water system cooling tower. For the service water system, the water is then filtered to remove remaining debris and discharged to the river. The raw water. then proceeds to the service water system cooling tower, where it provides the necessary makeup.

Engineered Safety Features Engineered safety features protect the public in the event of an accidental release of radioactive fission products from the reactor coolant system. The engineered safety features function to localize, control, mitigate, and terminate such accidents and to maintain radiation exposure levels to the public below applicable limits and guidelines. The AP1000 engineered safety features are described below.

The containment vessel, an integral part of the overall containment system, confines the release of airborne radioactivity following postulated design-basis accidents and provides shielding for the reactor core and reactor coolant system during normal operations. The vessel also functions as the safety-related ultimate heat sink by safely transferring the heat associated with accident sources to the surrounding environment. The passive containment cooling system is designed to maintain the containment air temperature below a specified maximum value and to reduce the containment temperature and pressure following a postulated design-basis event. This system removes heat from the containment atmosphere and serves as the safety-related ultimate heat sink for other design-basis events and shutdowns. The passive containment cooling system limits the release of radioactive material to the environment by reducing the pressure differential between the 52 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 containment atmosphere and the external environment, which diminishes the driving force for leakage of fission products from the containment to the atmosphere.

The primary function of the containment isolation system is to allow the normal or emergency passage of fluids through the containment boundary while preserving the integrity of the containment boundary. This prevents or limits the escape of fission products, including radioactivity that may result from postulated accidents. Containment isolation provisions are designed so that fluid lines penetrating the primary containment boundary are isolated in the event of an accident.

The passive core cooling system is designed to provide emergency core cooling following postulated design-basis events. This system injects water into the reactor coolant system to provide adequate core cooling for the complete range of loss-of-coolant accident events.

It also provides core decay heat removal during transients, accidents, or whenever the normal heat removal paths are lost.

The main control room emergency habitability system is designed so that the main control room remains habitable following a postulated design-basis event. With a loss of all AC power sources, the habitability system maintains an acceptable environment for continued operating staff occupancy.

Natural removal processes inside containment, the containment boundary, and the containment isolation system provide post-accident, safety-related fission product control.

The natural removal processes, including various aerosol removal processes and pool scrubbing, remove airborne particulates and elemental iodine from the containment atmosphere following a postulated design-basis event.

Exclusion Area Boundary The EAB for the AP1 000 is the same as the EAB for the B&W alternative and is discussed in Subsection 2.2.1 (see Figure 2-3).

2.3.2. Use of PartiallyConstructed Facility.

Approximately 400 acres of the 1,600-acre BLN site were previously disturbed for the partially constructed BLN 1&2 and associated plant structures. Construction of one AP1000 unit and associated structures is expected to require clearing of about 50 acres of forested land and reclearing and grading of previously disturbed ground. The existing turbine building and the office and service buildings at the BLN site would be removed under Alternative C.

Many of the other main structures from the partially completed BLN 1&2 would be used for the operation of an AP1000 reactor. These include natural draft cooling towers, intake channel and pumping station, blowdown discharge structure, transmission lines and switchyards, barge unloading dock, railroad spur, and meteorological tower (see Figure 2-12). Use of existing structures reduces the amount of additional land that would be disturbed and is cost-effective. The following is a description of these systems and how they would serve an AP1000.

Natural Draft Cooling Tower TVA's 1974 FES considered several heat dissipation systems. Considering feasibility, environmental impact, and cost, the natural draft cooling towers represented the best balance and were selected as the best heat dissipation facilities for BLN 1&2 and were Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 531

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site constructed. For the same reasons identified above, TVA proposes to utilize one of the existing cooling towers to provide heat dissipation for an AP1000.

Intake Channel and Pumping Station The intake channel and pumping station would provide makeup water to an AP1 000.

Removal of silt from the intake channel would be necessary. From the pumping station to the shoreline (a distance of approximately 1,200 feet), approximately 10,000 cubic yards of dredged material would be removed. Dredged material would be disposed of in an on-site spoils area above the 500-year flood elevation.

Blowdown Discharge Structure The purpose of the existing discharge system is to disperse blowdown water from the cooling towers into the Guntersville Reservoir. Additional information about the blowdown discharge and diffuser can be found in Subsection 3.1.3. The blowdown discharge system configuration and function for an AP1000 unit would be the same as for a B&W unit.

Transmission Lines and Switchyards A detailed discussion of the existing transmission lines and switchyards is provided in Section 2.6. No new transmission lines were proposed in the COLA ER, and none are proposed in this FSEIS.

Barge Unloading Dock The barge unloading dock would allow the use of barges to transport heavy equipment, large reactor components (e.g., reactor vessel, steam generators, pressurizer), and construction modules too large to ship by train. With barge access, larger modules can be assembled in the factory, reducing on-site construction activity and workforce. An AP1000 unit would require an estimated total of 34 barge shipments over a three- to four-month period. These shipments of prefabricated modules would likely occur between the end of site preparation and beginning of construction commencement. Another 12 barge shipments, containing large vessels and heavy equipment, would likely be spread out over the duration of the construction period, and it is not anticipated that more than one or two barges would arrive at any particular time. Construction equipment barges would arrive as the equipment is needed, then depart as soon as the equipment is unloaded.

Dredging in the area of the barge unloading dock would be required for construction of an AP 000 unit, because the barge loads of AP1 000 construction modules and components are expected to be heavier than those for a B&W unit. Approximately 240 cubic yards of dredged material would be removed. It is also likely there would be one barge for the maintenance dredging activity, with the spoils transferred to equipment that would haul it directly to the spoils area, and that barge would depart shortly after the dredging is completed. This refurbishment/maintenance activity would occur near the beginning of construction to prepare the barge unloading dock for the construction period activity.

Dredged material would be disposed of in an on-site spoils area above the 500-year flood elevation.

Barge transportation would also be used to remove construction debris and other waste from the site.

Railroad Spur The railroad spur would be refurbished to support the delivery of components and modules small enough to be shipped in a rail car (e.g., large pumps, bulk construction commodities).

54 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Rail transportation would also be used to remove construction debris and other waste from the site.

Meteorological Tower The existing meteorological tower was built in 2006. The meteorological facility consists of a 55-meter instrumented tower for wind and temperature measurements, a separate 10-meter tower for dewpoint measurements, a ground-based instrument for rainfall measurements, and a data collection system in an instrument building (environmental data station). The environmental data station is located west of the tower base and has been evaluated as having no adverse influence on the measurements taken at the tower. The data collected included wind speeds, wind directions, and temperatures at the 10-meter and 55-meter levels and dewpoint temperatures at the 10-meter level. The location of the meteorological tower is sufficiently removed from any plant structures or significant topographic features. This system would provide adequate data to represent on-site meteorological conditions and to describe the local and regional atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics for operation of an AP1000 unit.

2.4. Other Energy Alternatives Considered TVA evaluated over 100 supply-side (generation) and 60 demand-side (energy efficiency, energy conservation, etc.) resource options in its December 1995 Energy Vision 2020 EIS.

Subsequent environmental reviews, e.g., Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bellefonte Conversion Project(TVA 1997), have updated these evaluations as appropriate for a number of the-resource options. In general, the Energy Vision 2020 evaluations remain adequate. However, TVA is again updating these evaluations in its ongoing IRP process. The consideration of alternatives to nuclear-powered generation at the BLN site tier from Energy Vision 2020 and its evaluations and the updates of those evaluations in the documents identified in Section 1.7. This section addresses the merits of competing energy resource options with particular attention to those identified by commenters on the DSEIS.

The analysis of alternatives is summarized below and includes options that would not require new generating capacity (Subsection 2.4.1), those that would require new generating capacity (Subsection 2.4.2), and a combination of those alternatives (Subsection 2.4.3).

Reasonable alternatives to the construction and operation of nuclear generation at the BLN site are energy resource options, both supply-side and demand-side options, which substantially meet the purpose and need for the proposed nuclear unit at the BLN site.

Supply-side resource options must be capable of delivering generation with a profile similar to that of nuclear generation. Resource options that are technically infeasible, impracticable, ineffective, substantially more expensive, or introduce greater environmental impact are not considered reasonable.

2.4.1. Alternatives Not Requiring New GeneratingCapacity TVA considered several alternatives that could potentially replace new generating capacity.

In reviewing these alternatives, TVA considered whether the option would provide a viable and reasonable alternative to the proposed BLN project. The alternatives below were considered but rejected for detailed consideration for the reasons discussed.

Power Purchases TVA regularly reviews purchased power options (buying energy and/or capacity from other suppliers for use on the TVA system) and has entered into long-term contracts to obtain Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 55

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site firm capacity. Currently, TVA has a long-term base load purchase from the Red Hills coal-fired plant, a long-term lease of the Caledonia combustion turbine plant, a long-term hydroelectric purchase from SEPA, long-term power purchase agreements for wind energy resulting from the December 2008 Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy and/or Clean Energy Sources, and short-term purchases from the wholesale power market.

Therefore, the use of purchased power is already included in TVA's current and future capacity estimates. Purchasing additional power from other generators was not addressed further because it (1) is already part of TVA's resource portfolio, (2) transfers environmental impacts to another location, and (3) involves additional potential impacts on transmission if sources are outside the TVA service area. There is also risk that purchased power will not be delivered.

Repowering Electrical Generating Plants Repowering electrical generating plants is the process by which utilities update, change the fuel source, or change the technology of existing plants to realize gains in efficiency or output not possible at the time the plant was constructed. Power uprates would be a potential alternative source of base load electricity. NRC has approved power uprates for TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) since 1998, and TVA is seeking additional uprates for its BFN units.

The need for power analysis in Section 1.4 provides more detailed information on the.

additional electrical generation that would be provided by approved or planned power uprates. However, power uprates are not sufficient by themselves to meet forecasted capacity needs of 7,500 MW from 2010 to 2019 (medium-load forecast). TVA continues to modernize its hydrogeneration, which increases its hydrogeneration capacity. TVA is considering converting some fossil units to biomass and studies are underway support this.

Such conversions would change the operational characteristics of converted units but would not materially address TVA's base load needs. TVA is considering laying up additional coal-fired units. Such lay-ups increase the need to acquire replacement resources such as the proposed BLN unit.

Energy Conservation Energy Efficiency and Demand Response (EEDR) programs, also sometimes called Demand Side Management (DSM) or energy conservation programs, offer potential ways to help TVA manage energy consumption and the growth in peak demand. Since the 1970s, TVA has had residential, commercial, and industrial programs to reduce peak demand and energy consumption. As currently implemented, TVA's EEDR portfolio focuses on reduction in peak demand. TVA has interruptible load contracts with industrial customers that allow TVA to reduce the flow of energy to them during high demand periods. TVA's experience to date is that successful energy conservation programs are highly dependent on the end users' recognition of the cost effectiveness of conservation.

TVA received comments on the DSEIS that energy efficiency should be used to reduce demand. TVA has reviewed the most recently published studies (Brown et al. 2009; Chandler and Brown 2009) identified by comment providers as well as reports published since the close of the comment period (Brown et al. 2010). These studies estimate the potential of EE to effectively add capacity to power systems-through energy savings-to replace or delay the construction of new generating plants through 2020 and/or 2030. For comparative purposes, TVA also reviewed a study by the Electric.Power Research Institute that forecasted energy efficiency potential in southern U.S. states (EPRI 2009a).

TVA recognizes the important role conservation plays in shaping the load balance and is committed to building EEDR programs for their important resource potential. As part of the 56 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Integrated Resource Planning process initiated in June 2009, TVA has developed program initiatives to focus on reducing energy consumption as well as decreasing peak demand.

These EEDR program initiatives include the following elements:

• Residential programs for new site-built and manufactured homes, energy right home evaluations and in-home energy assessments, heat pump and high-efficiency air-conditioning installation and maintenance, and weatherization assistance.

• Commercial and industrial programs providing technical assistance, efficiency advice, incentives, and audits for new and existing facilities.

• Demand response programs for interruptible loads, direct load control, and conservation voltage regulation.

This FSEIS incorporates an EEDR program into the base case and all alternatives considered that reflects the energy efficiency that can result from TVA's programmatic efforts. These reductions are in addition to those energy savings that are naturally occurring due to existing legislation and policies and the independent programs of its distributors. The base case includes an EEDR program that reduces required energy needs by about 5,200 GWh in the 2018-2020 time period, averaging 0.3 percent reduction per year through 2020. This annual reduction is about 55 percent of the moderate achievable estimate of 0.5 percent annual reduction through 2020 by the Meta-Review study (Chandler and Brown 2009) and about 70 percent of the realistic achievable estimate of 0.4 percent for southern states by EPRI (2009). The Need for Power analysis in Section 1.4 shows that the base case EEDR program as well as the proposed nuclear unit and additional gas and nuclear expansion units are needed to meet the forecasted demand for power.

Each of the reports reviewed by TVA also suggest that additional savings are achievable with "transformational" policy intervention by businesses and governments. Several states and regions have developed legislation to mandate energy savings levels and regulatory mechanisms to make EE a sustainable business. Notably, TVA has found success stories in California, the Northwest and smaller states in the Northeast, where long-term application of aggressive conservation measures and existing funding mechanisms offset the need for new investment in generating facilities. The reports show that the Southern region lags far behind in developing its EE potential.

All of the reports acknowledge the technical and policy barriers to achieving the maximum potential energy reduction from aggressive energy efficiency programs. There is significant uncertainty associated with the implementation of such programs, given that widespread investment in new distribution technologies and other research is uncertain in TVA's service territory as its distributors ultimately make the decisions on most end-use technology investments. Substantial policy, legislative, and behavioral changes must occur before TVA can rely extensively on dependable capacity from conservation measures as a substitute resource for balancing generation and load.

Despite reservations about the ability of such programs to achieve such a goal, TVA constructed an enhanced case to evaluate the effect of a more extensive EEDR program on the portfolio mix and on power costs in the 2018-2020 time period. As with the base case EEDR program, the enhanced program focuses primarily on residential, commercial and industrial programs to reduce energy consumption. This is considered to be a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement .57

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site moderately aggressive EEDR program and would be challenging for the TVA power service area to achieve, as discussed above. The TVA Enhanced EEDR program averages 0.6 percent reduction per year through 2020. This is approximately 55-75 percent of the maximum achievable estimates of 1 percent by the Meta-Review study (Chandler and Brown 2009), 0.9 percent for southern states by EPRI (2009), 0.7 percent for Appalachia by the ARC (Brown et al. 2009), and 0.9 percent by the Energy Efficiency in the South study (Brown et al. 2010).

Figure 2-14 shows the forecasted reduction in energy consumption for both the EEDR base program and the Enhanced EEDR program.

As shown in the analysis of an Enhanced EEDR in Section 1.4, even with substantial energy replacement through conservation measures, TVA must still add new generation in the 2018-2020 time frame to balance resources with the projected load requirements.

Therefore, energy conservation cannot meet the projected capacity needs in the 2018-2020 time frame and, consequently, does not meet the identified need.

16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 n, 8,000 1 6,000 4,000 1 2,000 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

-Base Case -Enhanced Case Figure 2-14. Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Scenarios 2.4.2. Alternatives Requiring New GeneratingCapacity TVA also considered whether building new nonnuclear capacity would address the need for new capacity. Sources were examined alone and in combination to determine if the system capacity requirements could be met by other sources of energy.

58 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Fossil Fuel Energy Sources Primary fossil fuel alternatives to nuclear-powered electrical generation at the BLN site are coal-fired generation and natural gas-fired generation. In Energy Vision 2020 and other reviews, TVA assessed several types of impacts for both sources: air quality, waste management, land use, water use and quality, human health, ecology, socioeconomics, aesthetics, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice. The potential environmental impacts and merits of coal-fired or gas-fired generation have not materially changed since these options were evaluated in Energy Vision 2020. A coal-fired plant is not environmentally preferable to a nuclear plant, due primarily to impacts on air quality, waste management, and aesthetics. A natural gas-fired plant also is not environmentally preferable to a nuclear unit, due primarily to impacts on air quality. In addition, many of the construction-related environmental impacts of a nuclear unit at the BLN site have already occurred.

TVA has considered the conversion of the BLN site to an IGCC facility, as described in Energy Vision 2020 and analyzed in a subsequent site-specific EIS (TVA 1997).

Constructing an IGCC facility at the BLN site would not use existing assets at the BLN site to the same substantial degree as a nuclear unit, increasing environmental impacts directly and cumulatively. In addition, an IGCC facility emits C02, which makes it less environmentally desirable than nuclear generation. While the capture of C02 from an IGCC facility is technologically feasible, because C02 can be separated from the synthetic gas prior to combustion, further research and development is necessary to sequester the captured C02.

Wind Wind turbines are commercially available today ranging from approximately 250 watts to 5 MW. The average size of wind turbines installed in the U.S. in 2008 was 1.65 MW.

According to a Tennessee Wind Map and Resource Potential estimate from the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE 2010), approximately 4 GW of wind power capacity is available at a gross capacity factor of 28 percent, based on a turbine hub height of 100 meters. This hub height is taller than most current turbine installations, which typically use between 50 to 80 meters. However, 100-meter hub heights are technically feasible with current wind turbine technology, and taller turbines help make wind power more economically feasible in low wind areas such as the TVA service area. Taking into account electrical losses, environmental factors, and wake effects (of surrounding wind turbines), the net capacity factor for the TVA service area is projected to be 24.4 percent, which is on the low end of the typical range of net capacity factors for modern utility-scale wind power projects of 25 percent to 40 percent.

Using the above-average turbine capacity and capacity factor, approximately 23 200-MW wind projects, each consisting of 121 wind turbines, would be required to generate the annual electricity equivalent to that of the proposed nuclear facility. The 23 projects in total would require an estimated 436 square miles of land, of which 5 percent would be occupied by turbines, access roads, switchyards and other equipment, and the remainder would be required for adequate spacing to minimize wake effects of surrounding turbines. The required area is more than half the size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

This estimate assumes that the demand for electricity is present at the time the generation is available from the wind turbines, which is impractical to assume. Energy storage can be coupled with wind power to simulate a profile comparable to base load generation. A compressed air energy storage (CAES) facility could capture the power of the wind during low load times and utilizes it during higher load times. The wind turbines provide the power Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 59

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site to compress the air into a storage volume, such as an underground salt cavern or aquifer.

The compressed air is discharged from the storage volume into a set of gas turbines that are fired with natural gas. The efficiency of the turbines is improved because compression of the inlet air is provided by the CAES facility instead of by the turbine itself.

The only operating CAES system in the U.S. is the McIntosh Power Plant in Alabama.

Using the same operating parameters as those in the McIntosh Plant, about 2,310 wind turbines, rated at 1.65 MW each, along with over 45 million British thermal units (BTU) of natural gas consumption per year would be required to generate annual base load electricity comparable to that of the proposed nuclear facility. The land requirement for wind technology, coupled with the impacts to air quality from the combustion of natural gas, make wind power with CAES less environmentally preferable to a nuclear plant. In addition, CAES technology is still in the demonstration phase and is not technologically mature.

Solar Generation from solar power is available in two different technologies: concentrating solar power (CSP) and photovoltaic (PV). CSP technologies (i.e., solar thermal plants using parabolic troughs, power tower, etc.) were not considered in TVA's analysis due to the low rate of delivery of solar radiation within the TVA territory. Direct solar radiation in Memphis is approximately 4.4 kilowatt-hour per square meter per day (kWh/m 2/day), which is below the minimum level of 6.75 kWh/m 2/day required for a viable CSP generating facility. Solar PV can make use of both direct solar radiation and diffuse horizontal radiation, which is one reason PV is technically feasible in more areas of the United States than CSP technologies.

The average solar radiation for PV technology was estimated from National Renewable Energy Laboratory's solar radiation map for the western portion of the TVA region as 4.9 kWh/m 2/day. The solar PV capacity factor in the western portion of the TVA service region is calculated at 17 percent, which is equivalent to approximately four hours of usable solar radiation available each day. Some days have more or less solar radiation available, but this assumption is used to simulate base load operation in the discussion below.

To match the generation profile of a nuclear plant, solar PV generation is assumed to be stored in batteries that generate electricity during periods of no or low solar radiation.

Battery storage systems used for energy management are those that have a deployment duration exceeding one hour. Commercially available systems come in standard unit sizes, ranging from 250 kilowatts (kW) to 2 MW. Systems of batteries are assembled to meet the needs of a particular project. Currently one of the biggest battery storage systems installed for energy management applications has 34 MW power capacity with six hours of storage capacity. A sodium sulfur (NaS) standard battery size of 2 MW with six hours of storage capacity and an electrical efficiency of 70 percent was used for the purposes of this evaluation. The battery system will be recharged from the PV modules during daylight and will be discharged when the PV power is not available. Batteries with a rating of 2 MW per battery were used. A solar to electric efficiency of 8.6 percent is typical for the complete PV panel and battery system.

The total installed land area required for commercial PV on a fixed 30-degree tilt support structure with appropriate spacing between panels for roads and to avoid shadow effects is estimated to be 5.9 acre/MW. Approximately 193 50-MW PV facilities with a total footprint of 57,000 acres (about 89 square miles) would be required to generate electricity equivalent to that of the proposed nuclear facility. The large land area requirement for such a PV system makes the option less environmentally preferable to the proposed nuclear plant.

60 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Biomass Biomass power plants use organic matter to generate electricity. It is one of the few renewable power options that can be operated at a relatively high capacity factor (85 percent) and is "dispatchable," meaning that its generation can be planned and scheduled much like a conventional fossil-fueled unit. TVA is currently performing biomass fuel availability surveys in the region, and a comprehensive study is underway to assess the feasibility of converting one or more coal-burning units to biomass fuel. Biomass generation was a qualifying technology in TVA's request for proposal issued in 2008 for renewable resources. However, no competitive bids sourced from biomass were received.

This may suggest doubt in the market place about the sustainability of biomass generation in the TVA region at reliably competitive prices.

Agricultural and forest resources provide the most prevalent form of biomass fuel available in the TVA region. These include agricultural "crop" residues (i.e., by-products of harvest),

dedicated energy crops (i.e., switchgrass on Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] lands),

forest residues (i.e., waste products from logging operations) and methane gas by-products from livestock manure. Biomass resources, such as primary milling residues (i.e., by-products of commercial mills), secondary milling residues (i.e., by-products of woodworking and furniture shops), urban wood residues (i.e., waste wood products from construction, demolition, and residential), and methane gas by-products from landfills and wastewater treatment facilities are not as prevalent in less densely populated regions such as the TVA service territory.

Agricultural residues by state and county were obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service. Data from 2006-2009 were averaged to estimate the typical crop production. It was assumed that 35 percent of the total gross residue is available for collection, leaving the remaining residue on the land to ensure healthy land and soil quality. Dedicated energy crops by state and county were estimated from data obtained from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The data compiled by the FSA include total CRP acreage by county. The land within the TVA service region can yield 5.0 dry tons of switchgrass per acre. Switchgrass production was calculated over the land area, assuming that 100 percent of CRP land is devoted to switchgrass.

Forest and primary milling residues by state and county were obtained from the U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station's Timber Product Output Reports (USFS 2007). Data from 2007 were used and are the most recent available. Reported volumetric data are converted to mass using a uniform density factor of 25 pounds per cubic foot of forest product. Residues from primary wood-using mills are classified as utilized and unutilized.

Most primary milling residues in the TVA region are classified as utilized and are assumed not to be available for biomass power generation. Secondary milling residues, urban wood residues, and methane gas amounts by state were obtained from a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report (NREL 2005) and scaled to the area of each state within the TVA region.

The capacity and energy from each of the biomass fuel sources was estimated by assuming the most likely generation technology to be used. A stoker or bubbling fluidized bed technology with a heat rate of 15,000 BTU/kWh was assumed for solid fuel. For methane gas as fuel, an internal combustion engine at a heat rate of 12,500 BTU/kWh was assumed. Approximately 2,500 MW of biomass generation is estimated from agricultural and forest resources. Some 210 MW of biomass generation is estimated from unutilized Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 61

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site primary and secondary mill residues and urban wood residues. Another 60 MW is estimated from landfill and wastewater treatment methane sources.

Whether based on agricultural or forest resources, or population-based sources, biomass fuel is dispersed and must be collected and processed for use in biomass generating units.

Consequently, the cost of collection system infrastructure and diesel fuel generally limits biomass collection to a 50-mile radius, which in turn limits plant capacity to a maximum of 30-50 MW. Biomass generating units with required emissions controls provide about the same capacity factor and environmental impacts as a small coal plant. A biomass-fired plant is not environmentally preferable to a nuclear plant due primarily to impacts on air quality, waste management, and the impacts of biomass fuel collection infrastructure.

Hydropower The DOE EERE study (DOE 2006) was used to develop an estimate of hydropower resources that are feasible for development within the TVA region. The EERE report estimates the megawatts available for development and, of those available, how many would be feasible to develop. Available megawatts are based on those sites that are not located in zones where hydropower development is unlikely. The available megawatts are also not colocated with existing hydropower plants. The determination of availability also did not consider ownership or control of available sites. The project feasibility criteria included such factors as land use and environmental sensitivities, prior development, site access, and load and transmission proximity.

The TVA service territory encompasses much of the state of Tennessee and portions of neighboring states. The portion of available annual average hydropower in each state was determined by estimating the number of sites within the TVA coverage area for that state as compared to the number of sites in the entire state. The amount of feasible megawatts in each state was estimated to be in the same proportion as the feasible to available megawatts in that state in total. Using this approach, the total feasible hydropower capacity is 843 MWa (MWa = annual generation/annual hours). None of the feasible capacity is from large power sources (>30 MWa). Seventy percent of the feasible hydro was small hydro (1 MWa <Pa <30 MWa), and 30 percent was low power resources (<1 MWa). Low power resources include conventional technology, ultra low head and kinetic energy turbines, and micro-hydro power.

Compared to nuclear generation, new hydropower has lower capacity factors and more severe environmental impacts. Also, feasible new sites for hydroelectric facilities are limited.

2.4.3. Considerationof OtherAlternatives and Combinationof Alternatives Combining alternatives could achieve an energy profile similar to base load operation.

There are many possible combinations of the coal, gas, solar, wind, biomass, and hydro alternatives described above. Combinations can utilize storage technology with wind or solar technology or augment the variability of wind and solar power with the dispatchability of fossil generation (coal and gas) or biomass generation.

A storage technology other than CAES that could be combined with wind generation is pumped storage. TVA has an existing 1,600-MW pumped storage plant at Raccoon Mountain, near Chattanooga, Tennessee. Excess energy from lower cost generating resources is used to pump water from Nickajack Reservoir to the upper reservoir during periods of low power demand. The pumps are reversible and utilized as turbines to 62 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 produce power using water from the upper reservoir during periods of high demand.

Additional pumped storage sites are available in the TVA region and could be developed in place of CAES to store excess wind energy from off-peak periods and produce power in periods when wind power is not available. Pumped storage plants require 2,000 to 3,000 acres for the upper pool, the generating plant, and a lower pool if another reservoir is not available. The environmental impacts associated with construction of a pumped storage plant are typical of projects of this scope and size, including recreation and scenic impacts,. potential disruption of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, cultural resource impacts, and socioeconomic impacts. Operational impacts include environmental impacts of the operation of thermal plants that might be used to supply power to the plant in pumping mode.

Renewable generation also could be combined with fossil or generation instead of a storage technology to provide energy when renewable resources are not available. A natural gas-fired plant generally has fewer environmental impacts than a coal-fired plant.

But the natural gas-fired facility alone has environmental impacts that are greater than nuclear, particularly those related to the emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

As a result, the combination of a natural gas-fired plant and wind, solar, or hydro facilities would have environmental impacts that are equal to or greater than those of a nuclear facility.

Each of the potential combinations discussed above requires large land areas and/or has impacts to air quality due to combustion of natural gas or biomass. Therefore, the environmental impacts of combination alternatives are less preferable to those of the proposed nuclear facility.

2.4.4. Summary TVA has concluded in Section 1.4 that new generating capacity is necessary to maintain system reliability. TVA's existing generating supply consists of a combination of existing TVA-owned resources, budgeted and approved projects (such as new plant additions and uprates to existing assets), and/or power purchase agreements. This supply includes a diverse combination of coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas and oil, market purchases, and renewable resources designed to provide reliable, low-cost power while reducing the risk of disproportionate reliance on any one type of resource.

TVA hasconsidered alternatives to nuclear-powered generation, including those that do not require new generating capacity. Purchasing additional power from other generators was not addressed further because it is already part of TVA's portfolio of resources, transfers environmental impacts to another location, involves additional potential impacts on transmission if sources are outside the TVA service area, and has increased risk components to TVA-owned and controlled resources. Power uprates are not sufficient by themselves to meet forecasted capacity needs. Even with substantial energy replacement through conservation measures, TVA must still add new generation to balance resources with the projected load requirements.

The addition of other types of generating capacity as an alternative to nuclear capacity was also evaluated and included fossil fuel energy sources as well as renewable energy sources. In general, coal-fired and natural gas-fired power was found not to be environmentally preferable to a nuclear plant due primarily to impacts on air quality, waste management, and aesthetics.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 63'

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar have significant land requirements to generate electricity comparable to that of a nuclear facility. Additionally, to provide generation profiles similar to a nuclear unit, they must be coupled with energy storage capacity, which increases the land requirement to compensate for additional efficiency losses or with fossil-fueled generation, which increases the impact on air quality. Biomass as a renewable fuel can be used to provide base load power provided adequate fuel supply exists; however, the air quality impacts are much greater than nuclear resources.

Hydroelectric power has been concluded to be less environmentally preferable given its low capacity factors, environmental impacts, and the limited availability of feasible new sites in the TVA territory.

2.5. Alternative Sites Considered Alternative sites and selection of the BLN site for the construction and operation of a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility (BLN 1&2) were discussed. in TVA's 1974 FES (TVA 1974a). The COLA ER (TVA 2008a) most recently addressed site screening and selection, alternative sites, and selection of the BLN site for nuclear generation of electricity with AP1000 units. In addition to the COLA ER alternative site analyses, TVA submitted the following supplemental white papers to the NRC in 2008:

• "Descriptions of Existing Facilities and Infrastructure for Alternative Sites to the Selected Bellefonte Site," June 2008 (TVA 2008c).

" "Criteria and Basis for Comparative Ratings Among Alternative Brownfield and Greenfield Sites," August 2008 (TVA 2008d).

• "Site Screening Process: Information Complementary to Subsection 9.3.2 of the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, COLA Applicant's Environmental Report,"

August 2008 (TVA 2008e).

2.5.1. Identification and Screening of PotentialSites The consideration of alternatives is required by NEPA and 10 CFR §51.45. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) siting guide (EPRI 2002), the industry standard for site selection, was used as a general guideline in site selection analysis for the COLA. The EPRI guide's stated objective of site comparison is "to identify and rank a relatively small number of candidate sites for a more detailed study, with the goal of selecting a preferred site from among candidate sites."

TVA's region of interest (ROI) for the COLA ER was and remains the TVA power service area, as previously described in Section 1.4 of this FSEIS.

One of the earliest, integral, and most critical components of planning for future energy facilities has been the identification and selection of suitable locations for their construction and operation. Historically, and on an ongoing basis through the 1960s and 1970s, TVA conducted initial high-level screening assessments of more than 200 sites for electricity generation across the TVA service area, The TVA service region (ROI) was divided into five system study areas that roughly coincided with the concentration of load centers in the region. This division does not represent a real physical division in the power service area, because all these areas are strongly interconnected with transmission lines. One purpose of this approach was to identify superior sites within each area that would reduce the need for construction of additional transmission to meet load requirements. This concern remains valid today, but load growth across the TVA service area, as well as improved 64 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 transmission system characteristics and ability for load balancing, now further reduces that concern.

Four general criteria were used to guide potential site identification.

1. Potential site areas that exhibited a suitable combination of engineering, environmental, land use, cultural, and institutional characteristics for power plant siting.

2. Potential site areas of a developable size (1,000 acres or more).

3. Manageable number of potential sites.

4. Relatively even distribution of potential sites along the Tennessee River corridor and within the defined TVA service area.

Broad-based interdisciplinary TVA teams that reflected power planning, transmission, environmental, and financial interests conducted these screening efforts. These studies identified sites that warranted further detailed investigations. Of these, eventually nine sites were selected for purchase as inventory for nuclear generation sites: BLN, Yellow Creek (YCN), Hartsville (HVN), Phipps Bend (PBN), WBN, BFN, SQN, Murphy Hill (MH), and Saltillo (STO).

TVA constructed multiunit nuclear generation facilities at three of the above sites: BFN near Athens, Alabama; SQN near Chattanooga, Tennessee; and WBN near Spring City, Tennessee. In addition, TVA obtained construction permits from the NRC to build nuclear units at the BLN, YCN, HVN, and PBN sites. Site preparation and construction of nuclear units proceeded in varying degrees at each of these sites. Due to slowing demand for power, TVA subsequently halted construction at the latter three sites (HVN, PBN, and YCN) and conveyed portions of them to other governmental entities for potential industrial development. TVA has maintained the MH and STO sites as part of its inventory of potential generation sites. However, due to uncertainties regarding foundation conditions, the STO site was eliminated from consideration in the COLA ER.

The COLA ER site analysis initially considered the BLN site and the other seven potential sites for new nuclear generation: the three operating TVA nuclear sites (BFN, WBN, and SQN), three brownfield sites (HVN, PBN, and YCN), and one greenfield site (MH). These eight sites had already undergone evaluation and documentation under NEPA, and except for MH, they had also undergone licensing evaluation and documentation processes of the AEC (predecessor to the NRC). The eight potential sites considered in the COLA ER are described further in the paragraphs below.

Operating Nuclear Plants The BFN site is situated beside Wheeler Reservoir on the Tennessee River and has three operating nuclear reactors. The BFN site has two substantive limitations regarding its potential for co-locating an additional nuclear reactor. First, the operation of an additional nuclear unit, even operating in closed-cycle mode, would increase thermal loading to Wheeler Reservoir, which could exacerbate the existing challenges to managing the three BFN units in compliance with thermal limits, especially during low flow or drought conditions. Second, because the BFN site is approximately 850 acres and already accommodates three operating nuclear reactors, the site is not large enough to accommodate an additional nuclear reactor. Additional property would have to be acquired.

Because of these site issues, TVA decided that co-locating an additional nuclear reactor at Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 65

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site BFN is not advantageous and does not consider the BFN site a viable alternative for new nuclear generation.

The WBN site comprises approximately 1,100 acres situated on the northern end of Chickamauga Reservoir in east Tennessee and has one operating nuclear reactor, WBN Unit 1. TVA is currently completing the partially constructed WBN Unit 2. A delay in completing WBN Unit 2 would likely have resulted in overlapping construction of the AP1000 units. This overlap would have unnecessarily affected not only project management resources, but produced greater strain on plant operations, local community services, and infrastructure. It was also anticipated that once WBN Unit 2 was completed and operating, the combined total thermal discharges to the river could often approach allowable NPDES thermal limits. Therefore, co-locating an additional nuclear unit at the site would exacerbate existing thermal loading and could potentially affect the operation of WBN Units 1 and 2. Because of these site issues, TVA decided that co-locating an additional nuclear reactor at WBN is not advantageous and does not consider the WBN site a viable alternative for new nuclear capacity for the 2018-2020 time frame.

The SQN site is situated beside Chickamauga Reservoir and has two operating nuclear reactors. The SQN site has two substantive limitations for co-locating an additional nuclear reactor. First, as in the case of BFN and WBN, the SQN site has a small thermal discharge margin that would be exacerbated by co-locating an additional nuclear reactor there.

Second, because the SQN site is approximately 630 acres and already accommodates two operating nuclear units, the site is not large enough to accommodate an additional reactor.

Additional property would have to be acquired. Because of these site issues, TVA decided that co-locating an additional nuclear reactor at SQN is not advantageous and does not consider the SQN site a viable alternative for new nuclear capacity for the 2018-2020 time frame.

Because TVA concluded that co-location at existing nuclear sites (BFN, SQN, or WBN) is not an acceptable alternative for reasons related to thermal issues, unavailability of adequate land, the inability to make beneficial use of existing assets, and large-scale changes underway on site, the three operating nuclear plants were eliminated from further consideration in the COLA ER alternative site analysis.

Brownfield Sites TVA selected four brownfield sites (BLN, HVN, PBN, and YCN) and one greenfield site (MH) as candidate sites in its ROI for potential siting of a new nuclear facility in the COLA ER, which also reviewed each of these sites in detail. For each of the four brownfield sites, construction permits had been obtained under the regulations and evaluation procedures of the period. The respective historical review documents are as follows:

" Final Environmental Statement, Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units I and 2 (TVA 1974a)

• Final Environmental Statement, Hartsville Nuclear Plants (TVA 1975a)

• Environmental Report, Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant Units I and 2 (TVA 1977a)

• Final Environmental Statement, Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (TVA 1978b)

The BLN site is located beside Guntersville Reservoir on the Tennessee River near the town of Hollywood and city of Scottsboro. Construction activities at BLN were deferred in 1988. The BLN site is reviewed at length in this FSEIS and the COLA ER.

66 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 The former HVN site is situated on the north shore of Old Hickory Reservoir on the Cumberland River in Smith and Trousdale counties, Tennessee. Construction permits were issued for two nuclear plants (Plants A and B) with two units each. The HVN site nuclear units were cancelled in 1983 (Plant B) and 1984 (Plant A).

The former PBN site is located on the Holston River in Hawkins County, Tennessee.

Construction at PBN was cancelled in 1982.

The former YCN is located on the Yellow Creek embayment of Pickwick Reservoir (Tennessee River). Construction at YCN was cancelled in 1984.

Although nuclear plant construction was never completed at any of these sites, the brownfield sites offer some of the advantages of an operating nuclear site (e.g., existing infrastructure and facilities, prior screening and NEPA review, available site characterization information). However, because the HVN, PBN, and YCN sites, or portions thereof, were sold for industrial development, TVA would need to reacquire portions of the industrial parks. This would impact existing industrial uses on developed areas of the sites.

Transportation corridors to all four of the sites were constructed to facilitate construction of the nuclear plants.

Greenfield Site The MH site consists of approximately 1,200 acres located in northeast Marshall County, Alabama, on the southern bank of Guntersville Reservoir. Part of the site was graded for a coal gasification project. No other development has occurred on this site to date, and it is currently designated by TVA for natural resource conservation purposes. The MH greenfield site was chosen and evaluated as a site that is representative of other greenfield sites that TVA has previously evaluated. The environmental impacts of construction and operation of a nuclear power generation facility at a greenfield site would be similar to or greater than those at a brownfield or partially developed site. The greenfield site (MH) had been evaluated for a coal gasification project for which TVA prepared an FEIS. This project was cancelled after TVA had done some site grading. The respective historical review document is Final Environmental Impact Statement, Coal GasificationProject (TVA 1981 a).

2.5.2. Review of Alternative.Sites The alternative site review compared the five candidate locations to determine whether any alternatives are obviously superior to the proposed BLN site. The analysis considered Safety Criteria (geology, cooling system suitability, plant safety, accident effects, operations effects, transportation safety); Environmental Criteria (proximity to natural areas, construction-related effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecology, and wetlands, operations-related effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecology); Socioeconomics Criteria (construction-and operations-related effects, environmental justice, land use, cultural resources); and Engineering and Cost-Related Criteria (water supply, transportation, transmission, and site preparation). Portions of the studies, data, and conclusions of the initial evaluations of each candidate site were used to support this comparison. The sites were evaluated in each area of comparison and given a numerical rating scale of 1 to 5 (least suitable to most suitable). No weighting factors were applied to these criteria. The review process is discussed in detail in the COLA ER, and in the 2008 TVA white papers cited above (TVA 2008c, TVA 2008d, and TVA 2008e).

The alternative sites analysis compared the BLN site with the four alternatives to determine if there was an obviously superior location among the candidate sites. A simultaneous Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 67

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site comparison considered the additional economics, technology, and institutional factors among the candidate sites to see if any was obviously superior. Based on the comparison, there were no obviously superior sites among the candidate sites. The BLN site was selected as the preferred site for additional nuclear generation for the reasons described below.

" Alternative nuclear, brownfield, and greeniield sites are not environmentally preferable to the BLN site. Construction and operation of a new nuclear plant at each of the alternative sites would entail environmental impacts that are equal to or greater than those at the BLN site.

• Existing facilities and infrastructure at the BLN site (e.g., transmission lines, intake and discharge structures, cooling towers, switchyard, barge dock, rail spur, and roads) allow TVA to maximize assets that are currently underutilized, reducing the amount of construction material needed, construction costs, and environmental impacts associated with construction of infrastructure.

" A construction permit for a B&W pressurized water reactor was previously issued for the BLN site. There is no reason to believe the BLN site would not also be suitable for an AP1 000 advanced passive pressurized light water reactor.

" TVA siting program studies do not show appreciable differences in most attributes for the sites that were considered in the alternatives analysis. However, the BLN site has several advantages. The BLN site remains under TVA ownership. In addition to allowing the beneficial use of existing assets, the BLN site was rated second highest with respect to the availability of cooling water, as river flow past the BLN site is approximately three times that of PBN and more than twice the flow past HVN. Environmental data were already updated as part of the EIS for potential tritium production at the BLN site (DOE 1999).

2.6. Transmission and Construction Power Supply The following is a description of the current transmission system associated with the BLN site, the system needs in response to the proposed action, and the types of activities these improvements would entail. This SEIS provides a programmatic-level review of the transmission lines affected by the alternatives. Prior to conducting transmission line upgrades, site-specific reviews would be conducted to further investigate potential effects to the environment. If warranted, additional NEPA documentation would be prepared.

2.6.1. Descriptionof Current System and Needs Transmission infrastructure, including corridors and switchyards, to support operation of a nuclear plant at the BLN site was identified, reviewed, and evaluated in the earlier environmental review documents prepared by TVA and the AEC for the original facility encompassing BLN 1 &2. That review and evaluation incluled siting data for the potential corridors identified by TVA. The AEC subsequently approved and issued *aconstruction license for BLN 1 &2 and the supporting transmission infrastructure into and at the site. The approved transmission system was constructed before the plant entered deferred status.

The existing 500-kV switchyard constructed on the BLN site has been deenergized for a number of years. Four 500-kV transmission lines (the Widows Creek-Bellefonte #1 and #2 500-kV lines, the Bellefonte-Madison 500-kV line, and the Bellefonte-East Point 500-kV line) and two 161-kV transmission lines (the Widows Creek-Bellefonte 161-kV and the Bellefonte-Scottsboro 161 -kV) now terminate in the BLN switchyard. The section of the 68 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 500-kV lines going into BLN are not energized at present but would be reconnected to the TVA system and energized if the nuclear plant is built and operated. The two 161 -kV lines, which are underbuilt (i.e. lines strung on the same structures) on portions of the Bellefonte-Madison 500-kV and the Widows Creek-Bellefonte #1 500-kV lines, are energized and currently connect Widows Creek Fossil Plant (WCF) generation to the TVA transmission system. None of the power being transmitted is generated on the BLN site.

The Widows Creek-Bellefonte #1 and #2 500-kV lines would require uprating (see Subsection 2.6.4). Sections of the Bellefonte-Madison 500-kV and Bellefonte-East Point 500-kV only need to be connected and reenergized. Right-of-way (ROW) vegetation management on the deenergized 500-kV transmission line segments would be brought back to current TVA standards for energized lines. Any needed maintenance on the line would be performed, and any ROW clearing needed to meet TVA and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) standards would be carried out. The Widows Creek-Bellefonte and the Bellefonte-Scottsboro 161 -kV lines would not need to be changed to support operation of BLN.

In addition to the lines coming into the switchyard, there are six 161-kV lines and one additional 500-kV line that are located elsewhere. The proposed actions related to the transmission system are the same under Alternative B (B&W unit) and Alternative C (AP1000 unit). These lines would be reconductored and/or uprated, as described in Subsection 2.6.4.

2.6.2. ConstructionPower Supply The Bellefonte Nuclear Construction Substation was constructed in 1974 as a temporary 46-4.16-kV substation to support the construction of BLN 1&2.

In 2007, TVA retired the Bellefonte Nuclear Construction 46-kV Substation. Subsequently, TVA contracted with North Alabama Electric Cooperative to provide electric service to the BLN site. A 2-mile, 13-kV three-phase circuit has been constructed by North Alabama Electric Cooperative to provide this service. No additional work is expected to be necessary to supply construction power for the proposed BLN unit.

2.6.3. Alternatives Considered In order to accommodate the delivery of power produced from a single nuclear unit at the BLN site, an InterconnectionSystem Impact Study (TVA 2009b) was carried out for the TVA transmission system. This study evaluated the incremental impact of the proposed new generation facility at the BLN site on the TVA power system during various loading conditions. Transmission network upgrades are required ifoverloading with the new generation is at least 3 percent more than the loading without the new unit. The study assumed operation of the new unit at full capacity and standard operational contingencies on the remainder of the transmission system.

The study projected line overloadingand recommended upgrading the electrical capacity of the overloaded transmission lines. As a result, the two alternatives for the transmission line system are the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternative. No new transmission lines would be needed under these transmission alternatives, and therefore no additional ROW would be required.

. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 69

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current maintenance status and activity would be continued. TVA routinely conducts maintenance activities on transmission lines, which includes removal of vegetation in ROWs, pole replacements, installation of lightning arrestors and counterpoise, and upgrading of existing equipment.

Transmission lines are inspected by aerial surveillance using a helicopter and by ground observation. These inspections are conducted to locate damaged conductors, insulators, and structures, and to report any abnormal conditions that might hamper the normal operation of the line or adversely impact the surrounding area. During these inspections, the condition of vegetation within the ROW, as well as vegetation immediately adjoining the ROW is noted. These observations are then used to plan corrective maintenance or routine vegetation management, which would consist of felling "danger trees" adjacent to the cleared ROW and controlling vegetation within the cleared ROW. Any trees located off the ROW that are tall enough to pass within 10 feet of a conductor or structure (if they were to fall toward the line) are designated as danger trees and would be removed.

Regular maintenance activities for vegetation control occur on a cycle of three to five years.

Transmission corridors are managed to prevent woody growth from encroaching on energized transmission lines and potentially causing disruption in service or becoming a general safety hazard. This periodic vegetation management is conducted along ROWs to maintain adequate clearance between tall vegetation and transmission line conductors.

Prior to these activities, TVA biologists and cultural resource specialists conduct a Sensitive Area Review (SAR) of the transmission line area (including the ROW) to identify any resource issues that may occur. A description of the SAR process is contained in Appendix D. These reviews are conducted on a recurring basis that coincides with the maintenance cycle, to ensure that the most current information is provided to the organizations conducting maintenance on these transmission lines.

Because TVA's transmission system comprises approximately 16,000 ROW miles, it is not possible to field survey every mile of ROW. Therefore, TVA utilizes the best tools available to determine the likelihood of any listed plant or animal inhabiting the section of line under review. TVA maintains a database of more than 30,000 occurrence records for protected plants, animals, caves, heronries, eagle nests, and natural areas for all 201 counties in the entire TVA power service area. All protected species and natural areas that are present, or are potentially present, in transmission line ROWs are taken into consideration when conducting these transmission line reviews. Wetland information maintained by TVA includes National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) wetland maps for the entire power service area. Soil survey maps are also used to identify potential wetland areas. The TVA also maintains records of known archaeological sites and routinely gathers information from the seven-state power service area.

TVA staff examines videos of the transmission line corridors to determine the kinds of habitats present in the project area. Aerial photographs, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, and low-altitude flyovers are used to detect the presence of sensitive areas that meet habitat requirements for rare species of plants or animals. TVA staff then overlay the ROW with records of sensitive plants and animals, NWI maps, county soil surveys, and other available data in order to identify areas that may require alternative maintenance practices. The standard TVA criteria and guidelines are then applied to make conservative vegetation and/or land management recommendations to the maintenance project managers.

70 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 TVA is responsible for many miles of transmission lines that cross aquatic habitat and therefore has procedures in place for ROW maintenance to protect aquatic species.

Aquatic biologists review county lists and database records to determine the potential presence of protected animals. Once an occurrence Or likely occurrence is identified based on presence of habitat, the.area is delineated on TVA maps and assigned a color and corresponding restriction class. Biologists make recommendations specific to the situation, and specialists consult as appropriate.

Management of vegetation within the cleared ROWs uses an integrated vegetation management approach designed to encourage low-growing plant species and discourage tall-growing plant species. A-vegetation reclearing plan would be developed for each transmission linesegment based upon the periodic inspections described above. The two principal management techniques are mechanical mowing, using tractor-mounted rotary mowers, and herbicide application. Any herbicides used would be applied in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. 'Only herbicides registered with the EPA would be used.

Where transmission lines cross natural areas, TVA uses geographic information system (GIS) software to draw boundaries of potentially affected areas including a 0.5-mile buffer.

After reviewing available data and consulting with the area specialist or resource manager, potentially affected management areas are assigned a restriction class. Examples of restrictions include hand clearing only and selective spraying of herbicides to shrubs or tree saplings.

Activities associated with the construction, maintenance, and use of TVA transmission lines can be subject to the National Historic PreservationAct (NHPA) and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800. TVA cultural resources staff review the areas of maintenance activity on a case-by-case basis under the SAR process to identify whether the undertaking has any potential for adverse effects on cultural resources, such as historic structures or buried prehistoric sites. If the undertaking haspotential for adverse effects, then procedures for avoidance or mitigation of the effects are put into place. Avoidance is generally feasible for transmission line maintenance projects when cultural resources are present. GIS is used to generate a map showing areas that are sensitive from the standpoint of cultural resources, and a code is applied that indicates restrictions on methods of clearing (e.g., no mechanized equipment). These maps are provided to the transmission lines crew supervisors so that crew supervisors will be aware of the necessary restrictions. Restrictions are typically required when a previously recorded cemetery, prehistoric mound, or earthwork occurs within 0.25 mile of the transmission line.

Action Alternative Under the Action Alternative, the 500-kV switchyard and 500-kV transmission lines would be reenergized, and other existing transmission lines would be refurbished and upgraded as described in Subsection 2.6.4. If either Alternative B (B&W) or Alternative C (AP1000) were selected and implemented for the purposes of nuclear generation, the Action Alternative for the transmission system would also be selected. The scope of work for the transmission Action Alternative is the same under Alternatives B and C, and the affected transmission line ROWs are shown in Figure 2-15.

2.6.4. ProposedRefurbishments and Upgrades Under the Action Alternative This section provides a description of the switchyard and transmission line upgrades under the Action Alternative. To accommodate the proposed nuclear unit operation, the 500-kV Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 71

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site switchyard would need to be refurbished. The 500-kV breakers and switches would be replaced and two additional 500-kV breakers would be added in the Widows Creek 500-kV switchyard. The generators connected to the TVA system would be equipped with a power system stabilizer (SERC Reliability Corporation [SERC] 2008) and out-of-step tripping relay for generators. Other components of the switchyard's protection and control system would be refurbished or replaced. The 161-kV switchyard would not require refurbishment.

The proposed transmission line upgrades consist of two types: uprating and reconductoring.

Uprates typically consist of retensioning or "resagging" of the existing electrical transmission line conductor. This results in a greater clearance above ground, allowing the line to operate safely at a higher temperature and, thus, increasing the current-carrying capacity of the transmission line. A total of 100.5 miles of transmission line would be uprated.

Reconductoring consists of replacing the conductor with a new conductor capable of carrying higher current levels. A total of 121.4 miles of transmission line would be reconductored.

All resagging or reconductoring activities would be confined to the existing ROWs. The following activities are typically involved in resagging or reconductoring.

" Engineering- Engineering analysis is conducted to determine where resagging or reconductoring is needed and to determine the nature of system changes needed to ensure optimum line sag, given the expected load, conductor temperature, diameter and stress/strain properties, and seasonal changes in the weather.

o Equipment and Crews - Field crews equipped with hoists, climbing gear, trucks, heavy equipment, testing and measuring equipment, safety items, communications equipment, and other necessary items are assembled on site.

• Line Resagging - If needed, existing conductors are disconnected from insulators, placed in stringing blocks, and then raised to the proper level, retensioned, and secured. Heavy equipment is sometimes used at each location where the conductors are "pulled" to accept the horizontal forces incurred after line disconnection. Vans and trucks for transporting ancillary equipment and workers would be used to access points along the ROW where resagging activities are required.

72 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Figure 2-15. Transmission Line Rights-of-Way Affected by the Action Alternatives Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 73

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site

" Line Reconductoring - If conductor replacement is needed, existing conductors are disconnected from insulators, placed in stringing blocks, and then connected to the new conductor, which is to be installed. The old conductor is then pulled onto empty conductor reels, simultaneously pulling the new conductor into place. As discussed above, heavy equipment is sometimes used at each location where the conductors are "pulled" to accept the horizontal forces incurred after line disconnection. Vans and trucks for transporting ancillary equipment and workers would be used to access points along the ROW where these activities are required. In some cases, the existing conductor could be removed to reels and the new conductor pulled into place on empty structures using ropes or cables. The retired conductor would be reused elsewhere or recycled.

" Structure Addition/Replacement - In the event taller structures were needed, the existing structures would be removed, and new ones would be placed along the existing ROW. Structures that have been removed would be disposed of according to TVA's Power System Operations Environmental Compliance Program. Steel from retired structures would be maintained in inventory for future use or recycled.

If additional structures were needed, they would be placed where needed along the existing ROW. Holes would be excavated with digging/boring equipment, and a crane would lift the new/replacement structure into place.

• Anchoring - In very rare instances, bulldozers are used to accept the horizontal forces incurred with line disconnection while the structure serves as a pivot. This occurs when the structure by itself would not resist the toppling forces incurred when one of the lines is detached. However, other existing lines attached to the affected structures/towers almost always serve to sufficiently stabilize them, thereby negating the need for additional support or anchoring.

• Logistics - Vans, trucks, bulldozers, and other equipment would be used to access points along the ROW where resagging or reconductoring activities are required.

This equipment would not, except under very rare circumstances, traverse the ROW, but instead enter from and exit to the nearest roadway using the most convenient and established ROW access point. Best management practices (BMPs) would be in place for upgrade activities, and ground surveys would take place to identify wetland areas where avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. Movement of equipment would normally utilize access routes that are currently in place and presently being used by line maintenance crews.

• Crews and Schedule - The typical field crew and equipment involved in a line resagging or reconductoring operation numbers four bulldozers, four trucks, two equipment operators, and two supervisors. Actions at pulling points would be repeated until the entire line segment has been resagged. TVA construction crews would follow BMPs during the resagging or reconductoring process to minimize erosion and stream impacts and would comply with applicable TVA procedures.

The ROWs that are occupied by the transmission lines affected by this proposal have typically been kept clear of tall vegetation with the exception of portions of the Widows Creek-Bellefonte #1 and #2 500-kV, the Bellefonte-East Point 500-kV, and the Bellefonte-Madison 500-kV transmission lines. Mowing and other maintenance activities have been conducted periodically on these lines. Some of these lines were reviewed for 74 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 environmental effects prior to the time of initial construction. As a result, it is less likely that the activities associated with transmission line upgrading would impact significant resources than if new transmission lines were constructed on new ROWs. However, field studies of the transmission line ROWs to be upgraded would be carried out to better confirm if any significant environmental resources or other sensitive features are present. If these are identified, appropriate actions would be taken to avoid or minimize impacts to these resources during upgrade activities.

A total of nine transmission lines or segments of these lines would require reconductoring.

or uprating. Sections of two 500-kV lines need to be connected and energized. A list of the 11 TVA transmission lines that would be affected under the Action Alternative is provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Transmission Lines Affected by Proposed Operation of a Single Nuclear Unit at the BLN Site Transmission Line Miles of Identification Proposed Upgrade/Action Line Number Affected Reconductor to 954 aluminum 1 Wartrace-N. Tullahoma Tap 161-ky conductor, steel supported 180°C (446-518 (ACSS) @

megavolt-ampere 10.9 jMVA])

2 Sequoyah-Widows Creek 500-kV Uprate to 100°C capability (2,598 MVA) 49.5 3 Widows Creek-Raccoon Mountain #2 Reconductor to 2x956 ACSS @ 180°C 25.3 161-kV (957-1,068 MVA) 4 Widows Creek-Oglethorpe #2 161-kV1 Reconductor to 954 ACSS @ 180°C (446-518 MVA) 30.5 1

5 Widows Creek-Oglethorpe #3 161-kV Reconductor to 954 ACSS @ 180C 30.6 (446-518 MVA) 2 6 Widows Creek-Bellefonte #1 500-kV Uprate to 100°C capability (2,598 MVA) 29.8 7 Bellefonte-Madison 500-kV2 Energize 12.4 8 Widows Creek-Bellefonte#2 500-kV3 Uprate to 100'C capability (2,598 MVA) 21.2 9 Bellefonte-East Point 500-kV3 Energize 3.4 10 Browns Ferry-Trinity 161-ky Reconductor to 1,590 ACSS @ 180'C 10.0 (669-734 MVA) 10.0 11 Browns Ferry-Athens 161-kV Reconductor to 1,590 ACSS @ 180'C 14.1 11______ _ Browns Ferry-Athens 161 -kV(669-734 MVA) 14.1 1The Widows Creek-Oglethorpe #2 and #3 161-kv lines are co-located.

2 Portions of the Widows Creek-Bellefonte #1 and Bellefonte-Madison 500-kV lines share a common ROW.

3Portions of the Widows Creek-Bellefonte #2 and Bellefonte-East Point 500-kV lines share a common ROW.

2.7. Comparison of Alternatives In this section, proposed actions anticipated under the three alternatives for nuclear plant completion or construction and operation are compared based upon the information and analysis provided in Sections 2.1-2.3 and Chapter 3 (Nuclear Generation Alternatives on the Bellefonte Site). Additionally, two alternatives (No Action and Action) for upgrading electric transmission lines associated with the proposed nuclear plant are compared, based upon the information and analysis in Section 2.6 and Chapter 4 (Transmission System Alternatives).

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 75

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site A comparison of the design, construction, operation, and cost characteristics of the generation alternatives is presented in Table 2-2. Potential environmental impacts of the three alternatives are summarized in Table 2-3. Potential environmental impacts of the transmission system alternatives are summarized in Table 2-4. Mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize impacts of the proposed action are listed in Section 2.8.

In this review, TVA has found that few new or additional cumulative effects beyond those identified in earlier NEPA documents are expected to result from completing or constructing and operating a single nuclear unit at the Bellefonte site. As summarized in Table 2-3, only minor temporary or insignificant effects are expected for most of the resources considered.

As such, these effects are not expected to contribute to cumulative impacts on most affected resources.

2.7.1. Nuclear Plant Licensing and Construction Both the AP1 000 design and the partially completed B&W design will require NRC review and approval to obtain an operating license. The licensing process for the B&W units will continue under 10 CFR Part 50 (consistent with the current construction permits and all other TVA operating units), while the AP1 000 will be licensed under the newer NRC licensing regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 52. The construction permits for Units I and 2 have been reinstated by the NRC, and recently the NRC has confirmed that the Units 1 and 2 programs and procedures, including the QA records, successfully address the elements of the NRC's policy on deferred status, and have authorized TVA to transition BLN 1 and 2 to the deferred status. Consistent with the NRC policy, construction can be reactivated (assuming a TVA Board approval of a completion project) by issuing a letter to NRC at least 120 days before planned reactivation.

For the AP1 000, licensing of both construction and operation of the facility would be accomplished in a single proceeding. Because of this, significant construction activities cannot begin until the NRC issues the COL. Issuance of the COL is predicated on successful Design Certification of the AP1 000 amended design, currently under review by NRC. The Design Certification process is not under the direction of TVA, but is being accomplished independently by the design's owner. While this combined process provides additional confidence that a schedule can be met once the COL has been issued, the Design Certification process is outside of TVA's control. Consequently, the schedule for bringing a unit online using the COL process may be longer than the schedule for completing a single unit under 10 CFR Part 50.

Both designs will be reviewed in detail by the NRC to confirm that NRC regulation and guidance are met and that the health and safety of the public is protected. In addition, both designs will require a Regulatory Guide 1.200 compliant Probabilistic Risk Assessment.

Both of the designs are expected to have Probabilistic Risk Assessment results that are within the NRC published safety goals (NRC Policy Statement, "Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants,", 51 Federal Register 28044, August 4, 1986).

Both of the nuclear generation Action Alternatives, Alternatives B and C, would meet the future demands for power described in Section 1.4 above. Alternative A, No Action, maintaining construction permits in a deferred status, does not address the need for power.

Compared to the Action Alternatives, Alternative A would result in no new construction, no operation of a nuclear plant, and no changes to the electric transmission lines or supporting equipment. Under Alternative A, maintenance, inspections, and security functions would continue as required so long as construction permits remain valid.

76 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-2. Summary of Generation Alternative Characteristics Characteristics Generation Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - B&W. Unit Alternative C - AP1000 Unit Licensing Regulation Not Applicable 10 CFR Part 50 10 CFR Part 52 Power generation capability Rated 3,600 MWt; 3,760 MWt stretch Rated 3,400 MWt; 3,415 MWt nuclear steam rating Electrical output Expected 1,260 MW Expected 1,100 MW Thermal efficiency 35 percent 32.4 percent Number of fuel assemblies 205 - 12 Feet length 157 - 14 feet length Plant Design Original design life Not applicable 40 years 60 years Engineered safety features Active shutdown and generators Passive core cooling system based upon cooling systemgrvtnualccltiadgravity, natural circulation, and

3 Enierdsft etrspowered by AC compressed gases CD Steam generator system Once-through - 500 superheated steam U-tube - saturated steam Cooling system Closed-cycle Closed-cycle Ultimate heat sink Guntersville Reservoir Atmosphere Duration of construction NApproximately 4.7 years (56 months) Approximately 6.5 years (two years site CD nNot applicable preparation and 54 months construction)

Peak on-site workforce Approximately 3,000 Approximately 3,000 Previously disturbed 400 acres 400 acres 400 acres

3 (approximate)

Project area Not Applicable 606 acres 606 acres

3 Minor reclearing and grading of previously* Clearing of about 50 acres of forested Site clearing/grading Negligible disturbed ground land, blasting, reclearing, and grading of CD previously disturbed ground Nocag- Activities include: replace steam generators, Activitiesdock, unloading include: upgrade off-site barge of construction Construction Completion or construction of o change refurbish or replace instrumentation and ulesdiverd ofBNsia barge an rouint ne vroseupetuprdcolntwr, cvarious equipment, modules delivered to BLN via barge and construction ofupgrade support cooling buildingstower, faiiisroutine completed on site, construction of support f smaintenance buildings, upgrade cooling tower support buildings demolished; no Severalmajorturbine Several buildings demolished, including Demolition Little to none building and administration complex Quantity of hazardous waste Not applicable 6.3 tons solid; 56.7 tons liquid 7.25 tons solid and liquid generated 10,000 cubic yards dredged from 1,200 Dredging None 11,100 cubic oyardsik dredged c from 1,960 feet feet of intake channel, from barge and 240dock unloading cubic yards 0

3-

-4

..4

Co haatrscs....____Generation Alternative

/* '.... , .. . . .....

.._A ' A -No.cti~A oA ' ' i&Charactist.t

" " Alternative B - B&W Unit . __ ... lni Alternative C -7 AP1000,Unit C AO i _ _ z Typical amount of water CD withdrawn from Guntersville 35,000 gallons per minute (gpm) 24,000 gpm Not applicable (0.2% of average river flow) (0.14% of average river flow)

Reservoir for plant cooling Typical amount of water approximately 23,000 gpm 8,000 gpm CD C::"

discharged to Guntersville 400,000 gallons (0.13% of average river flow) (0.05 % of average river flow)

Reservoir per quarter year Water consumption for plant 12,000 gpm 16,000 gpm 033 CD cooling Notapplicable (0.07% of average river flow) (0.10% of average river flow)

Size of thermal mixing zone CD plume in Guntersville Not applicable 250 feet from diffuser and extending the entire depth of the reservoir Reservoir

-D Temperature limits on Not applicable Monthly average 92 0F; daily maximum 95°F; maximum in-stream temperature increase no $-

Cln discharged water more than 50F above ambient water temperature CD)

Frequency of maintenance Not applicable Approximately 12-15 years as needed in Approximately 12-15 years as needed in dredging intake channel intake channel Number of on-site staff 50 Approximately 800 Approximately 650

~0 about 100 cubic Quantity of nonhazardous yards/year 500 tons/year 400 tons/year Operation CD solid waste generated (average)

Quantity of hazardous waste less than 100 kilograms Approximately 1,300 pounds (lb)/year (600 Approximately 1,300 lb/year (600 kg/year)

M (kg)/month kg/year)

Radiological effects of normal None Doses to the public from discharge of radioactive effluents would be a small fraction of the operations dose considered safe by the NRC (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I)

CD Number of months between Not applicable 18 18 refueling Number of refueling cycles in None 26 26 40 years None_26_26 Number of fuel assemblies (D

23 needed for 40-year operation Total spent fuel (metric tons 894 uranium [MTU]) for 40-year None 946 (946 MTU when normalized for the B&W operation generation capability--3,600 MWt)

Spent fuel discharged None 0.26 MTU/MWt 0.26 MTU/MWt (MTU/MWtl Cost Construction Not applicable $3,120 - $3,360/kilowatt electric (kWe) $3,300 - $4,900/kWe Operation and maintenance I Not applicable $.0131/kWh $.0126/kWh

Table 2-3. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Three Alternatives Under Consideration Attribute/Potential A lte rnati ve R e s o u r c e - .. .-.. . ... . .

Effects A- No, Action B- One B&W Unit C - One AP1000 Unit Temporary and minor impacts Temporary and minor effects from construction. from construction.

No impacts are anticipated to No impacts are anticipated to Chemical or thermal water supply from plant water water supply fromplant water degradation of surface use. use.

Surface Water water quality; changes to No impacts or changes Near-field and far-field effects Insignificant effects on water hydrology and anticipated. (e.g., cumulative) to water quality similar to Alternative B, CD2 surface water. quality associated with cooling but slightly less due to smaller water discharge are not amount of water withdrawal CD expected to be significant. and blowdown discharge.

M Minor impacts from chemical Minor impacts from chemical discharges. discharges.

0 No impacts expected to As with Alternative B, no impacts expected to D Chemical impacts to groundwater hydrology or groundwater hydrology or CD Groundwater changes groundwaterin use of quality; No impacts expected,. on site or use gonwtrhdooyo oal.Isgiiatipcstuse groundwater groundwater on site or chanes oflocally.

n us Insignificant impacts to locally. Insignificant impacts to groundwater. groundwater quality. No lo u ndw a ntitysN o cumulative effects expected. groundwater quality. No cumulative effects expected.

Minor impacts from construction CD, Minor impacts from and dredging.

CD No anticipated adverse Construction or construction and dredging.

modification to the impacts to the floodplain. located PMF and are above the structures All safety-related floodplain. All safety-related All safety-related structures PMP above the orand are located above the PMF MP drainage levels or are Floodplain and Flooding of the plant site structures are located and PMP drainage levels or flood-proofed to the resulting Flood Risk from the river, Town above the Probable abovelotheroProbableh are floodroofe leve levels. The new administrative Creek, or Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) resulting levelso building would be located above Maximum Precipitation and PMP drainage levels the 100-year and Flood Risk Pr t or are flood-proofed to the Profile elevations.

(PMP). ~~~~~resulting levels. N risk. uuaieefcst lo No cumulative effects to flood risk.

V CD N)

CD "4

0C:

C'n ResourceAttribute/Potential Alternative CD

___Resource . . Effects- A, -NdACtion B - One B&W Uhit C - O.neAPI000 Unit z Impacts to 12.2 acres of CD wetlands with no net loss of C)

Destruction of wetlands or wetland function due to in-kind C:

Wetlands degradation of wetland No impacts. No impacts. mitigation within the watershed, functions.

No indirect or cumulative CD impacts expected.

M, Effects similar to Alternative B CD Minor impacts to benthos from but slightly less dredging. (D dredging intake channel, to Destruction of aquatic aquatic communities from Impacts from thermal discharge C/) Aquatic Ecology organisms; degradation or detutinoAquaticEclgI No impacts. thermal discharge, and impingement and destruction of aquatic impingement, and entrainment minor and less than habitat. entrainment. Alternative B due to smaller intake water volumes.

~0 No cumulative effects No cumulative effects.

Similar to Alternative B. Minor Removal or degradation Insignificant impacts from direct impacts from removal of CD of terrestrial vegetation, minor vegetation clearing. No about 50 acres of forest and Terrestrial Ecology wildlife habitat, and/or No impacts. indirect or cumulative effects ative gras o idrect or wildife.expeted.native grass. No indirect or wildlife. expected. cumulative effects expected.

No impacts from site construction or runoff.

CD No impacts from site Little or no impact to Indiana construction or runoff. bats from removal of low-quality a, Adverse direct, indirect, and potential roost habitat with cumulative impaIcts to the pink some moderate-quality potential Mortality, harm, or mulat mpcs to thedpink roost trees.

Endangered and harassment of federally mse from dredi Threatened listed or state-listed No impacts. Adverse direct, indirect, and Species species including impacts Minor indirect effects from cumulative impacts to the pink to their critical habitat. stress of potential mussel host mucket from dredging and fish from thermal effluent; towing barges. Fewer negligible effect of individuals affected than under impingement/entrainment of Alternative B.

potential host fish. Operational impacts to pink mucket and other aquatic species same as Alternative B.

Attribute/Potential Alternative Resource Effects A - NoAction B - One B&W Unit .. C-OneAP1000 Unit Degradation of the values No direct or indirect impacts. No direct or indirect impacts.

Natural Areas or qualities of natural No impacts. Minor cumulative effects. Minor cumulative effects.

areas.

Degradation or elimination Minor impacts from Minor impacts from construction Dregradation oelimntieson Nconstruction and operation, and operation, noise, and Recreation of recreation facilities or No impacts. noise, and withdrawal of water. withdrawal of water. No opportunities. No cumulative effects. cumulative effects.

Archaeology and Damage to archaeological No impacts. No impacts. Mark and avoid No impacts. Mark and avoid Historic Structures sites or historic structures. site 1JA1 11. site 1JA1 11.

C, Construction of new buildings Minor, temporary impacts offset by removal of existing CD during .construction. Minor buildings; construction impacts 3 Effects on scenic quality, impact of vapor plume. minor. Minor impact of vapor (D plume.

Visual degradation of visual. No additional impact. Little or no additional impacts m resources.Liteonoadtoaimcs to scenic quality. Minor Little or no additional impacts to cumulative impacts to regional scenic quality. Minor 0

visual setting. cumulative impacts to regional 3 visual setting.

CD Small to moderate impacts Small to moderate impacts from from temporary noise during temporary noise during blasting

_0 Generation of noise at hydrodemolition and other and other construction.

a) Noise levels causing a nuisance No impact. construction.

to the community.

Minor impacts during Minor impacts during operation.

CD operation.

Changes in population, No impact. No substantial change in No substantial change in employment, income, and population; no significant population; no significant tax revenues. adverse effects; minor adverse effects; minor beneficial impacts. beneficial impacts.

Socioeconomics Disproportionate effects No impact. No disproportionate impact. No disproportionate impact.

and Environmental on low income and/or Justice minority populations.

Changes in availability of No impact. Minor to potential significant Minor to potential significant housing. adverse impacts during adverse impacts during construction; minor impacts construction; minor impacts during operation. Potentially during operation. Potentially CD apply measures to mitigate apply measures to mitigate demand for housing. demand for housing.

0o I')

C')

Resource Attribute/Potential Alternative Effects A - No Action B - One B&W Unit C - One AP1000 unit CD Effects on water supply, No impact. Minor and insignificant with the Minor and insignificant with the wastewater, schools, exception of significant exception of significant increase police, fire and medical increase in demand for in demand for schools during CD services, schools during construction; construction; moderate increase moderate increase in demand in demand for schools during for schools during operation. operation. CD Changes in land use, land No impact. No change in designated land No change in designated land acquisition, land use. Minor indirect impact use. Minor indirect impact from U)

CD conversion or road from increased residential use. increased residential use.

C, locations.

CD Elevated levels of traffic No impact. Impacts on transportation Impacts on transportation from construction corridors from construction corridors from construction workforce and deliveries. workforce and deliveries would workforce and deliveries would be minor on all roads except be minor on all roads except for for County Road33 where County Road 33 where 0

temporary minor to moderate temporary minor to moderate CD impacts are expected. impacts are expected.

Operational effects expected Operational effects would be to be minor, minor; impacts would be minor.

Cn CD)

Cumulative effects No impact. Minor impact, minor Minor impacts, minor CD cumulative effects. cumulative effects.

Quantity of construction waste No impact related to No direct or cumulative greater than under Alternative Solid and Generation and disposal construction; minor impacts; minor indirect impacts B. No direct or cumulative Hazardous Waste of solid and hazardous indirect impact of off-site during construction and impacts; minor indirect impacts waste. disposal in permitted operation from off-site disposal during construction and facilities, in permitted facilities. operation from off-site disposal Iin permitted facilities.

No adverse seismic effects No adverse seismic effects Seismology Seismic adequacy. No change. anticipated. anticipated.

Resource Attribute/Potential Alternative Resource . ... Effects A - No Action ... B - One B&W Unit C -One AP1000 Unit Radiological emissions Small radiological doses to Impacts would be similar to resulting in increases of No impacts expected. workers and members of the Alternative B.

air pollutants. public from routine radioactive emissions during normal plant operation. Releases would be well below the regulatory limits; impacts are expected to be insignificant. Calculated

-n Air Quality impacts from design-basis accident releases would be well below the regulatory limit.

(D and therefore insignificant.

3(D Gasoline and diesel Minor impacts from vehicular Minor impacts from vehicular emissions from vehicles No impacts expected. and equipment emissions, and equipment emissions, m controlled to meet applicable and equipment. controlled to meet applicable regulatory requirements. regulatory requirements.

0 Annual doses to the public well Annual doses to the public well Effects to humans and within regulatory limits; no within regulatory limits; no CD Radiological Effects nonhuman biota from No impacts expected observable health impacts. observable health impacts.

normal radiological Doses to nonhuman biota well Doses to nonhuman biota well releases. below regulatory limits; no below regulatory limits; no noticeable acute effects. noticeable acute effects.

CD, 0

-,o

C/)

Table 2-4. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of the Two Transmission Upgrade Alternatives CD Attribute/PotentialEffectsNAtci . . Alternative z

-Resource- M f *~N o A ctio n :f ,'

• A ctio n *

• 0 CD Chemical or thermal degradation of Minor, temporary impacts during Surface Water surface water quality; changes to No impacts. upgrade activities. Minor impacts Surfacegysurfaceqges water Water tduring routine maintenance. No hydrology and surface water use. cumulative impacts.

Chemical impacts to groundwater Minor impacts to groundwater quality Minor impacts to groundwater CD Groundwater quality; changes in use of from ROW maintenance, quality from ROW maintenance.

groundwater. CD Minor direct and indirect impacts from No impacts from ROW clearing; no Aquatic Ecology Degradation of water quality; ROW aintnanc.

ROW maintenance. Nomaintenance No cumulative as compared additional impacts of ROW to No Cl) destruction of aquatic organisms. impacts. Action.

CD)

-D Removal or degradation of terrestrial CD Terrestrial Ecology vegetation, associated wildlife No local or regional impacts. No local or regional impacts.

habitat, and wildlife.

m Endangered and Mortality, harm, or harassment of No effect and may affect Threatened Species federally listed or state-listed No impacts. determinations to some listed species. species.

0 3CID Destruction of wetlands or Wetlands degradation of wetland functions. No impacts. No adverse impacts.

Floodplains Construction or modification to a No floodplains affected. No adverse impacts.

a) Floodplains________ floodplain.

Minor direct impact to natural areas

_0 Natural Areas Degradation qualities of the areas..aesnery of natural values or No impacts; on ROWs, no impact to natural

2) areas nearby.

Recreation Degradation or elimination of Minor impact from refurbishing lines CD recreation facilities or opportunities. Noand routine maintenance.

Land Use Changes in land use and effects to No changes to current land use. Minor disruption during upgrade uses of-adjacent land. activities.

c oMinor short-term impacts during Visual degradation of visual resources. No impacts. construction and minor long-term impacts from taller structures.

Alternative Resource * ** ' Attribute/Potential TEffects

... ... ... .. NoActinnacion

.*i , , No-Action ... *. - 'A ction Potential for adverse impact to archaeological sites and/or historic structures. Effects would be Archaeology and Damage to archaeological sites or No impacts. avoided or mitigated in accordance Historic Structures historic structures. with memorandums of agreements (MOAs) developed in consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation' Officers (SHPOs).

Cn Changes, at local and regional scales, in the human population; CD Socioeconomics employment, income, and tax No impacts. Minor impacts during construction.

revenues; and demand for public services and housing.

Environmental Disproportionate effects on low

~0 Justice income and/or minority populations. No disproportionate effects. No disproportionate effects.

CD 3 Potential effects of electromagnetic No significant impacts from EMFs; CD fields (EMFs), lightning strike No impacts. no alteration of line grounding, minor Operational Impacts hazard, electric shock hazard, and no a o ofn dg o generation of noises and odors. noise, no odors.

(D 3

CD C)

CD CO N)

C"1

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Under Alternatives B and C, construction activities would incorporate existing facilities and structures and use previously disturbed ground where possible. Both a B&W and an AP1 000 unit would use the existing intake channel and pumping station, cooling towers, blowdown discharge diffuser, switchyard, and transmission system. Under Alternative B, a partially constructed B&W unit would be completed on previously cleared ground, and minimal new site clearing or grading would occur. The majority of the construction activities on plant systems and components would involve replacement or refurbishment of equipment contained within the current structures.

Under Alternative C, an AP1 000 unit would be constructed on a new nuclear island located on vacant ground within the BLN project area. Construction of one AP1 000 unit and associated structures is expected to require clearing of about 50 acres of forested land and reclearing and grading of previously disturbed ground. Site preparation would require blasting. The existing turbine building and the office and service buildings would be removed.

Although more site preparation and construction would be necessary under Alternative C, this would be offset by the somewhat simpler design and modern modular construction techniques used to construct the AP1 000 unit. Factory-built modules can be assembled at the site, significantly reducing both construction duration and construction site labor requirements. Therefore, the construction duration and site construction labor force for an AP1000 unit is comparable to the estimated duration and labor requirements to'complete one of the partially constructed B&W. units.

Under Alternatives B and C, initial dredging and periodic maintenance dredging would be necessary. The areas requiring dredging vary between the two alternatives. Alternative B would require the removal of about 10 percent more material from the intake channel than would Alternative C; it would also require dredging from the main river channel that would not occur under Alternative C. However, Alternative C would require dredging 240 cubic yards of material from the barge unloading area.

Potential effects to the environment from construction activities proposed under Alternatives B and C are described in Table 2-3.

2.7.2. NuclearPlant Operation The B&W and AP1000 alternatives are functionally very similar in that they are both pressurized light water reactors with a reactor vessel, reactor coolant pumps, a pressurizer, two steam generators, and a power conversion system consisting of high pressure and low pressure turbines, a generator, and feedwater system as illustrated in Figure 2-16. Both plants would generate comparable quantities of radioactive waste and use similar chemicals and processes for water treatment.

One of the most significant differences between these two systems is that the B&W plant utilizes once-through steam generators that produce about 50 degrees of superheated steam, whereas the AP1 000 uses a U-tube steam generator system that produces saturated steam. By utilizing a superheat design, working steam is supplied well above saturation points and can deliver working energy more efficiently. Therefore, a superheat cycle plant would, in general, provide more energy for useful work (turning a generator) than a comparable nonsuperheat cycle design. The ability to create superheated steam makes the B&W unit thermally more efficient. The efficiency of the B&W plant is 35 percent compared to 32.4 percent for the AP1 000.

86 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 I

0- TurbineSudi~

Source: TVA 2008a Figure 2-16.. Typical Pressurized Light Water Reactor - Reactor Power Conversion System and Reactor Coolant System Both the B&W and AP1000 would use closed-cycle cooling systems, discharging cooling tower blowdown via a diffuser in Guntersville Reservoir, requiring only a small amount of water compared both to the average flow and the minimum expected drought flow in the Guntersville Reservoir. The two plant designs differ in volumes of operating water flows (see Table 2-5). For a single B&W unit, intake water would make up 12,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for evaporation, plus about 23,000 gpm of cooling tower blowdown, resulting in a typical withdrawal from Guntersville Reservoir of 35,000 gpm (or 0.21 percent of the average flow through Guntersville Reservoir). For a single AP1 000 unit, intake water would make up for 16,000 gpm for evaporation plus about 8,000 gpm cooling tower blowdown, resulting in a typical withdrawal from Guntersville Reservoir of 24,000 gpm (or about 0.14 percent of the average flow through Guntersville Reservoir). Both plants would meet the same specifications for temperature of discharged water. The larger makeup and blowdown volumes for the B&W design would be partly offset by the lower evaporative losses and the expected 160 MWe increase in electrical production.

Table 2-5. B&W and AP1000 Water Use Percent Percent B&W 1 Average AP1000 3 - Average River Flow 2 River Flow 2 Condenser Circulating Water 420,000 gpm N/A 500,000 gpm N/A Flow Rate (Closed Cycle)

Evaporation (Consumption) 12,000 gpm 0.07% 16,000 gpm 0.10%

Blowdown (Discharge) 23,000 gpm 0.13% 8,000 gpm 0.05%

Makeup (Withdrawal) 35,000 gpm 0.21% 24,000 gpm 0.14%

2 B&W operating water flow rates source: TVA 1976; T. Spink, TVA, personal communication, March 2010.

Average River Flow at Bellefonte is 37,300 cubic feet per second (approximately 16,700,000 gpm). Source: P.

Hopping, TVA, personal communication, February 2010.

3 AP1 000 operating water flow rates source: TVA 2008a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 87

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site A comparison of spent fuel production for the B&W and AP1 000 is provided in Table 2-6. A comparison based on the number of fuel assemblies discharged over the 40-year lifetime can be misleading because of different fuel assembly length (B&W - 12 feet versus AP1 000

- 14 feet) and power level (3,600 MW versus 3,400 MW). Fuel is limited in its burnup to approximately 62,000 megawatt-days (MWD)/metric tons uranium (MTU). Allowing for power peaking factors, the average discharge burnup is expected to be approximately 50,000 MWD/MTU for both the AP1 000 and the B&W BLN plant designs. Because this fuel characteristic parameter is expected to be the same for both fuel designs, this indicates that the expected amount of fuel to be discharged is proportional to the amount of energy produced.

Table 2-6. Spent Fuel Quantity Determination for BLN Single Unit Operation BL BLN AP1000 Data Parameter BLN B&W BLN AP1000 Power for Normalized Core thermal power, MWt 3,600 3,400 3,600 Operating cycle length 18 months 18 months N/A Number of assemblies in the core 2051 1572 N/A Number of fresh fuel assemblies per refueling 803 644 N/A cycle Height of active fuel, feet 12 14 14 Number of refueling cycles in 40 years 5 26 26 N/A Number of fuel assemblies for 40-year operation6 2,285 1,821 N/A Total Spent Fuel (MTU) for 40-year operation 946 894 946

'(TVA 1978a) 2 (TVA 2008a) 3 (T A Keys, TVA, personal communication, September 3, 2009) 4 (TVA 2008a)

Forty years of operation covers 26 refueling cycles and 27 operating cycles. Spent fuel is discharged a total of 27 times from each unit, which includes the last cycle discharge of the entire core.

6 Number includes assemblies from 26 refueling cycles, plus assemblies in the core.

Another significant difference between the B&W and the AP1 000 designs is that the AP1 000 works on the concept that, in the event of a design-basis accident (such as a coolant pipe break), the plant is designed to achieve and maintain safe shutdown condition without any operator action and without the need for AC power or pumps. Instead of relying on active components such as diesel generators and pumps, the AP1000 relies on the natural forces of gravity, natural circulation, and compressed gases to keep the core and containment from overheating. The ultimate heat sink for the AP1 000 is the atmosphere, whereas the ultimate heat sink for the B&W is the river. These passive design concepts greatly simplify the design and construction of the AP1 000 plant and reduce its overall footprint. For example, the AP1000 uses far less equipment than a typical nuclear plant, as illustrated in Figure 2-17.

The B&W 205 unit is an evolution of the existing operating B&W 177 units. The design incorporates improved safety features to address lessons learned and NRC requirements resulting from the Three Mile Island event. In addition, both the B&W and the AP1 000 designs require a detailed Probabilistic Risk Assessment, and both of the designs are expected to have Probabilistic Risk Assessment results that are within the NRC published 88 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 safety goals (NRC Policy Statement, "Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants," 51 FederalRegister 28044, August 4, 1986).

50% Fewer 35% Fewer IUI 80% Less 45% Less 85% Less Valves Safety Grade Pipe Seismic Building Cable Pumps Volume Source: WEC 2009 Figure 2-17. AP1000 Simplified Design - Fewer Components As a result of the AP1000's design simplicity and significant reduction in safety-related systems and equipment, operations and maintenance costs for the AP1000 should be slightly lower than for the B&W unit, although partially offset by the B&W unit's higher thermal efficiency and generating capacity.

2.7.3. Transmission System Should a nuclear plant at the Bellefonte site become operational, electricity generated by the new plant would overload the existing transmission infrastructure. To address the projected overloading, TVA evaluated potential effects of implementing two alternatives; this evaluation is summarized in Table 2-4.

2.8. Identification of Mitigation Measures Mitigation of potential environmental impacts includes measures to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for adverse impacts. Mitigation measures have been identified in TVA's 1974 FES and subsequent environmental reviews. Those measures would be implemented as described. The AEC's 1974 FES (AEC 1974) includes a list of seven conditions for the protection of the environment during construction and operation of BLN 1 &2. After reviewing these conditions, TVA has concluded that these conditions either have been met during plant construction or will be addressed by required permits and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 89

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site authorizations. This supplemental document identifies mitigation measures to address impacts beyond those discussed in the earlier reviews. TVA will identify specific mitigations and commitments selected for implementation in the ROD for this project.

TVA has identified the following measures that could be implemented during construction or operation of a single nuclear unit at the Bellefonte site to address those potential impacts.

Completion of Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Unit If Alternative B or C were adopted, TVA would avoid disturbing archaeological site 1JA1 11.

The site would be fenced off and its location would be marked on BLN drawings. Prior to the adoption of any future modification to current project plans having potential to affect this site, site 1JA1 11 would be subjected to further testing to determine the extent and nature of adverse effects.

If either Action Alternative were implemented, TVA would review the availability of housing, traffic congestion, and impacts to schools during the construction phase to assess whether efforts to mitigate such impacts in Jackson County are needed. Such efforts could include housing assistance for employees, transportation assistance for commuting employees, or remote parking areas with shuttles.

If either Action Alternative were implemented, in accord with the results of formal Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, TVA would provide a total of $30,000 to be used for research and recovery of pink mucket If Alternative C were selected and implemented, TVA would conduct a survey to further investigate the presence of Indiana bats prior to clearing forest on the BLN site. The need for measures designed to avoid or minimize impacts to Indiana bats would be determined based upon results of the survey and in coordination with the USFWS.

If Alternative C were selected for implementation, TVA would compensate for wetland impacts caused by construction activities by purchasing wetland mitigation credits at Robinson Spring Wetland Mitigation Bank, which is located within the same watershed as the proposed impacts. TVA would determine the exact extent of wetland fill required and would obtain and comply with a Section 404/401 permit.

If Alternative C were adopted, preparation for the construction of an API 000 unit would also require blasting, which would cause temporary noise impacts. Potential mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the use of blasting blankets, notification of the surrounding receptors prior to blasting, and limiting blasting activities to daylight hours.

Transmission System Impacts Should TVA select Alternative B or C, the following mitigation measures could be implemented to address the potential impacts of the proposed transmission upgrades.

Federally listed and state-listed plant species have been previously documented along small portions of the transmission ROWs. Prior to implementing any ground-disturbing work on transmission ROWs, appropriately timed botanical surveys would be conducted to examine all sites where listed plant species have been previously reported to confirm whether the rare species are still present and the full extent of the plants in the ROWs. If survey results indicate listed plants are present in the project area, the following mitigation measures would be used to reduce or eliminate impacts to the species:

90 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Locations of areas with federally listed plant species would be noted in the transmission line and access road engineering design specification drawings used during the design and construction of the upgrades. TVA botanists would help fence these areas to ensure construction crews would avoid the sites. Depending on the species present, construction may be timed so work takes place during the dormant season when plants are less likely to be harmed by construction. Any new structures would be placed to avoid impacting these areas. Additionally, access roads and the associated vehicle traffic would be excluded from these areas.

• Areas where state-listed species occur in the project area would be avoided unless there is no practical alternative. Avoidance measures would be comparable to those used for federally listed plants.

Prior to implementing any proposed upgrade activities, TVA would conduct a ground survey to confirm the exact extent of any wetland areas located within the corridors proposed for upgrade. Pending this review, specific commitments may be placed on wetland areas to ensure no significant impacts or loss of wetland function occurs as a result of the transmission line upgrade activities. These commitments would result in avoidance strategies, minimization measures, or mitigation measures should wetland functions be compromised. Mitigation would be provided for any other activity that reduces the functional capacity of a specific wetland. BMPs would be in place for upgrade activities, and ground surveys would take place to identify wetland areas where avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. No significant impacts to potential wetland areas within the ROW would be anticipated from the transmission line upgrade.

• TVA would also evaluate the presence of historic structures and archaeological sites in areas to be disturbed. This evaluation would be guided by the memorandums of agreement (MOAs) with Georgia (executed April 29, 2010) and Alabama (pending) for identification and evaluation of historic properties. Instead of an MOA in Tennessee, TVA would use the phased identification and evaluation of historic properties pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4(b)(2). TVA would, in consultation with the SHPO (for which the property is located) and other consulting parties, develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications, that would avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties. Mitigation measures requiring data recovery for an archaeological site(s) would require a separate MOA developed in consultation with the SHPO and consulting parties pursuant 36 CFR Part 800.6.

2.9. Preferred Alternative On the basis of TVA's integrated assessment of the two alternatives (completing a B&W unit or constructing an AP1 000), completing Bellefonte Unit 1 (a B&W unit) has been identifed as TVA's preferred alternative. The assessments conclude that from financial, schedule, and risk-minimization perspectives, this is the preferred generation option. In support of the preferred alternative, the transmission system also would be upgraded.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 91

Page intentionally blank Chapter 3 CHAPTER 3 3.0 NUCLEAR GENERATION ALTERNATIVES ON THE BELLEFONTE SITE - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The BLN site has been the subject of several environmental reviews. The environmental consequences of constructing and operating BLN 1&2 (B&W units) were addressed comprehensively in TVA's 1974 FES and AEC's 1974 FES. Subsequent environmental reviews updated these analyses (see Section 1.7). By 1988, when TVA deferred construction activities, most of the land-disturbing construction effects had already occurred. The environmental consequences of constructing and operating BLN 3&4 (AP1000 units) were addressed.in the COLA ER,. Revision I (TVA 2008a). This chapter Updates the information contained in those earlier reviews; identifies any new or additional direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that could result from the completion or construction and operation of a single nuclear unit at the BLN site; and assesses the potential environmental impacts.

The investigations and analyses described in this chapter were conducted within the Bellefonte project area illustrated in Figures 2-1 and 2-12, unless otherwise specified. As noted in Section 2.0 and shown in updated Figure 2-1, the south security checkpoint has been added to the B&W project area. Additional fieldwork was conducted in February 2010 to assess the potential for effects to this small additional area to be disturbed. The effects were found to be insignificant.

The potential for additional construction and operational cumulative effects are considered in the following assessments. Cumulative effects of constructing and operating BLN Units 1&2 were considered in both TVA's and NRC's 1974 FESs. Cumulative effects are also considered in many of the documents incorporated by reference and/or tiered from for this supplement. Most notably, cumulative effects of spent fuel storage and transportation were addressed in CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999); cumulative effects of transportation of radioactive materials were addressed in NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975), and cumulative hydrothermal and water supply effects of TVA operations were addressed in the ROS FEIS (TVA 2004).

With the exception of Section 3.13, Socioeconomics, cumulative effects are discussed in the environmental consequences section along with direct and indirect effects. The cumulative effects on socioeconomics are discussed at the end of Subsection 3.13.11.

In response to public and agency comments on the DSEIS, several of the following sections, particularly plant water useglobal climate change, aquatic communities, socioeconomic effects, and radioactive emissions, have been revised.

3.1. Surface Water Resources 3.1.1. Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality 3.1.1.1. Affected Environment Guntersville Reservoir extends 76 river miles from Guntersville Dam in northeast Alabama (TRM 349.0), across the Alabama-Tennessee state line (TRM 416.5), to Nickajack Dam in southeast Tennessee (TRM 424.7). The Sequatchie River enters Guntersville Reservoir at TRM 422.7, just downstream of Nickajack Dam. Guntersville Reservoir has a drainage Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 93

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site area of 24,450 square miles, of Which 2,589 square miles are not regulated by upstream dams. The reservoir has a shoreline length of 890 miles, a volume of 1,018,000 acre-feet, and a water surface area of 67,900 acres at a normal maximum pool elevation of 595 feet mean sea level (msl). The width of the reservoir ranges from 900 feet to 2.5 miles.

Average flow (1976-2008) at Guntersville Dam is 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).

Consistent with the TVA Act, Guntersville Dam and Reservoir are operated for the purposes of flood protection, navigation, and power production, as well as to protect aquatic resources and provide water supply and recreation. During normal operations, the surface elevation of Guntersville Reservoir varies between 593 feet msl in winter and 595 feet msl in summer. During high-flow periods, the top of the normal operating elevation range may be exceeded to regulate flood flows. From mid-May to mid-September, TVA varies the elevation of Guntersville Reservoir by 1 foot to aid in mosquito population control. Because of the need to maintain a minimum depth for navigation, Guntersville is one of the most stable TVA reservoirs, fluctuating only 2 feet between its normal minimum pool in the winter and its maximum pool in the summer.

The BLN site at TRM 391.5 is located on a peninsula formed by the Town Creek embayment on the right (western) bank of Guntersville Reservoir (Figure 1-1). The Town Creek embayment borders the northern and western property boundaries of the BLN site.

Town Creek originates approximately 3 miles southwest of the BLN site and flows northwestward into Guntersville Reservoir at TRM 393.4. The drainage area of Town Creek at the BLN site is approximately 6 square miles.

The State of Alabama has designated the reach of the Tennessee River in the vicinity of BLN for public water supply, swimming and other whole-body water-contact sports, .and fish and wildlife use classifications. The state also assesses the water quality of streams in the state. Those not meeting water quality standards are listed in a federally mandated report, referred to as a 305(b) report (from the section of the CWA). This report is published in alternate years. The 2008 version of the report (ADEM 2008) lists two impaired tributary streams to Guntersville Reservoir, neither of which are in the immediate area of BLN: Town Creek (a different stream from the one at the BLN site), which enters the reservoir at TRM 361.5; and Scarham Creek, a tributary to Short Creek, the mouth of which is at TRM 360.5.

TVA has conducted the Vital Signs (VS) Monitoring Program on Guntersville Reservoir in alternate years since 1994. The VS program uses five metrics to evaluate the ecological health of TVA reservoirs: chlorophyll concentration, fish community health, bottom life, sediment contamination, and dissolved oxygen. Values of good, fair, or poor are assigned to each metric. Scores from monitoring sites in the deep area near the dam (forebay, TRM 350), midreservoir (TRM 375.2), and at the upstream end of the reservoir (inflow, TRM 420 and 424) are combined for a summary score. The data from these sites characterize the surface biological and water quality of the reservoir and the BLN site.

The ecological health condition of Guntersville Reservoir rated at the upper end of the fair range in 2008 (see Figure 3-1).. Guntersville's ecological health scores had fluctuated within the good range in prior years. The lower score in 2008 was largely because several ecological indicators at the forebay (dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, and bottom life) received their lowest scores to date. The lower scores may have been influenced by drought conditions that occurred in 2007 and 2008. Ecological health scores tend to be lower in most Tennessee River reservoirs during years with low flows, because chlorophyll concentrations are typically higher and dissolved oxygen levels are lower. As in past years, 94 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 scores for the ecological health indicatorsat the midreservoir and inflow locations were among the highest observed for all TVA reservoirs.

Figure 3-1. Guntersville Reservoir Ecological Health Ratings, 1994-2008 In 2008, the five individual metrics scored good or fair at all sites except for chlorophyll in the forebay station, which rated poor (Table 3-1). These metrics are briefly explained in the paragraphs that follow.

Table 3-1. Ecological Health Indicators for Guntersville Reservoir, 2008 Monitoring Dissolved Moitriong DOlged Chlorophyll Fish Bottom Life Sediment Locations Oxygen Forebay Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Midreservoir Good Good Fair Fair Good Inflow *

• Fair Good *

• Not measured at inflow station Dissolved Oxygen. Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels typically rate good at both monitoring locations, and the midreservoir continued to do so in 2008 (Table 3-1). However, the forebay received its first fair rating for DO, rating at the upper end of the fair range. This was because concentrations were low in a small area along the bottom of the reservoir in early summer.

Chlorophyll. Chlorophyll rated poor at the forebay and good at the midreservoir monitoring location. Chlorophyll concentrations were elevated at the forebay during several sample periods, likely a result of the low flow conditions in the reservoir. Chlorophyll ratings have fluctuated between good, fair, and poor at the forebay, generally in response to reservoir flows. Chlorophyll concentrations at the midreservoir monitoring location have consistently rated good.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement W5

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Fish. As in previous years, low catch rates contributed to fair ratings for the fish community at all locations. While the fish assemblage generally rates fair at the forebay and midreservoir, ratings at the inflow have fluctuated between good and fair and even poor in 2000 (one point from fair), the lowest score to date for the reservoir. This fish rating rebounded to good in 2002 and to a "high fair" in 2004, possibly indicating that the poor rating was an anomaly.

Bottom Life. Bottom life rated fair at the forebay and midreservoir and good at the inflow.

Bottom life typically rates fair or good at all monitoring locations. However, bottom life rated at the low end of the fair range at the forebay in 2008-lower than in previous years. The lower rating was due to the reduced density and diversity of organisms in the samples collected from the reservoir bottom.

Sediment. Sediment quality rated good at the midreservoir monitoring location because no polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or pesticides were detected, and no metals had elevated concentrations. The forebay rated fair because PCBs were detected. Sediment quality typically rates fair at the forebay due to the presence of one or more contaminants: PCBs, chlordane, or zinc. The sediment rating at the midreservoir has fluctuated between good and fair due primarily to chlordane, which was detected in 1996, 2002, and 2004; PCBs were detected at this location in 2002.

Fish Consumption Advisories. There are no fish consumption advisories on Guntersville Reservoir. TVA collected channel catfish and largemouth bass from the reservoir for tissue analysis in autumn 2004. All contaminant levels were either below detectable levels or below the levels used by the State of Alabama to issue fish consumption advisories.

3.1.1.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A No changes in the plant facilities or operations would occur under this alternative, and the NPDES permit would be maintained. Consequently, there would be no impacts or changes in current surface water conditions.

Alternatives B and C While both the B&W and AP1 000 involve some land-disturbing construction activities, land disturbances would be greater for the AP1000. As development of either alternative occurs, soil disturbances associated with access roads and other construction activities could potentially result in adverse water quality impacts. Improper water management or storage and handling of potential contaminants could result in polluting discharges or surface runoff to receiving streams. Erosion and sediment could clog small streams and threaten aquatic life. Improper use of herbicides to control vegetation could result in runoff to streams and subsequent aquatic impacts.

Precautions would be included in the project design, construction, operation, and maintenance to minimize the potential impacts. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would comply with state construction and runoff permit requirements. BMPs sufficient to avoid adverse impacts would be followed for all construction activities. Site grading and soil removal would be minimized to preserve and protect the environment and receiving waters. Clearing operations would be staged so that only land that would be developed promptly is stripped of protective vegetation. Mulch or temporary cover would be applied whenever possible to reduce sheet erosion. Permanent vegetation, ground 96 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 cover, and sod would be installed as soon as possible after site preparation. All natural features, such as streams, topsoil, trees, and shrubs would be preserved to the extent possible and incorporated into the final design layout. Sediment basins or other control options would be used to control sediment runoff. Surface runoff would be managed to avoid adverse impacts. Landscape maintenance would employ only EPA-registered herbicides used in accordance with label directions. These and other similar precautions would minimize potential construction impacts such that no mitigation measures would be necessary.

Under Alternatives B (B&W) and C (AP1 000), construction activities would incorporate existing facilities and structures and use previously disturbed ground where possible. Both a B&W and an AP1 000 unit would use the existing intake channel and pumping station, cooling towers, blowdown discharge diffuser, barge unloading dock, switchyard, and transmission system.

Under Alternative B dredging in the intake channel from the intake pumping station to the shoreline (a distance of approximately 1,200 feet) would result in removal of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of dredged material (Figure 3-2). Additionally, from the shoreline boom to the main river channel (a distance of approximately 760 feet), approximately 1,100 cubic yards of dredged material would be removed. Periodic maintenance dredging of the intake channel would be conducted in the future. No dredging in the area of the barge unloading dock would be required. Dredged material would be disposed of in an on-site spoils area above the 500-year flood elevation. During the dredging operation, temporary increases in turbidity are expected in the immediate vicinity. All appropriate permits would be obtained prior to dredging. No significant or long-term water quality impacts are expected. The steam generator replacement process could entail hydrodemolition using a high-pressure water jet to remove concrete. The process would use approximately 450,000 gallons of water, likely from the local municipal source, and would produce a water and concrete slurry. This one-time generation of wastewater would be captured, sampled, treated, and released through an approved NPDES discharge point.

Under Alternative C, there would be slightly less dredging (Figure 3-2). Dredging of the area between the intake pumping station and the shoreline would be the same as under Alternative B and there would be no dredging between the shoreline and the main river channel. Periodic maintenance dredging of the intake channel would be conducted in the future. Additionally, dredging in the area of the barge unloading dock would involve removal of approximately 240 cubic yards of dredged material. Impacts to water quality would be similar to Alternative B. Dredged material would be disposed of in an on-site spoils area above the 500-year flood elevation. During dredging, temporary increases in turbidity are expected in the immediate vicinity. As with Alternative B, all appropriate permits would be obtained prior to dredging. No significant or long-term water quality impacts are expected.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 97

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Legend N DOedge.'rea W+ E 0 500 i00W 1,500 -,OC S Feet Figure 3-2. Areas to be Dredged Under Alternative B (B&W) or Alternative C (AP1 000))

98 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 In summary, under Alternatives B and C, initial dredging and periodic maintenance dredging of the intake channel would be necessary. The areas requiring dredging vary between the two alternatives. Alternative B would require the removal of about 10 percent more material from the intake channel than would Alternative C; it would also require dredging out to the main river channel that would not occur under Alternative C. However, Alternative C would require a one-time dredge at the barge unloading area.

Construction of either a B&W or an API 000 unit is expected to result in temporary and minor impacts to surface waters. The proximity of the Tennessee River and the magnitude of the river flow provide a ready source of raw water of sufficient quantity to meet foreseeable needs, including the operation of a natural draft cooling tower. No cumulative construction impacts are anticipated.

3.1.2. Surface Water Use and Trends 3.1.2.1. Affected Environment Surface water supply withdrawals within the Guntersville Reservoir catchment area in 2005 totaled approximately 1,523 millions of gallons per day (MGD), or less than 6 percent of the average flow through Guntersville Reservoir (Bohac and McCall 2008). Table 3-2 identifies the water users, the supply source, and water demands in 2005 and projections for 2030.

The total return flow in 2005 was 1,501 MGD; thus, the net consumptive use was approximately 22 MGD.

Table 3-2. Surface Water Withdrawals in Guntersville Watershed 2005 T 2030 Rate Facility Name Source County, State Rate (MGD 1 ) I (MGD)

Public Systems Dunlap Water System Sequatchie River Sequatchie, Ten n.0.51 0.75 1.011 Monteagle Public Utility Laurel Lake Grundy, Tenn. 0.43 0.55 Jasper Water Dept. Sequatchie River Marion, Tenn. 0.47 0.59 South Pittsburg Water Guntersville Reservoir Marion, Tenn. 1.02 1.27 System Taft Youth Center Bee Creek Bledsoe, Tenn. 0.06 0.08 Tracy City Water System Big Fiery Gizzard Grundy, Tenn. 0.47 0.60 Whitwell Water Dept. Sequatchie River Marion, Tenn. 0.80 1.00 Albertville Municipal Short Creek Marshall, Ala. 11.64 14.46 Utilities Arab Water Works Board Guntersville Reservoir Marshall, Ala. 4.31 5.35 Bridgeport Utility Board Guntersville Reservoir Jackson, Ala. 2.36 3.12 North Marshall Utilities Guntersville Reservoir Marshall, Ala. 1.20 1.49 Northeast Alabama Water Guntersville Reservoir Marshall, Ala. 1.36 1.69 Scottsboro Water Board Guntersville Reservoir Marshall, Ala. 4.66 6.15 Section & Dutton Water Guntersville Reservoir Jackson, Ala. 3.06 4.03 Guntersville Water Guntersville Reservoir Marshall, Ala. 2.66 3.03 Works Fort Payne Water Works Guntersville Reservoir DeKalb, Ala. 0.47 0.60 Industrial Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Guntersville Reservoir Jackson, Ala. 0 48.00 / 36.002 Widows Creek Fossil Guntersville Reservoir Jackson, Ala. 1,476.30 1,476.30 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 99

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 2005 2030 Rate Facility Name Source County, State Rate1I Rate

._._ (aGO ) . (MGD,)

Plant Avondale Mills Guntersville Reservoir Jackson, Ala. 0.05 0.07 Shaw Industries Guntersville Reservoir Jackson, Ala. 0.20 0.28 Smurfit-Stone Container Guntersville Reservoir Jackson, Ala. 8.53 12.26 Irrigation 1.77 2.21 Total 1,522.57 1,584.13 1,571.31 Source: Bohac and McCall 2008 1 MGD = Millions of gallons per day 2 Estimated water withdrawal is 48.00 MGD for the B&W and 36.00 MGD for the AP1000.

3.1.2.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A No changes in the plant facilities or operations would occur under this alternative.

Consequently, there would be no impacts or changes in current surface water use at the BLN site.

Alternatives B and C As indicated in Table 3-2,the BLN water intake is one of 21 surface water withdrawals within the Guntersville Reservoir catchment area. All plant water, except for potable water, would be withdrawn from Guntersville Reservoir via the existing intake. Potable water would be supplied by the Jackson County Water Authority. Sanitary waste would be pumped through existing sewer pipes to the Jackson County Water Authority's County Road 33 wastewater treatment facility for treatment.

A 1,200-foot intake channel connects Guntersville Reservoir with the BLN intake pumping station (Figure 2-1). The station has four intake openings slightly more than 10 feet wide and approximately 36 feet high. The top of the openings is at elevation 592.75 feet and the bottom at elevation 557 feet. An intrusion barrier would be installed across the intake channel to provide security for the intake channel and pumping station. The pumping station would be protected by a trash rake and a traveling screen on each of the intake openings.

The approximate alignments of the intake conduit that would carry cooling water to the plant and the discharge conduit that would carry cooling tower blowdown back to the reservoir are shown for operation of the B&W units in Figures 3-3 and 3-4. The approximate alignments of the same conduits for an AP1 000 unit are shown in Figure 3-5. Both Action Alternatives use the same intake pumping station and the same blowdown conduit and diffuser.

Both the B&W and AP1 000 would use closed-cycle cooling systems, discharging cooling tower blowdown via a diffuser in Guntersville Reservoir, requiring only a small amount of water compared both to the average flow and the minimum expected drought flow in the Guntersville Reservoir. The two plant designs differ in volumes of operating water flows (see Table 3-3). For a single B&W unit, a total of 35,000 gpm (0.20 percent of the average flow) would be withdrawn from Guntersville Reservoir. About 12,000 gpm would be consumed by evaporation, and the remaining 23,000 gpm would be discharged to the reservoir as blowdown. For a single AP1000 unit, a total of 24,000 gpm (0.14 percent of the average flow) would be withdrawn, 16,000 gpm consumed by evaporation, and 8,000 100 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Legend ERCW' Supply CondJit - Coolinc Tower Blowdovmn Conduit N Cnrnd*emr CircrlAting Wator n op - - - niffimef Pipp Essential Ray Cooling Water W+ E 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 S Feet Figure 3-3. B&W Unit 1 Water Intake and Discharge Facilities Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 101

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Legend

- ERCWv SupFly Conduit - Cooling Tower Blowdown Conduit N

- Condenser Circulating Water Looo --- Diffuser Pipe

• Essential Raw Cooling Water W+E 0 500 1.000 1,500 2,000 S "MMMMG;--Feew Figure 3-4. B&W Unit 2 Water Intake and Discharge Facilities 102 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Legend ERCW* Supply Conduit Coding TRwer Blowdow, Concuit N i Condenser Circulating WAater Loop

• Diffuser Pipe Essertial Raw Cooling Water 0 500 1,000 1,500 2.000 S I i M"Feet Figure 3-5. AP1000 Unit 3 Water Intake and Discharge Facilities Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 103

Single Nuclear Unit atthe Bellefonte Site gpm discharged to the reservoir. Both plants would meet the same specifications for temperature of discharged water. Consequently, no water supply impacts or cumulative effects are expected from the construction or operation of either a B&W or an AP 000 unit.

The impacts of the proposed action on local water supply are further discussed in Subsection 3.13.5.

Table 3-3. B&W and AP1 000 Water Use B&W1 Percent Average2 Percent Average

_River River Flow AP1 Pe t Flow 2 Condenser Circulating Water N/A 500,000 gpm N/A Flow Rate (Closed 20,000 gpm Cycle)

Evaporation (Consumption)

Blowdown 12,000 gpm 0.07% 16,000 gpm 0.1%

(Discharge) 23,000 gpm 0.13% 8,000 gpm 0.05%

Makeup (Withdrawal) 35,000 gpm 0.21% 24,000 gpm 0.14%

27B&W operating water flow rates source: TVA 1976 and T. Spink, TVA, personal communication, March 2010.

Average River Flow at Bellefonte is 37,300 cfs (approximately 16,700,000 gpm). Source: P. Hopping, TVA, personal communication, February 2010.

3 AP1 000 operating water flow rates source: TVA 2008a.

3.1.3. HydrothermalEffects of Plant Operation 3.1.3.1. Affected Environment Closed-Cycle Cooling Water System Under both Alternative B and Alternative C, BLN would withdraw water from and discharge wastewater to Guntersville Reservoir to provide cooling water for the operation of one unit.

For a B&W or an AP1 000 unit, the proposed operation would follow the design strategy for BLN 1&2, which sought to minimize thermal impacts to Guntersville Reservoir by using a closed-cycle cooling system. Closed-cycle cooling systems are considered the "best technology available" to minimize hydrothermal, entrainment, and impingement impacts (see Section 3.5). The cooling system for the B&W unit is described in the 1974 FES (TVA 1974a), and the cooling system for the AP1000 is described in the COLA ER. Two natural draft hyperbolic cooling towers, one for each of the two units, were built for BLN 1&2. In a closed-cycle cooling system, waste heat removed from the steam cycle by the plant condensers is rejected to the atmosphere by evaporation in a cooling tower. The cool water exiting the cooling tower is then cycled back through the condensers for reuse.

In a closed-cycle cooling system, a small fraction of the condenser circulating water is continuously lost by evaporation and drift in the cooling tower. In this process, to control the concentrations of additives and natural minerals in the water, a small portion of the condenser circulating water must be continuously removed and replaced with fresh water supplied by the plant intake pumping station. The temperature of the water removed from the system, or blowdown, is the same as that of the cooling tower effluent, and would vary with wet bulb temperature and other meteorological conditions. For the proposed operation of either a B&W or an AP1 000 unit, cooling tower blowdown would be discharged to Guntersville Reservoir via the NPDES-permitted outfall Discharge Serial Number 003, shown in Figure 3-6.

104 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 The outfall includes an existing two-pipe multiport diffuser on the bottom of the river, as shown in Figure 3-7. The upstream pipe extends about 475 feet into the reservoir in an upstream direction at an angle of about 65 degrees from the shoreline. The diffuser section includes the last 45 feet of the pipe and is 36 inches in diameter. The downstream pipe is parallel to and 45 feet shorter than the upstream pipe. The diffuser section of the downstream pipe includes the last 75 feet of the pipe and is 42 inches in diameter. For both pipes, the outlets for the diffuser section are centered 22 degrees above the horizontal and point downstream.

Current NPDES Permit The NPDES permit, AL0024635, for the BLN site was renewed in November 2009, and the permit is next subject to renewal in November 2014. This permit is amended as new wastewater streams are identified. The NPDES permit establishes criteria that are protective of water quality for the receiving stream. For BLN, ADEM has established criteria to protect Guntersville Reservoir water quality for its designated uses as a drinking water source, recreation, and industrial use such as cooling.

Within the permit, point-source discharge outfalls are assigned a discharge serial number (DSN). For each discharge point shown in Figure 3-6, the NPDES permit establishes limitations as to the types and quantities of effluents, monitoring and reporting requirements, and required sampling locations. BLN is currently authorized to discharge as follows:

DSNO02: Impoundment pond discharge consisting of main plant area storm water runoff and fire and supply test water associated with electric power generation.

DSNO03: Diffuser discharge consisting of cooling tower blowdown and other wastewater resulting from electric power generation.

DSNO04: East culvert impoundment discharge consisting of storm water runoff.

DSNO05: Plant intake trash sluicing consisting of intake screen and strainer backwash and intake pumping station sumps/drains.

DSNO07: Simulator Training Facility treated sanitary, equipment room floor drains, and laboratory wastewaters.

DSNO08: Simulator Training Facility once-through cooling water, HVAC and atomic adsorption unit condensate, and fire protection system flush water.

DSNO09-015: Uncontaminated storm water runoff.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 105

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Date of Imagery:

June 15, 20U6 Legend NPDES Dischdige Pui [s Blefutile Nuek*i Pldit Site (TVA Piuperty Buuniddty)

Be N STVA Sampling Points = - Diffuser Pipe W+E C C2 2.4 S

D Mile Figure 3-6. Outfalls for NPDES Permit AL0024635 of November 2009 106 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 River flow (downstream) 430 feet River width approx 1630 ft Not to scale Figure 3-7. Diffuser for Blowdown Discharge, Outfall DSNO03 NPDES Permit Temperature Limits and Mixing Zone for Cooling Tower Blowdown Under the current NPDES permit, the discharge water temperature for the cooling tower blowdown is limited to a monthly average of 92°F and a daily maximum of 95°F (Table 3-4).

The mixing zone for this discharge is defined by the locus of points 250 feet from the diffuser and extending over the entire depth of the reservoir (TVA 1977c). Consistent with Section 316(a) of the CWA, the discharge temperature limitations (92 0 F/95°F) would ensure that the temperature at the edge of the mixing zone would not exceed 90 0 F, the temperature considered as protective of maintaining a balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and aquatic life (ADEM 1998; TVA 1982a). TVA would request a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 107

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site continuation of these temperature limits in the operational stages of the plant under Section 316(a). In addition to these limits, Alabama water quality standards prohibit the addition of artificial heat by a discharger that would cause the maximum instream temperature rise above ambient water temperature to exceed 50 F (ADEM 2008).

Table 3-4. NPDES Discharge Limits for BLN Outfall DSNO03 to the Tennessee River Effluent Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements Characteristic Units Daily Daily Monthly Measurement Sample Type Minimum Maximum Average Frequency SampleType

• Totalized or Flow MGD N/A Monitor Monitor Continuous Reor Recorder Temperature F N/A 95 92 Continuous Recorder or Tr I , Multiple Grabs Hydrothermal Modeling of Potential Heat Effects Potential near-field and far-field hydrothermal effects associated with the blowdown discharge were examined using two models: (1) CORMIX to examine near-field effects of the thermal plume near the diffuser and (2) CE-QUAL-W2 to examine far-field, reservoirwide effects within Guntersville Reservoir. CORMIX is an EPA-supported mixing zone model for assessment of regulatory mixing zones resulting from steady, continuous point source discharges (Jirka et al. 2007). CE-QUAL-W2 is a two-dimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water quality model for reservoirs (CE-QUAL-W2 1995). It models basic eutrophication processes to estimate the distribution and fate of constituents such as heat (water temperature), DO, nutrients, algae, organic matter, and sediment.

CORMIX was used to evaluate the near-field performance of the cooling system and diffusers (DSNO03) relative to thermal limits contained in the current NPDES permit as well as the state water quality standards for temperature rise (i.e., 95 0 F daily maximum and 92 0 F monthly average blowdown discharge temperatures from the NPDES permit, and 50 F instream rise at the end of the mixing zone above the ambient river temperature for the state water quality standards). The analyses encompassed worst-case conditions based on potential ranges for river flow, river temperature, meteorology, and plant operations.

The range of river flow was based on historical hydrology and the expected future operating policy for the TVA river system. The range of river temperature was based on historical measurements at various stations in Guntersville Reservoir, and the range of meteorology was based on local airport data. More than 30 years of data were examined for each factor (i.e., river flow, river temperature, and meteorology). With this information, the CORMIX model was used to predict the river temperature and plume dimensions at the edge of the 250-foot diffuser mixing zone. The following cases were identified as producing worst-case conditions in the receiving water (Loyd 2009).

Case 1. Maximum River Temperature Rise (March) - This condition would arise for a day with warm, humid weather occurring concurrently during a period when the river temperature is cold. Historical data indicate that this would likely occur in March.

The expected minimum ambient river temperature for March is about 41 'F. The expected highest wet bulb temperature for the same month is about 71.3°F.

Based on the performance of the plant cooling system, this would produce blowdown with a discharge temperature of about 86.4°F, which is 45.4°F above the minimum river temperature for March. This case was modeled using the expected minimum 24-hour average river flow for March, about 3,130 cfs.

108 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Case 2. Minimum 24-hour River Flow (April) - This condition would likely arise in a dry year, again for a day with warm, humid weather occurring concurrently during a period when the river temperature is cold The expected minimum 24-hour average river flow past the BLN site is about 190 cfs, occurring during reservoir filling in April. For the month of April, the expected minimum ambient river temperature is about 52°F, and the expected highest wet bulb temperature is about.76.2°F. Based on the performance of the plant cooling system, this would produce blowdown with a discharge temperature of about 90.4°F, which is 38.4°F above the minimum river temperature.

Case 3. Maximum Discharge Temperature (July) - This condition would likely arise in a hot, dry year, when humid "heat waves" produce both high ambient river temperature and reduced cooling tower performance. Historical data indicate that this would likely occur in July. The expected maximum ambient river temperature for July is about 89.5°F and the expected minimum 24-hour average river flow is about 3,760 cfs. The expected maximum wet bulb temperature is about 85.2°F.

Based on the performance of the plant cooling system, this would produce blowdown with a discharge temperature of about 97.7°F, which is 8.20F above the maximum river temperature. It should be noted that this discharge temperature is the maximum calculated value, and it lasted for only one hour out of a record of 33 years.

Case 4. Reverse River Flow - Periodically, reverse river flow occurs in the vicinity of the BLN site. These events are caused by variations in reservoir releases at Nickajack Dam and Guntersville Dam and are highly unsteady. The primary concern for reverse river flow is decreased diffuser performance and the possibility that the discharge may become entrained in the withdrawal zone for the plant intake. For this case, the analyses focused on conditions producing a maximum temperature rise in the river. Thus, the ambient river temperature and blowdown discharge temperature were the same as those for Case 1, 41 'F and 86.4°F, respectively, and occurred in March. To be consistent with the steady flow aspects of CORMIX, the average flow over the largest reverse flow event for March was examined. Based on the operating policy for the TVA river system, such an event is expected to last between five and six hours and contain an average river flow in the upstream direction of about 9,160 cfs.

It should be emphasized that for the geometry of the BLN diffuser summarized above, the CORMIX model is unable to predict the behavior of the thermal effluent for a river flow in the reverse (upstream) direction. As such, for Case 4, the simulatibns were made with the diffuser ports pointing upward in a vertical direction. This will bound the impact of the thermal effluent because the mixing for this geometry will be reduced compared to that with the ports pointing downstream in opposition to the reverse river flow. Reduced mixing would result in higher (bounding) temperature than would actually occur.

Model results for all four cases are summarized in Appendix E, Table E-1. Included are simulations for a B&W unit and an AP1 000 unit, both for operation of the 36-inch diffuser pipe and 42-inch diffuser pipe. It is emphasized that for a single BLN unit, the operation of the diffuser Would be limited to one or the other, but not both, of the diffuser pipes.

For both a B&W and an API 000, and for both diffuser pipes, Cases 1, 2, and 4 all meet the thermal criteria by not exceeding the 92 0 F monthly average and 95°F daily maximum blowdown temperatures and not exceeding the 50 F limit for instream temperature rise.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 109

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Case 3 produced a 97.7 0 F blowdown discharge temperature lasting one hour for both alternatives and both diffuser pipes. This exceeds the daily maximum blowdown discharge temperature limit of 95 0 F. However, the conditions producing this worst-case scenario included a combination of three factors that are unlikely to occur.simultaneously: (1) the most extreme one-hour period of meteorology, (2) the highest 24-hour average ambient river temperature, and (3) the lowest monthly average river flow, each from periods of record exceeding 30 years of data. In fact, in these records, all three factors never occur simultaneously. Hence, based on historical data, the probability of the blowdown temperature approaching 97.7°F is considered very low. For example, a frequency analysis of the plant cooling tower operation based on these data indicates that the duration of the blowdown discharge temperature approaching the 95 0 F thermal limit is of magnitude 0.04 percent of the time, an average of about four hours per year. During such occurrences, plant derates would be required to prevent a violation of the NPDES permit.

Given that derates would be used in the rare events that the blowdown discharge temperature approaches 95 0 F, the results in Table E-1 (Appendix E) also indicate that the temperature at the edge of the mixing zone is not expected to exceed 90'F, the temperature that has been determined to be protective of aquatic life (ADEM 1998; TVA 1982a). In this manner, the CORMIX computations confirm that enforcement of a 95 0 F limit at the blowdown discharge preserves the veracity of a 90'F limit at the edge of the mixing zone. The maximum width (758 feet vs. a full channel width of about 1,600 feet) and thickness (10 feet vs. a channel depth of about 25 feet) of the thermal plume at the edge of the mixing zone allows an adequate zone for passage of aquatic life and protection of" bottom-dwelling species.

An analysis of the data for expected river operating conditions suggests that reverse flows at BLN would typically last less than six hours. As summarized in Appendix E, Table E-1 (Case 4), the diffuser performance with reverse flows produced good dilution of the blowdown for both diffuser pipes and for both the B&W and AP1 000 alternatives. The maximum computed temperature rise for the edge of the mixing zone was 3.4°F for the B&W and the 36-inch diffuser pipe. It is emphasized that these results are consistent with the results from the physical model study of the diffuser pipes that was conducted as part of the design of the original plant (TVA 1977b). In the model, the diffuser was tested with a reverse flow of about 24,000 cfs and a blowdown temperature equivalent to a wintertime increase of 36°F above the ambient river conditions. The resulting temperature rise at the edge of the mixing zone measured in the model was about 3 0 F.

For extreme reverse flow events, effluent from the diffuser pipes could potentially travel upstream and reach the intake channel. In terms of the impact on the diffuser performance, such conditions are not expected to be significant due to two factors. First, the diffuser is designed and constructed to mix the thermal effluent across the river where it would tend to move upstream along the opposite side (TVA 1977c). Second, the duration of extreme reverse flow events are brief (i.e., of magnitude six hours) compared to the time required for the volume of diffuser effluent to significantly impact the temperature of ambient water in the river. CORMIX simulations suggest that any thermal effluent reaching the region of the plant intake channel would reside primarily in the surface layer of the river (e.g., upper 3 feet), making it unlikely to have a significant impact on the temperature of the water at the pump intakes, which are constructed to withdraw water from the bottom layer of the river.

However, given the fact that some of the diluted diffuser effluent could possibly reach the plant intake withdrawal zone, future administrative controls may be necessary for the operation of the plant and/or the operation of the river system should other nonthermal 110 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 constituents of the blowdown occur in high enough concentrations to create an unacceptable impact on the plant and/or environment (TVA 2008a).

CE-QUAL-W2 was used to assess potential far-field impacts to water quality in Guntersville Reservoir. The two-dimensional model segments the reservoir longitudinally and vertically into computational elements. The water in each element is assumed to be fully mixed with uniform water quality. Input for the model includes meteorology, hydrology, and inflow water quality. The model assumes a seasonal pattern of flows, temperatures, and water quality parameters throughout the reservoir.

The reservoir model was calibrated for 1999 (a typical flow year) and 2007 (the driest year of record and containing above normal temperatures). Four cases were simulated: (1) a reference case without the, WCF and without a BLN plant; (2) a base case with only WCF; (3) a case with WCF and a B&W unit at BLN; and (4) a case with WCF and an AP1 000 unit at BLN.

The model results, shown in Appendix E, Tables E-2 and E-3, provide an estimate of thermal effects on reservoir water temperatures (i.e., beyond the diffuser mixing zone), DO concentrations, and algae biomass. Results are shown for four reservoir segments:

1. Upstream of WCF intake (TRMs 409.5-410.7).

2. Upstream of BLN intake (TRMs 393.0-393.9).

3. Downstream of BLN discharge (TRMs 389.0-390.0).

4. Guntersville Reservoir forebay (TRMs 349.8-350.5).

Comparing the reference case (no plant at WCF or BLN) with the base case (a plant at WCF but no plant at BLN) indicates a thermal effect from the WCF plant. The mean temperature increase in the 2007 April-September time period ranges from 1.6°F upstream of the BLN intake to 0.1 OF at the Guntersville forebay. In comparing the two proposed alternatives for operating a single unit at the BLN site with having no unit at BLN (base case), there is essentially no change in the 1999 or 2007 downstream temperatures, DO concentrations, or algae biomass. This is primarily because the volume of blowdown from a BLN unit for the two alternatives is small compared to the natural volume of water flowing down the river. The only observed differences are (1) a 1999 maximum day temperature increase of 0.1'F for each alternative upstream of the BLN intake and in the reservoir forebay for 1999 and 2007, and (2) a DO decrease of 0.1 milligrams per liter for an AP1 000 on the maximum day in 1999 at the reservoir forebay. There were no changes in seasonal mean values for temperature, DO, or algae biomass.

As discussed in Subsection 3.16.3, TVA has studied the sensitivity of the river and power systems to extreme meteorology and climate variations (Miller et al. 1993). In terms of water temperature, the studies evaluated the response to changes in meteorology for a typical mainstream reservoir like Guntersville Reservoir. The results found that based solely on changes in air temperature, the average (April through October) natural water.

temperature in a mainstream reservoir could increase between 0.3°F and 0.5°F forevery I°F increase in air temperature. An assessment of potential climate change in the Tennessee Valley suggests that air temperatures could increase 0.80C/1.4 0 F by 2020 and up to 4 0C/7.2 0 F by 2100 (EPRI 2009b). For an increase in air temperatures of 2 0C/3.6°F during the first 30 years of operation of a BLN unit, the potential increase in water temperatures in Guntersville Reservoir could be from 0.50C/1.0°F to 1.10 C/2.0°F. Such a temperature rise would impact the operation of a BLN generating unit. For example, the frequency of events where the blowdown discharge temperature approaches the NPDES Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ill

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site limit of 95°F would increase, and the number of unit derates necessary to maintain compliance would increase.

3.1.3.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A No changes in the plant facilities or operations would occur under this alternative.

Consequently, there would be no impacts or changes in current surface water conditions.

Alternative B Under this alternative, one B&W unit would be completed and operated. The following conclusions are based on the near-field and far-field model assessments of thermal discharges from the BLN outfall DSN003 diffusers. The CORMIX near-field model assessed compliance with the current Alabama NPDES and water quality criteria (i.e.,

discharge temperatures not to exceed limits of 92 0 F monthly average, 95°F daily maximum, or 50 F increase over ambient conditions). The CE-QUAL-W2 far-field model assessed potential cumulative effects on Guntersville Reservoir.

The CORMIX near-field results indicate that thermal effluent requirements would be met at full load, except during infrequent hydrological and meteorological conditions. A frequency analysis of available data and cooling tower operation suggests that a daily maximum blowdown discharge temperature approaching the 95°F thermal limit would be expected about 0.04 percent of the time (an average of about four hours per year).

Potential increases in river water temperatures of 0.5°C/1.0°F to 1.1 °C/2.0°F, due to future climate changes, could increase this occurrence from about 0.04 percent of the time to about 0.56 percent of the time (an average of about 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> per year). During such events, measures up to and including plant derates would be taken to prevent a violation of the NPDES permit.

o The CORMIX results confirm that enforcement of the 95°F thermal limit for the blowdown discharge would ensure the temperature at the edge of the 250-foot mixing zone would not exceed 90'F, the temperature considered protective of aquatic life (ADEM 1998; TVA 1982a). The maximum width (758 feet) and thickness (10 feet) of the thermal plume at the edge of the mixing zone is less than half of the river width and depth, thus, allowing an adequate zone for passage of aquatic life and protection of bottom-dwelling species.

" The CORMIX results suggest sufficient dilution of the blowdown for reverse river flow.

Based on the expected operation of Nickajack Dam and Guntersville Dam, it is considered possible for the diffuser effluent to reach the region of the plant intake withdrawal zone, especially for extreme reverse river flow events. The impact of this on water temperature is not expected to be significant; however, future administrative controls on the operation of the plant and/or the river may be necessary if other nonthermal constituents of the blowdown (see Subsection 3.1.4) occur in unacceptable amounts in the plant withdrawal zone.

" The CE-QUAL-W2 far-field model assessment of potential impacts to water quality indicates that the effects on reservoir temperatures, DO concentrations, and algae biomass would not be significant. This analysis included cumulative effects from solar activity and WCF, the latter being the only other significant source of waste heat in Guntersville Reservoir.

112 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 In summary, the near-field and far-field (e.g., cumulative) hydrothermal effects on

.Guntersville Reservoir are not expected to be significant. By virtue of the fact that the plant would be operated to comply with thermal limits (even with potential climate changes), the heated effluent is not expected to have a significant impact on near-field conditions. Far-field modeling indicates that the impacts to temperatures, DO concentrations, and algal biomass in Guntersville Reservoir would not be significant.

Alternative C Under this alternative, one AP1 000 unit would be constructed and operated. Direct and cumulative hydrothermal impacts associated with this alternative are expected to be similar to Alternative B, but slightly reduced because less water is required for blowdown and less water would be discharged to the river (i.e., the Alternative C withdrawal and discharge would be 72 percent and 36 percent, respectively, of that associated with Alternative B).

3.1.4. ChemicalAdditives for Plant Operation 3.1.4.1. Affected Environment A primary area of concern for surface water quality relates to the chemicals added to treat water used for condenser circulating water, equipment cooling, fire protection, and potable water in nuclear plant operations, which result in chemical discharges.

The sources of chemical discharges from a B&W plant would include cooling tower blowdown, cooling tower makeup and essential raw cooling water systems, wastes from various makeup water and condensate demineralizers, component-cooling system, reactor coolant system, and yard drainage systems and various sumps (TVA 1974a). Sources of chemical discharge from an AP1 000 plant would include the circulating water system, service water system, demineralized water treatment system, steam generator blowdown system, and yard drainage systems and various sumps (TVA 2008a).

The source of fire protection water for a B&W plant would be the raw cooling water system.

For an AP1 000 plant, the makeup water for the fire protection system would be provided by the Jackson County Water Authority. Treatment of the B&W raw cooling water system is described below under Proposed Schemes for Cooling Water Treatment for B&W and AP1 000 Units. The water supplied by the Jackson County Water Authority is treated off site in accordance with applicable drinking water standards, and no further treatment would be performed on site. The source of potable water for either a B&W plant or an AP1 000 plant would be the Jackson County Water Authority. The water supplied by this water system is treated off site in accordance with applicable drinking water standards, and no further treatment would be performed on site. Sanitary waste would be routed to the sanitary drainage system, which would be discharged off site to the Jackson County Water Authority's County Road 33 wastewater treatment plant.

Chemical additives are used in plant cooling water systems for two primary purposes:

1. To inhibit the chemical process of corrosion (rust formation) on metal piping and other plant equipment surfaces.

2. To maintain efficient heat transfer through all plant heat exchangers for heat removal from the reactor. Optimal heat transfer cannot be achieved unless heat transfer surfaces are clean. Surfaces that have deposits of metal oxides (rust),

scale (such as lime deposits), biological fouling (zebra mussel and Asiatic clam), or Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 113

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site bacterial coatings experience lower heat transfer efficiency. In addition, certain types of bacteria can accelerate the chemical oxidation or corrosion of surfaces through various waste products such as sulfate, which certain bacteria produce.

This phenomenon is referred to as microbiologically influenced corrosion.

A discussion of heat transfer-related (cooling) systems for a PWR nuclear plant is provided below. As explained in Section 2.2 and 2.3 of this SEIS both the B&W and the AP1000 are PWRs. The discussion is followed by a description of the types of chemicals that are added to the plant cooling water systems..

Overview of PWR Plant Cooling Systems for Reactor Heat Removal Two major systems are used to convert the heat generated in the reactor's nuclear fuel assemblies into electrical power. The primary system, also called the reactor coolant system, is composed of the reactor vessel, steam generators, reactor coolant pumps, pressurizer, and connecting pipes. The main function of the primary system is to carry heat away from the reactor's nuclear fuel assemblies to the steam generators.

The major secondary systems of the PWR are the main feedwater system, the condensate system, and main steam system, which are physically separated from the primary system.

These secondary systems are designed to heat and pressurize cooler water to produce feedwater for the steam generators. The main steam system then routes steam from the steam generators to the plant turbines for power generation. The condensate system receives exhausted steam from the turbine discharge to repeat the cycle.

The PWR has three layers of plant water systems, referred to as cooling water systems, which provide cooling water to the primary and secondary systems described above.

The first layer of cooling, the primary water system, or "primary loop" is in contact with the nuclear fuel assemblies inside of the reactor pressure vessel, or core, and carries the heat away from the fuel assemblies. The primary coolant carries with it not only significant heat, but also significant quantities of radioactive isotopes of various atoms, or radioisotopes.

The second layer of cooling water is referred to as the "secondary loop." For the PWR, the interface of the first and second layers of cooling is at the steam generators, which are very large, vertical heat exchangers. The steam generators contain hundreds of metal tubes, which are attached to a circular, horizontally mounted metal plate. The reactor coolant flows through the inside of the tubes, while the clean, normally nonradioactive secondary coolant flows past the outside of the tubes. The heat is transferred through the metal tubes to the cooler secondary-side cooling water. This arrangement keeps the steam dryer and other components within the upper portion of the steam generator relatively free of radioactive contamination. Secondary-side contamination only occurs in minor amounts in the event of a small leak in one or more of the tubes.

From the upper head of the steam generator, the steam is directed to the plant turbine, where the massive internal blades spin on a shaft that is connected to a motor to produce electricity. At the outlet end of the turbine, steam is directed to the main plant condenser.

The third layer of cooling and heat transfer occurs at the main plant condenser, where the steam is directed over hundreds of horizontal tubes through which cooling water flows. The source of cooling water for the main plant condenser is the large water retention basin of the plant and is referred to as the heat rejection system (B&W) or circulating water system (AP1000).

114 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Additional "secondary systems" include the service water system (AP1 000), and component cooling water system (B&W and AP1 000), which are used to provide cooling for plant auxiliary systems during normal operation and during shutdown conditions. Note that the service water and component cooling water systems operate continuously and not only during periods of cooling associated with reactor shutdown.

The secondary-side cooling water includes water treatment systems necessary to maintain water purity. These include the steam generator blowdown system, which continuously treats a portion of the total flow running through the steam generators. In addition, PWRs feature partial and sometimes full-flow condensate treatment systems to treat either a portion or the entire flow of water coming from the main condenser en route to the feedwater system.

Other B&W and AP1 000 plant systems to which chemicals are added include the chilled water systems, turbine building heating system, auxiliary boilers, and diesel jacket cooling systems (B&W only).

Chemicals Added To Plant Water Cooling Systems The types of chemicals currently used in operating plant cooling water systems are described as follows:

Scale Inhibitors - Also called anti-scalants, these chemicals inhibit the formation of lime (calcium oxide) deposits, which would otherwise tend to form on the high temperature surfaces of the heat exchanger tubes, and limit the deposition of other chemical forms of oxide scale upon the heat exchanger tubes. Anti-scalants are organic (carbon-based) polymers containing phosphate attachments on the molecule.

Corrosion Inhibitors 7 These are also organic polymers, which contain phosphonate rather than phosphate. The chemical (molecular) structure of the phosphonate-based corrosion inhibitors are similar, but not identical to the scale inhibitors, in that they both include phosphorus, but they behave differently because of the oxidation state of the phosphorus in the two compounds. Corrosion inhibitors behave as "oxygen scavengers," and tend to draw up and chemically bind available oxygen, which makes less oxygen locally available to form rust compounds, which are metal oxides.

Oxidizing Biocide - Sodium hypochlorite (at a 12 percent by weight concentration) is conventionally used to control microbiological activity, including slime formation and microbiologically influenced corrosion. Dependent upon microbiological activity, additional sodium hypochlorite may be applied to the circulating water system at the suction side of the circulating water pumps. A maximum limit for total residual chlorine is typically stated in the site NPDES permit.

Molluscicide - Ammonium chloride or a quaternary amine can be used for zebra mussel and Asiatic clam control.

Algaecide - Chemical that can be either basic ammonium chloride, NH4CI, or a quarternary amine compound similar to the molluscicide chemical described above. The algaecides are used to inhibit the formation of algae inside of the plant cooling water towers.

Dehalogenation Agent - Sodium bisulfite may be utilized to ensure that the oxidizing biocide (total residual oxidant) discharge limit as it pertains to the total residual halogen, usually chloride, is not exceeded.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 115

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Detoxification Agent - Bentonite clay may be required to detoxify the molluscicide chemical from the water through absorption at a ratio of 5:1 to the quaternary amine.

Biopenetrant - Non-ionic surfactant (a simple soap) may be applied to increase the efficacy of the oxidizing biocide, by cleaning off the surfaces of the biota in order to make the chlorine-based (or other halogen such as bromine-based) biocide or molluscicide chemical penetrate more effectively into the biological material, or biota.

Brief descriptions of plant cooling treatments discussed in earlier environmental reviews for the BLN site are provided in the following paragraphs.

Prior Environmental Reviews of Plant Cooling Water Chemical Treatments Previous environmental reviews for proposed projects at the BLN site (TVA 1974a; AEC 1974; DOE 1999; TVA 2008a) analyzed potential impacts to surface water and water quality, including the addition of chemicals to treat plant cooling water systems. An examination of the prior environmental reviews as they described proposed plant cooling water chemical applications found that chemical treatments for plant cooling water systems have improved and discharge limits for chemicals have become more restrictive than how they were described in the earlier reviews. These earlier analyses adequately bound the potential for effects but require update to reflect changes in environmental regulations, improvements in chemical additives, and proposed raw water treatment.

For example, in 1974, the principal organism that created macrofouling in the Tennessee Valley was the Asiatic clam (Corbiculamanilensis). Since 1991, another invasive species, the zebra mussel (Dreissenapolymorpha), has also caused fouling problems at the TVA plants. TVA's 1974 FES (TVA 1974a), Section 2.5, recommended using the product acrolein to address macrofouling. However, the product is no longer used in the industry, because in the past decade, more effective chemicals that control both species have become available. The chemical presently in use at TVA plants is generically known as a quaternary amine.

In its 1974 FES (TVA 1974a), Section 2.5, TVA determined that a biocide would likely be used in the condenser cooling water system or the essential raw cooling water system, if faunal or floral populations developed in either of the systems. It has been TVA's experience that microbiological activity has been the cause of microbiologically influenced corrosion, and oxidizing biocides have been routinely used in raw service water systems to control this mechanism.

The 1980 BLN FSAR (TVA 1980a), Subsection 10.4.5.2, discussed the periodic injection of sodium hypochlorite into the heat rejection system to prevent organic fouling, noting that the injection points would be at the suction side of the circulating water pumps and immediately upstream of the cooling towers. TVA concluded, however, that no corrosion inhibitor or other chemical additives would be needed in the heat rejection system, based on Guntersville Reservoir water quality and TVA's operating experience at other power plants.

This earlier statement is still generally true. However, under the currently proposed treatment scheme for a B&W unit discussed below, chemicals would be applied to the essential raw cooling water (source of makeup for the B&W heat rejection system).

The CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999), Subsection 5.2.3.4, described the sources of chemical discharges from a B&W plant and summarized chemical discharges from operation of BLN Unit I and BLN Units 1&2 in Tables 5-28 and 5-29 of that document. Expected inorganic chemicals and observed and expected trace metal concentrations are listed. The CLWR 116 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 FEIS concluded that even under adverse conditions, chemical discharges from BLN 1&2 would be small, and the change in average concentrations in the reservoir after mixing would represent a small increase over the observed background concentrations. The CLWR FEIS also concluded that actual discharges and concentrations should meet the limitations of the NPDES permit and ADEM drinking water standards.

The COLA ER described anticipated nonradioactive, liquid-waste chemical and biocide discharge concentrations for the AP1000 in ER Section 3.6. The impact of chemical additives on surface water is summarized in the following paragraph.

Biocides are added in very low concentrations (in the low parts per million) and consumed, leaving very small concentrations by the time they are discharged. The NPDES permit issued by ADEM imposes monitoring and concentration limits on releases. The current NPDES permit takes biocide and chlorine concentrations into account, and the associated discharge limits are established to protect receiving waters. Because biocides and chemicals used for water treatment are added in low parts per million (ppm) concentrations and are largely consumed serving their purposes, and the NPDES permit takes into consideration the potential for these substances being in the discharge by establishing requirements for appropriate chemical parameter monitoring and acceptable limits, the impact from these discharges is considered minor.

Proposed Schemes for Cooling Water Treatment for B&W and AP1 000 Units As discussed in Section 2.7, the B&W and AP1000 reactor coolant systems and power conversion systems are functionally similar and would use similar chemicals and processes for water treatment. Chemical treatments for either the B&W or the AP 000 design would follow the EPRI guidelines that are in effect at the time of the treatment.

TVA currently treats cooling water systems in a manner different from the treatment applications discussed in the earlier environmental reviews. The treatment scheme that has evolved at TVA's operating nuclear plants, and would be used for either a B&W unit or an AP1000 unit, is injection of specific chemicals to control corrosion and micro- and macrofouling.

For the B&W, the treatment chemicals used would be injected into the raw water system that serves as makeup to the heat rejection system and as a source for fire protection water, consisting of the circulating water pumps, conduits, main condenser, and cooling towers. As a result, the chemicals applied to the essential raw cooling water for a B&W unit would be carried over and slightly concentrated in the heat rejection system. Sodium hypochlorite would also be periodically injected into the heat rejection system to prevent organic fouling. Based on the water quality in the Guntersville Reservoir and TVA's operating experience at its other power plants, there would be no need for a corrosion inhibitor or other chemical additives in the heat rejection system. No adverse environmental effect is anticipated from the blowdown water or the tower evaporation.

Because the water discharged into the heat rejection system, including initial filling and makeup, comes from the Tennessee River via the essential raw cooling water system, provisions are made in the essential raw cooling water system to restrict the introduction of Asiatic clams or their larvae into the heat rejection system (TVA 1980a).

As discussed in COLA ER Chapter 3, the AP 000, circulating water system chemistry is maintained by a local chemical feed skid at the circulating water system cooling tower.

Biocide and.water treatment chemicals are injected to maintain a noncorrosive, nonscale-forming condition and limit the biological film formation and are adjusted as required.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 117

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Biocide application may vary with seasons, and algaecide is applied, as necessary, to control algae formation on the natural draft cooling tower. Chemical concentrations are measured through analysis of grab samples from the circulating water system. Residual chlorine is measured to monitor the effectiveness of the biocide treatment (TVA 2008a).

The AP1 000 service water system chemistry is maintained by the turbine island chemical feed system as discussed in the COLA FSAR (TVA 2009a). Biocide and water treatment chemicals are injected to maintain a noncorrosive, nonscale-forming condition and limit the biological film formation and are adjusted as required. Specific chemicals used within the system, other than the biocide, are determined by the site water conditions. Biocide application may vary with seasons, and algaecide is applied, as necessary, to control algae formation on the natural draft cooling tower. Chemical concentrations are measured through analysis of grab samples from the circulating water system. Residual chlorine is measured to monitor the effectiveness of the biocide treatment (TVA 2008a).

The AP1 000 demineralized water treatment system receives water from the raw water system and filters and processes this water to remove ionic impurities. A pH adjustment chemical is added upstream of the filtration units to adjust the pH of the reverse osmosis influent, which is maintained within the operating range of the reverse osmosis membranes.

A dilute antiscalant, chemically compatible with the pH adjustment chemical, is used to increase the solubility of salts and decrease scale formation on the membranes. Both the pH adjustment chemical and the antiscalant are injected intothe demineralized system from the turbine island chemical feed system (TVA 2008a).

The AP1 000 steam generator blowdown system assists in maintaining acceptable secondary coolant water chemistry during normal operation and during anticipated operational occurrences of main condenser inleakage. It does this by removing impurities that are concentrated in the steam generator. The system extracts blowdown water from each steam generator and processes the water as required. Chemicals needed to maintain proper operation of the system are injected by the turbine island chemical feed system on an as-needed basis, and are not dependent on the modes of operation of the plant (TVA 2008a).

As discussed earlier, TVA presently uses a chemical generically known as a quaternary amine to control macrofouling, which is effectively applied at a minimum of 1.5 ppm of active product (3.0 ppm total product). Typically, the quaternary amine is applied to the systems three to five times per season for 24 or 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. During the application process, bioboxes of healthy specimens are typically utilized to monitor for mortality of both species.

Quaternary amines lose their effectiveness by dilution or may be detoxified by adding bentonite clay.

While oxidizing biocides have been routinely used in raw service Water systems to control faunal and floral populations, chemical biocides have not been routinely used in TVA nuclear plant condenser cooling water systems. Instead, cleanliness of condensers has generally been maintained mechanically by a continuous tube-cleaning system, such as the Amertap system, which would be applicable to a B&W unit or an AP1000 unit. However, some chemical biocides may be used, if needed for biological control.

Another difference between the proposed scheme for the B&W and the treatment process described in the 1980 FSAR (TVA 1980a), Subsection 10.4.5.2, relates to additional makeup water for the B&W condenser cooling water system. In the 1980 FSAR discussion, a small amount of additional makeup for the condenser circulating water system was to be 118 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 supplied by BLN sewage treatment plant effluent. Under the proposed scheme, it is expected that the essential raw cooling water system would provide all makeup water for a B&W unit. No on-site sewage treatment plant is planned for either a B&W unit or an AP1000 unit. BLN sanitary waste would be discharged to the Jackson County Water Authority's wastewater treatment facility, as discussed earlier in this section.

TVA's operational philosophy regarding chemical additives for plant operation reflects minimization of chemical use through an optimization program. The optimization program includes (1) monitoring operating plant parameters, (2) continually evaluating water chemistry, and (3) inspecting equipment to minimize the total amount of chemicals added.

Under both Alternatives B and C, the treatment plan would include treatment of intake or process waters with biocides, dispersants, corrosion-inhibiting chemicals, and detoxification chemicals. Prior to use in TVA plants, chemicals undergo an extensive toxicological review and comparison with maximum instream wastewater concentrations to ensure water quality standards are met.

Under either Alterative B or C, water treatment processes would be controlled to comply with state water quality criteria and applicable NPDES permit conditions to ensure protection of the receiving water body. The standards and criteria applied by the state in establishing NPDES permit limits and requirements are to protect public health and water resources, as well as to maintain the designated uses for the receiving water body.

The amounts of the various chemicals injected for the B&W reactor versus an AP1 000 reactor are very comparable, but somewhat lower in the AP1000. The differences are based onplant thermal cycle efficiency. Additional heat "recovery aind reuse" features of the AP1 000 reactor translate into lower overall rates of cooling water flow. With lower daily volumes of cooling water flowing through the plant systems, less chemicals are needed to treat cooling water.

Secondary system chemistry specifications would be based on the recommendations in the version of the EPRI PWR Secondary Water Chemistry Guidelines that are current at that time. For component cooling water, both a B&W and an AP1000 unit would use chemistry-control specifications consistent with the version of the EPRI Closed Cooling Water Chemistry Guideline that is current at that time. For the emergency diesel jacket water cooling system (B&W only), an industry-standard-approved corrosion inhibitor to control corrosion in the emergency diesel jacket water cooling system would be used.

Acceptance criteria for each monitored parameter would be established and described in approved plant procedures. In the event the acceptance criteria are not met, specific corrective actions would be implemented in accordance with TVA's corrective action program. Any releases to the environment would be governed by the NPDES permit.

3.1.4.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under this alternative, no construction or nuclear plant operation would occur at BLN.

Therefore, selection of this alternative would not result in direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from chemical additives to surface water.

Alternatives B and C Based on average estimated daily streamflow of 37,300 cfs, blowdown for the B&W and AP1000 alternatives as a percentage of average flow is approximately 0.130 percent (B&W)

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 119

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site and 0.046 percent (AP1000) of the average flow of the Tennessee River. Of the estimated more conservative 7Q1 0 flow of 5,130 cfs calculated for the BLN site (one unit only), the percent of Tennessee River flow would be 0.970 percent (B&W) and 0.350 percent (AP1 000). Concentrations of solids and residual water treatment chemicals in the cooling tower blowdown would quickly dissipate in the river, because the blowdown volume is insignificant relative to the river flow. The impact of chemical additives would be further reduced through the use of bisulfite chemicals and chemical-absorbing media.

Although the volume of the cooling tower blowdown is anticipated to be small when compared to the river flow and the treatment chemicals added are largely consumed leaving very small concentrations by the time they are discharged, the discharge is regulated by an Alabama state NPDES permit and would comply with applicable water quality standards and criteria. Therefore, for either Alternative B or C, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of chemical discharges would be minor.

3.2. Groundwater Resources 3.2.1. Affected Environment Groundwater conditions at the BLN site have been documented in several reports over time, beginning with TVA's 1974 FES through the COLA ER (TVA 2008a) and COLA FSAR (TVA 2009a). A summary of that groundwater information is provided below.

Groundwater Hydrology In and near the plant area, the principal water-bearing formations are the Knox Dolomite of Cambrian and Ordovician age and the Fort Payne Chert of Mississippian age. The Knox crops out approximately 3,200 feet northwest of the plant site and dips to the southeast, so it is about 1,000 feet below the land surface in the site area. The Fort Payne crops out about 3,000 feet southeast of the plant site and dips southeastward away from the plant (TVA 1986). The Chickamauga Formation, the (uppermost) bedrock at the main plant site, is a poor water-bearing formation in this region (TVA 1986). More recently, with the reclassification of the regional stratigraphy (Osborne et al. 1988), the main site is said to be underlain instead by the Stones River Group Limestone (TVA 2008a). The physical properties of the formation remain unchanged by the reclassification.

Groundwater at the BLN site occurs under unconfined conditions, as reflected by the water table. The water table conforms closely to topography and ranges in depth below ground surface from zero along Town Creek embayment to a maximum of about 22 feet (TVA 1986) or more (Julian 1996; TVA 2008a; 2009a) at the plant site. The water table occurs primarily in soil composed of residual silts and clays derived from in-place weathering of the underlying rock and also in the upper fractured, weathered zones of the bedrock. Recharge is provided by precipitation, mostly as rain, which averages about 50 inches annually, of which about 8 inches goes into groundwater storage (TVA 1986).

Historic potentiometric plots of groundwater levels (TVA 1986) and later data in the 1980s and 1990s all show the direction of groundwater flow from the plant site toward Town Creek on the northwest for the most part. For some shorter periods of the year, some flow goes to the Tennessee River (Guntersville Reservoir) (TVA 2008a; 2009a). Subsurface testing at BLN using a network of test observation wells installed in 2006 was conducted in support of the COLA (TVA 2008a; 2009a).

120 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Groundwater Use and Trends There are no groundwater supply wells on site at BLN. Previous TVA reports have documented the use of groundwater supply wells by the town of Hollywood and city of Scottsboro, both of which are within 3 and 7 miles (respectively) of BLN, and by the city of Stevenson, which is about 12 miles from BLN (Julian 1996). A recent communication with ADEM (M. Browman, TVA, personal communication, August 2009) verified that Hollywood and Scottsboro no longer use groundwater supply wells to meet their water needs.

Stevenson and Pisgah (located on the east side of Guntersville Reservoir) are the only two municipal or industrial entities in Jackson County, Alabama, that have groundwater supply wells. Groundwater is not used as a municipal or industrial water source within a 2-mile radius of BLN (TVA 2008a; 2009a).

Private groundwater sources were identified early on (1961) within a 2-mile radius (see Figure 3-8 and Table 3-5) (TVA 1986) and more recently within a 1-mile radius (Figure 3-9)

(TVA 1997) of the BLN site. A coarse visual comparison indicated that within the zone of overlap, there was a doubling of wells from the first to the second survey. The overwhelming predominance of these wells is northwest of the BLN site and separated from the site by Town Creek embayment, which provides a hydraulic barrier between the wells and the plant. A survey conducted by TVA in 2009 for private wells within an arc 2 miles from the plant, southwest along the peninsula to the plant, revealed two private wells. One has been capped off and unused for 20 years, and the other is used for nonpotable purposes.

Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality at BLN has been monitored over the years to obtain background concentrations, to examine the effect of on-site disposal practices, and in response to specific incidents. Monitored parameters included radionuclides, organics, and inorganics (TVA 1978c; 1979; 1980b; 1981b; 1982b; 1983a; 1984).

The locations of the TVA monitoring wells installed on site between 1973 and 1996 (Julian 1999), and in 2006 (TVA 2008a) in support of the COLA are shown in Figure 3-10.

Background levels of selected radionuclides (gamma-emitting and tritium) were monitored from 1977 through 1983 in six bedrock wells (TVA 1978c; 1979; 1980b; 1981b; 1982b; 1983a; 1984). Results were spatially and temporally variable.

Monitoring through 1990 of the effects of trisodium phosphate waste/wastewater disposal on site in the early to mid-1 980s indicated that the associated metals and phosphorus concentrations had returned to background or near-background levels. The same was true for sodium, except at one well, which continued to show elevated concentrations (Lindquist 1990).

Background sampling by TVA across the site from 1981 to 1991 for total concentrations of inorganics, except for nickel, showed very few constituents in excess of the Drinking Water Standards. Exceedances for iron, manganese, and aluminum were attributed to colloidal mineral material (TVA 1997). Sampling conducted in support of the COLA ER for a similar array of parameters yielded generally similar results. Monitoring in response to diesel spills on site in the 1980s and early 1990s, indicated that, by 2004, the levels of critical contaminants had decreased to regulatory acceptable values (C. Spiegel, ADEM, personal communication, February 2006; A. Nix, TVA, personal communication, July 2006).

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 121

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Figure 3-8. Water Wells and Springs Within 2-Mile Radius of BLN 122 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Table 3-5. Inventory of Private Wells and Springs Located Within 2-Mile Radius of BLN, 1961 Data(a)

Well Year Elevation(c) Well Completion Number(b) Installed (feet msl) Depth (feet) Zone Comments 1 U 611 20 U Private residential well 2 U 621 U U Private residential well 3 U 609 72 U Private residential well 4 U 602 U U Private residential well 5 U 610 U U Private residential well 6 U 600 U U Private residential well 7 U 605 U U Private residential well 8 U 608 U U Private residential well 9 U 605 U U Private residential well 10 U 605 U U Private residential well 11 U 605 U U Private residential well 12 U 629 172 U Private residential well 13 U 610 39 U Private residential well 14 U 623 33 U Private residential well 15 U 670 72 U Private residential well 16 U 629 102 U Private residential well 17 U 619 34 U Private residential well 18 U 621 97 U Private residential well 19 U 637 70 U Private residential well 20 U 630 77 U Private residential well 21 U 620 70 U Private residential well 22 U 635 U U Private residential well 23 U 617 55 U Private residential well 24 U 640 135 U Private residential well 25 U 630 131 U Private residential well 26 U 640 48 U Private residential well 27 U 640 200 U Private residential well 28 U 634 68 U Private residential well 29 U 630 72 U Private residential well 30 U 638 52 U Private residential well 31 U 615 U U Private residential well 32 U 620 125 U Private residential well 33 U 604 72 U Private residential well 34 U 639 116 U Private residential well 35 U 645 U U Private residential well S-1 N/A 637 Spring N/A Intermittent spring(d S-2 N/A 600 Spring N/A Intermittent springt )

(a) This table may include wells that have been abandoned or installed since the original survey from 1961.

(b) See Figure 3-8 for locations.

(c) Elevation at the ground surface (wells 1-35, springs S-1, and S-2) or top of well casing. Elevations were either obtained by reference or estimated from topographic maps.

(d) Flow was observed from the two intermittent springs in January 2009.

msl = Above mean sea level U = Unknown N/A = Not applicable Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 123

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Figure 3-9. Groundwater Wells Within 1-Mile Radius of the BLN Site - 1990 124 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3

, Mk,,

Date *f Imagery Legend June 15, 2006

- Wells Installed 2006 A Wells Installed 3re-2006

• SBellefonte Nuclear Plant Site (TVA Propterty Boundary) v~t -

Figure 3-10. BLN B&W Groundwater Wells Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 125

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 3.2.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no effects to the groundwater hydrology, groundwater use, or groundwater quality. The current much-reduced activity and equipment inventory at the site favor the lack of effect on most aspects of groundwater and on groundwater quality in particular. The current use of BMPs for the handling of chemicals, together with the adherence to the site SPCC plan for the management and cleanup of oils, limit likelihood that oil or chemicals would reach groundwater. There is currently no groundwater use on site. Under the No Action Alternative, the quality of groundwater may actually improve. Residual chemicals from past spills and from industrial practices that have been discontinued would decrease over time, leading to the improvement in water quality.

Alternatives B and C Nonradioloqical. The completion of one B&W unit or the construction of one API 000 unit would have no impact on the groundwater hydrology or groundwater use, either on site or locally. Potable water would be supplied by the Jackson County Water Authority. The source of fire protection water for a B&W unit would be the raw water cooling system. For an AP1000, the makeup water for the fire protection system would be. provided by the Jackson County Water Authority. Water for concrete batching (if necessary) and other construction uses would be withdrawn from the Tennessee River/Guntersville Reservoir.

TVA does not anticipate the use of groundwater as either a safety-related source of water for a BLN unit or its source of water supply for any purpose during operation.

With the adoption of either alternative, nonradiological impacts on groundwater quality are expected to be minor and insignificant. Under both alternatives, chemicals used during construction would be managed using BMPs, thereby limiting the likelihood of chemical contamination of surface water as well as groundwater. In addition, BLN and similar sites that store oil in volumes above a certain threshold and in containers meeting certain size specifications are required to have an SPCC plan (EPA 2008a) applicable to gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, insulating oil, and other oils. An SPCC plan reduces the likelihood that oil spills will occur on site and provides measures for the expeditious control and cleanup of such spills if they do occur. Implementation of the SPCC plan and the BMPs would help keep oils and chemicals out of surface waters as well as groundwater.

With these controls in place, and with the gradual decrease in concentration of existing residual chemicals from historic on-site spills and practices, it is expected there would be an improvement in groundwater quality over time as stated for Alternative A.

Over the past 12 years, several instances of nuclear plants inadvertently releasing tritium contamination to the soil and/or groundwater have been documented. A recent NRC (2010) fact sheet concluded that although the leaks do not present a risk to the public, enhanced efforts are being focused on proper monitoring and repair of pipes by plant operators. Because no radioactive waste has been produced at the BLN site, either of the proposed nuclear units can benefit from the experience gained at operating plants and from the recent industry guidance from the NRC and Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).

Radiological. With the adoption of either alternative, impacts on groundwater quality from radiological sources are expected to be minor and insignificant. Under both alternatives, TVA would comply with the NEI's groundwater protection initiative, NEI 07-07 (NEI 2007).

This initiative identifies actions to improve utilities management and response to instances 126 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 where the inadvertent release of radioactive substances may result in low, but detectible, levels of plant-related radioactive materials in subsurface soils and water. Aspects addressed by the initiative include site hydrology and geology, site risk assessment, on-site groundwater monitoring, and remediation. The placement and distribution of monitoring wells would be determined by a qualified hydrogeologist. Further discussion of the groundwater monitoring program is provided in COLA FSAR Subsection 12AA.5.4.14, Groundwater Monitoring Program.

An AP1 000 unit at BLN would be compliant with NEI 08-08 (NEI 2008), which offers guidance for new plant design and operation, in terms of engineering and administrative controls that would minimize the occurrence of and provide for the management of inadvertent releases of licensed materials, including tritium, to groundwater. Aspects addressed include design of systems, structures, and components, leak detection, and review of operational practices. The B&W unit would comply with specific requirements of NEI 08-08 (NEI 2008) regarding protection of newly installed buried piping.

A detailed technical evaluation (TVA 2010a) was performed on the existing B&W unit to identify possible sources of radioactive substances that could potentially leak into the groundwater, and specific actions are provided to prevent and monitor leaks, including replacement of the existing plant discharge line, installation of additional monitoring wells, and development of a monitoring program. Specific engineering features that preclude the leakage of radioactive discharge to the environment for an AP1000 unit are discussed in the COLA FSAR Subsection 11.2.1.2.4. These include visual inspection points, piping designs that preclude inadvertent or unidentified releases to the environment, and location of all valves and fittings inside of buildings. Further discussion of the groundwater monitoring program for the AP1 000 is provided in COLA FSAR Subsection 12AA.5.4.14.

For both Alternatives B and C, the exterior radwaste discharge piping would be enclosed within a guard pipe (secondary containment) and monitored for leakage (see COLA FSAR Subsection 11.2.1.2.4)

Because the direct and indirect effects of the proposed Action Alternatives are expected to be insignificant and TVA is not aware of other activities planned or underway in the vicinity of the plant that contribute to groundwater impacts, construction and operation of a BLN nuclear unit would not result in significant'cumulative effects to groundwater.

3.3. Floodplain and Flood Risk 3.3.1. Affected Environment In AEC's 1974 FES, Subsection 12.1.2 states "Plant safety aspects are considered separately as part of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) prepared by TVA and the staff's evaluation contained in the Safety Evaluation Report. The AEC's criteria of design against plant site flooding are provided in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A (Criterion 2)."

The BLN COLA FSAR Section 2.4 (TVA 2010b) contains information related to potential flooding of the BLN site from the Tennessee River and local Probable Maximum Precipitation 5 (PMP) site drainage. Floodplain and flood risk information for the BLN site was updated in the COLA FSAR. The Bellefonte Conversion FEIS (TVA 1997) described the floodplain and flood risk conditions at the BLN site.

The Probable Maximum Precipitation is defined as the theoretically greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically possible over a particular drainage area at a certain time of year (American Meteorological Society 1959). In consideration of the limited knowledge of the complicated processes and interrelationships in storms, PMP values are identified as estimates.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 127

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The BLN site is located on a peninsula formed by Town Creek embayment and the Tennessee River on Guntersville Reservoir in Jackson County, Alabama (Figure 1-1). The proposed project area could be flooded from both the Tennessee River and Town Creek, as well as local PMP site drainage. The area impacted by the proposed project extends from about TRM 390.4 to TRM 392.3, and from about Town Creek Mile 2.1 to 3.3.

The 100-year floodplain for the Tennessee River varies from elevation 600.5 feet msl at TRM 390.4 to elevation 601.1 feet msl at TRM 392.3. The TVA Flood Risk Profile (FRP) elevations on the Tennessee River vary from elevation 601.8 feet msl at TRM 390.4 to elevation 602.6 feet msl at TRM 392.3. For Town Creek, the 100-year floodplain is the area lying below elevation 601.4 feet msl. The FRP elevation is 603.1 feet msl. The FRP is used to control flood-damageable development for TVA projects and residential and commercial development on TVA lands. At this location, the FRP elevations are equal to the 500-year flood elevations.

Jackson County, Alabama, has adopted the 100-year flood as the basis for its floodplain regulations, and all development would be consistent with these regulations. There are no floodways published for this area (TVA 1997).

The BLN drainage system was evaluated for a storm producing the PMP on the local area.

The site is graded such that runoff would drain away from safety-related structures to drainage channels and subsequently to the Tennessee River. The PMP flood analysis assumes that all discharge structures are nonfunctioning. The highest PMP water surface elevation in the vicinity of safety-related structures would be 627.53 feet msl (TVA 2009a).

Based on the 2009 reverification of the Probable Maximum Flood 6 (PMF), the controlling PMF elevation at the BLN site would be 625.7 feet msl with dam safety modifications that were made to Watts Bar and Nickajack dams. The effects of coincident wind wave activity are estimated to be 1.3 feet high. Therefore, the PMF and coincident wind wave activity results in a flood elevation of 627.0 feet msl (TVA 2010b).

The floodplains and flood risk assessment involves ensuring that facilities would be sited to provide a reasonable level of protection from flooding. In doing so, the requirements of EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) would be fulfilled. For nonrepetitive actions, EO 11988 states that all proposed facilities must be located outside the limits of the 100-year floodplain unless alternatives are evaluated, which either would identify a better option or!

support and document a determination of "no practicable alternative" to siting within the floodplain. If this determination can be made, adverse floodplain impacts would be minimized during design of the project (TVA 1997).

For a "critical action," facilities must be protected to the 500-year flood elevation where there is no practicable alternative. A "critical action" is defined in the Water Resource Council Floodplain Management Guidelines as any activity for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great. One of the criteria used in determining if an activity is a critical action is whether essential and irreplaceable records, utilities, and/or emergency services would be lost or become inoperable if flooded. Based on this criterion, construction activities associated with this project would be considered as "critical actions" 6 The Probable Maximum Flood is defined as the most severe flood that can reasonably be predicted to occur at a site as a result of hydrometeorological conditions. It assumes an occurrence of PMP critically centered on the watershed and a sequence of related meteorologic and hydrologic factorstypical of extreme storms.

128 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 because flooding of these facilities would render them inoperable. All facilities that would force the shutdown or curtailment of power generation if flooded, would either be located above or flood-proofed to the 500-year flood elevation at that location. Many of the support facilities that would not impact power generation ifflooded would only be subject to evaluation using the 100-year flood (TVA 1997). Because the proposed project involves a nuclear generating facility, the NRC also requires a flood risk evaluation of possible impacts from the Tennessee River PMF and local PMP site drainage for all alternatives.

Because the activities evaluated in 1997 are different from those proposed for this project, the description of environmental consequences has been newly developed to address completion or construction and operation of a single-unit nuclear plant.

3.3.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, no new construction or dredging would occur at the BLN site; therefore, no actions inconsistent with EO 11988 would occur.

Alternative B Because the existing nuclear-related structures would be utilized, only minor additional physical disturbance of the site from new construction would occur. The majority of work would take place within the existing structures. Minor upgrades to the existing switchyard and transmission line system would be needed. When the final site plans are developed, these activities would be further reviewed to confirm that the work is consistent with EO 11988.

Dredging would occur in the intake channel. However, consistent with EO 11988, dredging is a repetitive action that would result in minor impacts because the dredged material would be disposed of in an on-site spoils area above the 500-year flood elevation.

Section 2.4 of the BLN FSAR (TVA 1986) describes the plant grade of safety-related structures, other than the intake pumping station, as varying between elevations 628 and 646 msl and lists key plant structures and their elevations. The existing safety-related structures where work would take place are either located above the 100-year and FRP elevations or are flood-proofed to that flood level, so the project would be consistent with EO 11988. In addition, all safety-related structures are either located above or flood-proofed to the Tennessee River PMF and coincident wind wave elevation of 627.0 feet msl and above the local PMP site drainage elevation of 627.53 feet msl.

Construction and operation of the B&W unit would not increase the flood risk in the Guntersville Reservoir watershed because the plant would not impact upstream flood elevations. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to flood risk associated with the implementation of Alternative B.

Alternative C Based on the site plan (Figure 2-12), all of the proposed construction activities would occur outside of the 100-year floodplain, which would be consistent with EO 11988. The only activity planned below the FRP elevation would be the construction of site parking. Every effort would be made to reduce the quantity of fill associated with this activity to ensure compliance with the TVA Flood Control Storage Loss Guideline.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 129

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Dredging would occur in the intake channel and barge unloading dock. However, consistent with EO 11988, dredging is a repetitive action that should result in minor impacts, because the dredged material would be disposed of in an on-site spoils area above the 500-year flood elevation.

An AP1 000 would be constructed at a grade elevation of 628.6 feet msl, which would be above the Tennessee River PMF and coincident wind wave elevation of 627.0 feet msl and above the PMP site drainage elevation of 627.53 feet msl. All safety-related structures would either be located above or floodproofed to the resulting flood levels. The new administration building would be located well above the 100-year and FRP elevations.

As with Alternative B, there would be no cumulative effects to flood risk associated with implementation of Alternative C.

3.4. Wetlands 3.4.1. Affected Environment Wetlands are areas inundated or saturated with surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

.Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (Environmental Laboratory 1987).

Wetlands are regulated under Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA and addressed under EO 11990. To conduct certain activities in the "waters of the U.S." that may affect wetlands, authorization under a Section 404 permit from the USACE is required. Section 401 gives states the authority to certify whether activities permitted under Section 404 are in accordance with state water quality standards. ADEM is responsible for Section 401 water qualitycertifications in Alabama. EO 11990 requires all federal agencies to minimize to the extent practicable the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities.

Vegetation communities, including bottomland areas, were assessed during the initial environmental review for the construction of BLN 1&2 (TVA 1974a). Wetland habitat was specifically addressed during subsequent proposals for associated on-site operations (TVA 1997; 2008a; DOE 1999). Wetlands are located along the 12.5-mile shoreline of Guntersville Reservoir and Town Creek embayment fronting the BLN site, but are outside the BLN project area or on the opposite side of Perimeter Road from the BLN plant facilities (Figure 3-11). These wetland areas consist of bottomland/riparian forest, shoreline emergent habitat, and floating aquatic beds. Throughout and following the construction of the existing BLN 1&2 structures, these shoreline wetland areas experienced very little impact (TVA 2008a).

A wetland assessment completed by TVA in 2006 indicated six forested wetlands were located between the perimeter road and the existing parking area. An interagency field review with USACE in 2009 resulted in the inclusion of one additional small forested wetland and wetland connectivity channels between the previously delineated areas.

These. seven forested wetlands ranged in size from 0.02 to 4.52 acres and totaled approximately 12.2 acres. In 2009, TVA wetland biologists also mapped two created scrub-shrub wetland areas upstream of the intake channel connecting to Guntersville Reservoir 130 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 via ephemeral conveyance. These wetlands totaled approximately 1 acre and met the USFWS wetland definition but did not exhibit all criteria required for wetland determination and USACE jurisdiction. One linear wetland feature was also mapped during the 2009 field reconnaissance along the west side of the road leading to the barge terminal. This wide, linear, forested wetland is located in a natural ravine and receives water via precipitation and runoff that empties into a culvert connecting to Guntersville Reservoir. On a 3-level functionality scale, the wetlands rank in Category 2 (moderate condition and provision of wetland:function) and Category 3 (superior condition and provision of wetland function).

Wetland determinations were performed according to USACE standards (Environmental Laboratory 198.7), which require documentation of hydrophytic vegetation (USFWS 1996),

hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. Broader definitions of wetlands, such as the definition provided in EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), Alabama state regulatory definitions, and the USFWS definition (Cowardin et al. 1979) were also considered in making their delineations. Field delineation and habitat assessment forms are included in Appendix F.

3.4.2. EnvironmentalConsequences Alternative A Under the No Action alternative, no alterations or improvements would be made to the existing facilities for the purpose of nuclear power generation. Therefore, selection of this alternative would not result in direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to wetlands.

Alternative B Under Alternative B, completion of and improvements to existing facilities and continued operation of the plant would take place. Construction proposed under Alternative B would not directly affect wetlands (Figure 3-11). Proposed parking areas would be sited greater than 50 feet from any delineated wetland boundary to provide a buffer and avoid or minimize indirect impacts to wetlands. During operation, the impact of the thermal plume on emergent, floating-leaved, and submerged vegetation that composes much of the shoreline wetlands would be minimal due to the small temperature change predicted.

Some localized enhancement of macrophyte growth could occur along portions of the mainstream east bank and the adjacent shallow area (DOE 1999). No indirect effects to wetlands are anticipated from runoff or sedimentation. during construction or initial or long-term operation of a B&W reactor at the BLN site. Therefore, because there are no wetlands within the construction footprint.and the wetlands on or adjacent to the site would not experience significant ecological changes resulting from construction or power generation at the BLN site, no direct, indirect, or cumulative wetland impacts would occur under this alternative.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 131

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site

+

'4 XW7 Guptersi Me AReservoir 4.

V

'I.

C.

Legend

=iI Bellefonte Project Area L Existing Structure Switchyard Wetland Refurbished Building Road / Parking Road Side Ditch New Area / Structure Rail Spur Retention Basin Security - - Vehicle Barrier System N

Wet Weather Conveyance Waterbody Water Intake Fence W +E S Figure 3-11. Wetlands Shown in Relation to the B&W Site Plan (Alternative B) 132 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Alternative C Under Alternative C, the new reactor facility would be constructed on and between the Perimeter Road and the existing parking area. The construction footprint for this alternative would result in direct and/or indirect impacts to the 12.2 acres of forested wetland located in that area (Figure 3-12). In compliance with the CWA, TVA would obtain a Section 404 permit and Section 401 certification for the wetland fill associated with the construction footprint for the new facility. Compensation for wetland impacts would be provided through purchasing wetland mitigation credits at the USACE approved wetland mitigation ratio from Robinson Spring Wetland Mitigation Bank, located within the same watershed as the proposed impacts. The impact of the thermal plume on wetland vegetation along the shoreline due to operation of an AP1 000 unit on site would be minimal due to the small temperature change predicted.

Some enhancement of macrophyte growth could occur along portions of the mainstream east bank and the adjacent shallow area (DOE 1999). BMPs would be used to avoid or minimize indirect wetland impacts. Therefore, no significant wetland impacts are anticipated from runoff or sedimentation during the construction or operation of one API 000 unit at BLN. Because TVA would mitigate in-kind within the watershed for wetland fill resulting from construction, no net loss of wetland functionswithin the watershed would be anticipated, resulting in no cumulative wetland impacts under Alternative C.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 133

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 9!9

/

Legend piww t prPoýa Aerpa FmoAng 4n#urp FllrvJ Roa t Park%

[KY/ý mWtl.M1 New Area I Stbu~iv iul M

-w~mou W5,11c VA~tf rWWac WRV~nrb~v I" -Sa Figure S 3-12.Fa Wa E MAV~w COL~a SItfvlt WhLt "MI Sy Figure 3-12, Wetlands Shown in Relation to the AP1000 Site Plan (Alternative C) 134 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 3.5. Aquatic Ecology 3.5.1. Affected Environment To support the evaluation of the viability of licensing an additional nuclear reactor at the BLN site, TVA conducted one year of preoperational monitoring in Guntersville Reservoir.

During 2009, sampling was conducted upstream and downstream of BLN to characterize site-specific conditions. Sampling at these sites was in addition to TVA's routine VS monitoring program. The VS program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic

• macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of fossil and nuclear power plants, is used to evaluate effects of thermal discharges to aquatic communities in the receiving water body.

The VS monitoring program in the Tennessee River system began in 1990. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TVA's stewardship role. One of five indicators used in the VS program is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI). RFAI has been thoroughly tested on TVA and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings et al. 1995; Hickman and McDonough 1996; McDonough and Hickman 1999). The measures used in this methodology are indexed metrics, and not absolute measures of community diversity (number of species) or abundance (number of individuals of each species).

Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to adapt to conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. The RBI is an indexed measure that is used to compare reservoir sites within the Tennessee River system. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. RBI data are used to supplement RFAI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges. Results of the 2009 preoperational monitoring near BLN are summarized below.

Fish Community Data collected in 2009 indicate RFAI scores from sites sampled downstream from BLN were similar to those sampled upstream (Table 3-6; Appendix G, Tables 1-3).

Table 3-6. RFAI Scores Upstream and Downstream of BLN During 20091 Season From BLN Downstream FromcBLN

'Upstream (2009) Score Rating Percentz Score. Rating Percent2 Spring 34 Fair 56 35 Fair 58 Summer 35 Fair 58 30 Poor 50 Autumn 40 Fair 67 34 Fair 57 Summarized from Simmons and Walton 2009 2 Percent of highest attainable score Although the scores reached only between 50 and 67 percent of the highest attainable score between spring and autumn, the variation between upstream and downstream scores during any season were within the acceptable six-point range of variation, which indicates no difference in the RFAI between upstream and downstream sites.

Average RFAI scores from established VS monitoring sites on Guntersville Reservoir, farther upstream and 15 river miles downstream of BLN range from 33 (Fair) to 39 (Fair),

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 135

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site which is similar to the average scores for the preoperational monitoring sites upstream and downstream of BLN during spring, summer, and autumn 2009 (Appendix G , Table 4).

TVA has conducted extensive fish sampling in Guntersville Reservoir between 1949 and 2009 using a variety of sampling methodologies. Surveys were conducted prior to 1949, but those data are not consolidated or easily accessible (e.g., specimens cataloged at various museums throughout the United States). A summary of the collection efforts and methods employed from 1949 to 2009 is presented below.

" Rotenone sampling. Between 1949 and 1993, selected coves in Guntersville Reservoir were blocked off and treated with rotenone, killing the fish in the cove so that species occurrence and abundance could be assessed. Rotenone sampling declined sharply in the mid-1 980s due to changes in pesticide regulations, and TVA stopped using rotenone as a sampling method in 1993.

" Impingement mortality (number of fish impinged on trash screen at power plant cooling water intakes) sampling. These studies were conducted during 1974 -1975 and during 2005-2007 at WCF upstream of BLN on Guntersville Reservoir (TVA 1975b; 2007b).

" Electrofishing, gill nets, and hoop nets. These sampling methods were used in addition to the cove rotenone sampling during special studies conducted by TVA in Guntersville Reservoir from 1974 to 1984 (TVA 1974b; 1983c; 1985b).

" TVA did not conduct intensive reservoir monitoring from 1984 to 1993. During this time, the RFAI methodology was under development. Sampling was primarily aimed at developing these metrics, and the river system was not systematically sampled as it is under the current VS program.

• RFAI sampling. RFAI sampling is a standardized sampling protocol that uses electrofishing and gill nets only.. This sampling program was initiated by TVA in 1993 and has continued until present as part of its VS monitoring program. The RFAI program replaced the cove rotenone sampling program.

" During summer 2009, TVA biologists conducted sampling in addition to the standardized preoperational RFAI monitoring in various sections of the Tennessee River, coves, and embayments of Guntersville Reservoir using boat electrofishing and small-mesh seines in shallow areas to evaluate species occurrences in areas that were not typically surveyed during RFAI sampling and to document the occurrence of species not collected by standard RFAI methodology (e.g., some small-bodied minnows and darters).

Because a variety of sampling methods was used, results must be interpreted and compared with caution. Variation in the effectiveness of the collection techniques used now (electrofishing and gill nets) as compared to the historic period (rotenone) must be considered. These collection techniques target different areas of the reservoir and tend to collect different species. Rotenone, used in coves, is effective in collecting species of all sizes. Electrofishing and gill netting, which occur in the main channel or shoreline areas, are effective in collection of larger-bodied fish species (e.g., black bass, sunfish, and suckers), but smaller-bodied species (minnows and darters) tend to be under-represented by these collection methods. Documenting the species inhabiting Guntersville Reservoir is 136 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 also complicated by the apparent misidentification of some specimens in historical collection records.

When comparing the older (1949-1984) data to more recent (1993-2009) data, some differences are apparent. Seventy-nine species are reported from historical rotenone, impingement, electrofishing, and gill net and hoop net surveys (1949 to 1989) (Appendix G, Table 13). Six species (blacktail shiner, bluntnose darter, fantail darter, redline darter, shortnose gar, and suckermouth minnow) are questionable records and likely represent historic misidentifications of other common species. Three of these species are mainly found in smaller streams and are infrequently found in reservoirs (bigeye chub, stripetail darter, creek chub) and should not be considered part of the resident fish community in the reservoir. Elimination of the erroneous identifications, and those species that are not residents, leaves a total of 70 native fish species historically present in Guntersville Reservoir.

Nineteen fish species reported from the 1949-1984 data were not collected in 1993-2009 RFAI samples. Three of these species are mainly found in smaller streams and infrequently found in reservoirs (bigeye chub, stripetail darter, and creek chub). Six species (blacktail shiner, bluntnose darter, fantail darter, redline darter, shortnose gar, and suckermouth minnow) are questionable records and likely represent historic misidentifications of other common species. Four species were collected as recent as the early 1990s in rotenone samples (ghost shiner, silver chub, pugnose minnow, and stripetail darter) but were not present in RFAI samples. Two species were collected from 2005 to 2009 WCF impingement samples (orangespotted sunfish) or in recent seining in the reservoir (whitetail shiner) but were not observed in RFAI samples. Of the 19 species "missing," only four have not been collected from the reservoir or the nearby watershed in recent times (highfin carpsucker, quillback, river carpsucker, and smallmouth redhorse)

(Appendix G, Table 5). All four of these species are uncommon in the reservoir and are

.only collected sporadically.

Conversely, nine species were collected in TVA electrofishing and gill net samples during 1993 to 2009 that were not encountered in historical TVA fish surveys (TVA rotenone/electrofishing/gill net/hoop net) in Guntersville Reservoir (Appendix G, Table 5).

Of these, two are recent nonnative invaders to the Tennessee River system (Atlantic needlefish and inland silverside). The remaining seven species (bluntnose minnow, channel shiner, dusky darter, river redhorse, silver redhorse, rainbow darter, and snubnose darter) are native species that prefer stream habitats and are infrequently encountered in the reservoir. An additional species, river darter, was collected in impingement samples at WCF during 2005 to 2007 (Appendix G, Table 5).

Based upon results of numerous studies, 71 species (69 native species) have been collected in Guntersville Reservoir during the past approximate 20 years (Simmons and Walton 2009). This number is based upon the following:

• 64 species collected in RFAI samples while electrofishing and gill netting from 1993 to 2009

• Three species collected during rotenone surveys from 1990 to 1993 (ghost shiner, pugnose minnow, silver chub)

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 137

Single Nuclear Unit at the. Bellefonte Site

" Two species collected from impingement samples at WCF during 2005 to 2007 (orangespotted sunfish and river darter)

" Two species collected while boat electrofishing (rainbow darter) and seining (whitetail shiner) in Guntersville Reservoir during summer 2009 The stripetail darter is not included in this total because it primarily inhabits streams, and two species that invaded the Tennessee River system during the past 15 years (Atlantic needlefish and inland silverside) are excluded from the comparison.

Comparing recent data to historical data, 69 native species of fish have been collected in Guntersville Reservoir between 1990 and 2009, and 70 native fish species were collected during historical surveys (1949 to 1984) (Appendix G, Table 13). Therefore, the differences between the historical reported fish community and the current reported fish community in Guntersville Reservoir are likely a consequence of sampling methods and species natural history and in errors in the historically reported data, rather than a substantial decline in the number of species inhabiting Guntersville Reservoir.

Some changes in fish community composition and abundance have occurred over the period from 1949 to the present, but these are well within the natural variation seen in fish communities throughout the Tennessee River drainage. These changes do not represent a declining trend in the fish community of Guntersville Reservoir. Population densities of individual species likely vary greatly from year to year due to climate and water quality conditions, but the number of species present in Guntersville Reservoir and the relative health of this community are fairly stable.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Benthic macroinvertebrate (bottom-dwelling organisms) data collected during spring 2009 from TRM 393.7 (upstream of BLN) and from TRM 389 (downstream of BLN) resulted in an RBI score of 25 (good) (Appendix G, Table 6). Appendix G, Table 7, provides estimated mean density per square meter by taxon at these sites. Results from samples taken downstream from BLN were very similar to those taken upstream. Both upstream and downstream sites received similar overall scores.

All VS sites on Guntersville Reservoir have averaged a "good" to "excellent" RBI score from 1993 to the present (Appendix G, Table 8). Results of preoperational RBI monitoring conducted near BLN during spring 2009 were similar to results of VS monitoring calculated in 2008, indicating conditions near BLN are similar to other sites on Guntersville Reservoir.

Although the RBI is a good index of overall reservoir health, it is not a measure of the freshwater mussel community composition or health. Conversion from a free-flowing river to an impoundment has affected the freshwater mussel community in the Guntersville Reservoir. Since closure of Guntersville Dam, the mussel community in this portion of the river has undergone a conversion from a diverse community typical of a large, free-flowing river to a community composed of relatively few species that are tolerant of reservoir conditions. RBI is used to compare sites within and among TVA's reservoir system.

Ichthyoplankton Data on fish communities, including density of fish eggs and larvae adjacent to BLN, were collected. The. ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae suspended in the water column) assessment results during 2009 in the vicinity of BLN are similar to historical assessments 138 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 during 1977 through 1983 (TVA 2009c). Taxonomic composition and abundance of ichthyoplankton during the 2009 study validated the historical ichthyoplankton data collected several years earlier. Mandated minimum flows generated from Chickamauga and Nickajack dams provide favorable spawning habitat and water quality conditions in Guntersville Reservoir to support spawning success of fish. Additionally, there has not been any significant change in the reservoir fish assemblage in upper Guntersville Reservoir since the TVA VS program was initiated in 1993, which suggests no major changes to spawning success.

3.5.2. EnvironmentalConsequences Alternative A Because no construction or nuclear plant operation would occur at BLN, there would be no impacts to aquatic habitat or species under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative B Under Alternative B, work would be conducted to complete a single B&W unit and bring it to full operational capacity. Because intake and discharge structures are already in place, new construction is not expected to occur near the banks of the reservoir, and accidental discharge and storm water runoff is limited under the construction storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and a site-specific SPCC plan, which are implemented prior to construction initiation. Refurbishment of the barge unloading dock would take place and would be performed in compliance with ADEM and applicable Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) and USACE permits.

Dredging 1,960 feet of the intake channel between the intake structure and the main river channel would be performed in compliance with applicable ADEM and USACE requirements. The intake channel was surveyed for native mussels and snails in 2009.

Only common species were encountered within the intake channel. Densities of these species were very low compared to areas in the main channel of the Tennessee River.

Predredge conditions should return as benthic communities recolonize the area and suspended solids settle out of the water column. Dredging would have only minor direct and indirect effects on aquatic communities. No cumulative effects to the benthic macroinvertebrate community are anticipated.

Operational impacts on aquatic communities could occur through the release of thermal, chemical, or radioactive discharges to the atmosphere or river. Operation of a BLN unit would be in compliance with the NPDES discharge limits, as outlined in the 2009 permit

(#AL0024635). Thermal effects on the aquatic communities in the vicinity are anticipated to be minimal due to the relatively small amount of heat involved. Modeling indicates that the area of the river bottom directly contacted by the discharge plume is extremely small. Only minor effects on benthic organisms are anticipated. Because the plume does not affect the entire cross section of the river, there would be adequate room for fish passage around the affected area.

Potential chemical or radioactive releases could affect aquatic species near the site and in the reservoir downstream of the site, either directly or indirectly through the food chain.

However, any potential uptake of excessive toxins would be incidental and localized, resulting in minimal impacts to aquatic life (AEC 1974; TVA 1991; DOE 1999). No adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on aquatic communities are expected to result from plant releases (i.e., thermal, chemical, and radiological releases). Impacts on aquatic life Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 139

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site from chemical or radiological releases would be minor (Subsections 3.1.4 and 3.17.3, respectivelyi.

Impingement and entrainment associated with operating plant intake structures have potential to affect aquatic organisms. Impingement occurs when aquatic organisms too large to pass through the screens of a water intake structure become pinned against screens and are unable to escape. Entrainment is the involuntary capture and inclusion of organisms in streams of flowing water, such as plant cooling water systems. Impingement and entrainment are regulated under Section 316(b) of the CWA. The effects of plant operation are unique to the aquatic community conditions and the physical characteristics of the withdrawal at each facility. However, impingement and entrainment monitoring can only occur when a plant becomes operational. For this SEIS analysis, TVA used two reference plants (WCF and WBN) and preoperational monitoring results to estimate the magnitude of these effects.

The known impingement and entrainment at WCF is used to estimate the maximum potential impingement and entrainment effects at BLN. Located approximately 16 river miles upstreamof BLN on Guntersville Reservoir, WCF uses "once-through" cooling and withdraws significantly more water (approximately 1,476 MGD at WCF compared to a projected 48 MGD for the B&W and 36 MGD for the AP1 000) from the river than would be used at BLN. TVA has monitored impingement at the WCF site and has determined that the WCF intake does not have a significant effect on fish communities in Guntersville Reservoir due to impingement (TVA 2008a). Both impingement and entrainment rates at WCF are small. Because BLN is equipped with a closed-cycle cooling system that minimizes the intake flow,' the impingement and entrainment effects at BLN would be even smaller than the effects at WCF.

The impingement and entrainment rates at WBN are much lower than those documented at WCF primarily due to the use of closed-cycle cooling at WBN. WBN's maximum intake pumping flow rate is 103.4 MGD. Entrainment estimates from Watts Bar, a similar one-unit nuclear plant with closed-cycle cooling, located upstream on Chickamauga Reservoir at TRM 528, were low, and it is expected that BLN entrainment estimate would also be low and would not adversely impact the fish community of Guntersville Reservoir. TVA's evaluation of the historical entrainment data supports the conclusion that the impact of entrainment of ichthyoplankton from the intake system at BLN when the plant becomes operational would be small, and no adverse environmental impact is expected.

I Operation of BLN would result in some impingement and entrainment of fish. However, these effects would be minor, and would not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on fish communities in Guntersville Reservoir. These effects, even when considered as part of the cumulative effects of operation of the BLN and WCF facilities on Guntersville Reservoir, would not have a cumulative adverse effect on fish communities in Guntersville Reservoir.

Should one of the Action Alternatives be selected, TVA would perform impingement and entrainment monitoring necessary to comply with Section 316(b) of the CWA once the BLN facility is in operation to validate the projected low impingement and entrainment rates.

Alternative C Under Alternative C, construction and operational activities, and measures implemented to minimize effects on aquatic organisms would be similar to those described under Alternative B with two exceptions.

140 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Under both Action Alternatives, the intake channel would be dredged prior to initiating nuclear plant operations. However, under Alternative C, only the area between the intake structure and the shoreline (1,200 feet) would be dredged, reducing the volume of dredged material by approximately 1,100 cubic yards as compared to Alternative B.

Secondly, approximately 240 cubic yards of dredged material at the barge unloading dock would be removed if TVA were to implement Alternative C. During dredging, loss of the benthic community adjacent to the barge terminal and temporary increases in turbidity are expected. Predredge conditions should return as benthic communities recolonize the area and suspended solids settle out of the water column. Dredging of the barge unloading dock would add to effects from dredging the intake channel, but still would have only minor direct and indirect effects on aquatic communities. No cumulative effects are anticipated.

3.6. Terrestrial Ecology The BLN site, located on the west bank of the Tennessee River in Jackson County, Alabama, lies within the Sequatchie Valley, a subregion of the Southwestern Appalachian ecoregion. The Sequatchie Valley extends nearly 100 miles from the Tennessee border to the southwest into Alabama. In the north, the open, rolling, valley floor, 600 feet in elevation, is nearly 1,000 feet below the top of the Cumberland Plateau and Sand Mountain. South of Blountsville, Alabama, the topography becomes more hilly and irregular with higher elevations. The Tennessee River flows through the Sequatchie Valley until it turns west near Guntersville, where it leaves the valley. Similar to parts of the Ridge and Valley subregion, the Sequatchie Valley is an agriculturally productive region, with areas of pasture, hay, soybeans, small grain, corn, and tobacco (Griffith et al. 2001).

Vegetation on the BLN site and adjacent lands has been continuously disturbed by decades of timber harvest and agricultural activities. Initial construction of BLN 1&2 in the 1970s disturbed approximately 400 acres of the 1,600-acre BLN site. The section summarizes previous site assessments, relays any changes since those assessments occurred, characterizes existing on-site terrestrial habitat, and states all potential impacts resulting from implementation of the three alternatives described in Chapter 2. Because extensive information previously was collected and analyzed (TVA 1974a; AEC 1974; TVA 1997; 2008a; DOE 1999), no new quantitative field data were collected for this supplemental review.

3.6.1. Plants 3.6.1.1. Affected Environment Terrestrial plant communities were assessed during the initial environmental review for the construction of BLN 1&2 (TVA 1974a), during the Bellefonte Conversion FEIS (TVA 1997),

and in support of the COLA ER (TVA 2008a). For the 1974 FES, vegetation analyses were based on statistical values for data obtained from systematic vegetation plot samples.

Vegetation community boundaries were determined subjectively and plot data from those communities were analyzed for species importance values using frequency, density, and basal area (for trees). Five major plant community types were described: cultivated fields; elm-ash-soft maple forests; oak-hickory forests; mixed conifer and hardwood forests; and broomsedge-lespedeza fields. The majority of BLN construction occurred on previously disturbed young forest and agricultural fields (TVA 1974a) within the BLN site. A 1997 ecological assessment was completed for the remaining natural habitat of the BLN site.

Five terrestrial vegetative communities were described: lawns and grassy fields; Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 141

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site bottomland/riparian hardwood forests; mixed hardwood forests; pine-hardwood forests; and scrub-shrub thickets.

During field reconnaissance in 2007 and 2008, vegetation sampling confirmed that previous habitat data are consistent with current conditions. Vegetative cover on the BLN site is primarily mixed hardwood forest and mixed improved and native grass fields (Table 3-7).

Approximately 5 percent of the ground cover on the BLN site consists of roads and structures (Figure 3-13) (TVA 2008a). These vegetation communities are common and representative within the Sequatchie Valley. No globally rare or uncommon terrestrial plant communities are known to occur on site, nor are there any USFWS-designated critical habitats for plant species' protection within, on, or adjacent to the BLN site.

Table 3-7. Percent Cover of Major Habitat Types on the BLN Site Habitat Type' Description Percent HbaCover Mixed improved and Introduced species including broomsedge, oat grass, orchard 24 native grass fields grass, sericea lespedeza, and tall fescue Green ash, red maple, sweet gum, and various oak species Bottomland/riparian such as cherrybark oak, overcup oak, water oak and willow forests oak; invasive species include Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and multiflora rose Mixed-mesophytic and oak-hickory forest vegetation typically Mixed hardwood forests dominated by American beech, mockernut hickory, red oak, 43 sugar maple, and white oak Oak-pine or oak-hickory-pine communities commonly found in Pine-hardwood forests evergreen-deciduous forests; dominant species are loblolly pine and shortleaf pine, with black oak, southern red oak, and sweetgum also present Early succession to forests; comprised of saplings of ash Scrub-shrub thickets species sumacs; (green and white),

these areas black locust, also contain variouspine, sweetgum, varieties of and 12 blackberries and catbriars Most lands in and around the TVA power service area have been affected by introduced nonnative plant species. Nonnative plants occur across Southern Appalachian forests, accounting for 15 to 20 percent of the documented flora (U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 2008).

According to NatureServe (2009), invasive nonnative species are the second-leading threat to imperiled native species. Not all nonnative species pose threats to our native ecosystems. Many species introduced by European settlers are naturalized additions to our flora and considered to be nonnative noninvasive species. These "weeds" have very little negative impacts to native vegetation. Examples of these are Queen Anne's lace and dandelion. However, other nonnative species are considered to be exotic invasive species and do pose threats to the natural environment. EO 13112 defines an invasive species as any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem, and whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (USDA 2007).

142 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Vegetation Types Legnd 1 w'oMU csrx stwucu bWIEPf Irrprf f* e vW1NA Ve GnF-YA Plfti Rojjd S.Z- DEh wMtwi

1. AUtj I rdwuvJ rumet -~p VM1e.*rwwr C"oriawsc- eIPftW rOO- Am N

- ~cro. - Sriwub n-

ýC ~

NM ~ - fU . 1WO S

Figure 3-13. Vegetation Cover Types on the Bellefonte TVA Property Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 143

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The Alabama Invasive Plant Council (2006) reports six of the top 10 Alabama worst weeds as occurring in Jackson County, and two additional species are found in DeKalb County.

These exotic weeds, which pose a severe threat to native ecosystems, are alligator weed, Eurasian water milfoil, cogongrass, Chinese privet, hydrilla, kudzu, multiflora rose, and tropical soda apple. Cogongrass, hydrilla, and tropical soda apple are also on the Federal Noxious Weed List (USDA 2007). Field observations within the BLN site. noted an abundance of Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle along with dandelion, multiflora rose, sericea lespedeza, and tall fescue.

The most effective, economical, and ecologically sound approach to managing invasive plants is to prevent them from invading (Center for Invasive Plant Management 2009).

Land managers often concentrate on fighting well-established infestations, at which point management is expensive, and eradication is unlikely. Infestations must be managed to limit the spread of invasive plants, but weed management that controls existing infestations while focusing on prevention and early detection of new invasions can be far more cost-effective.

Weed prevention depends on the following:

" Limiting the introduction of weed seeds o Early detection and eradication of small patches of weeds

" Minimizing the disturbance of desirable plants along trails, roads, and waterways

• Maintaining desired plant communities through good management

" Monitoring high-risk areas such as transportation corridors and bare ground

• Revegetating disturbed sites with desired plants

• Evaluating the effectiveness of prevention efforts and adapting plans for the following year 3.6.1.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, upgrades to existing units or construction of new units would not be undertaken. Because the terrestrial communities present on and around the BLN site are common and representative of the region, no impacts to the terrestrial plant ecology of the area are expected under this alternative. In addition, invasive plant species present on site will not be disturbed; therefore, this alternative would not contribute to the spread or introduction of exotic invasive plant species on or near the BLN site.

Alternative B Under Alternative B, construction activities would occur within previously disturbed areas, resulting in very minor clearing of some terrestrial vegetation. Any clearing would take place in accordance with an SPCC plan and BMPs designed to minimize impacts to the adjacent land (TVA 1992). Disturbed areas would be revegetated with native or nonnative noninvasive plant species to reduce the introduction and spread of exotic invasive plant species associated with ground disturbance and other construction activities. Therefore, no indirect effects to terrestrial vegetation are expected. Criteria gaseous or particulate air pollutants emitted from the facility during construction or operation would meet the ambient air quality standards and would have no adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on terrestrial vegetation. Because the terrestrial communities present on and around the BLN 144 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 site are common and representative of the region, no cumulative impacts to the terrestrial plant ecology of the area would be expected under this alternative.

Alternative C Adoption of Alternative C would result in similar impacts associated with construction and operation. Under this alternative, about 50 acres of terrestrial vegetation (hardwood forest, pine-hardwood forest, mixed hardwood forested wetland, and native grass field) would be cleared, resulting in minor direct impacts to terrestrial vegetation. As with Alternative B, clearing would take place in accordance with an SPCC plan, BMPs, and revegetation plans as described under Alternative B. Therefore, no indirect effects to native terrestrial vegetation would occur under Alternative C. Because the terrestrial communities present on and around the BLN site are common and representative of the region, no cumulative impacts to the terrestrial plant ecology of the area are expected under Alternative C.

3.6.2. Wildlife 3.6.2.1. Affected Environment The terrestrial ecology at the BLN site has changed little from that described in earlier environmental reviews (TVA 1974a; 1997; 2008a; DOE 1999). The project site, which is highly developed, includes parking areas, buildings, cooling towers, and roads. Habitat surrounding the existing facilities consists of improved and native grass fields that provide poor to moderate quality wildlife habitat. Mixed hardwood'forest or scrub-shrub communities adjacent to the vegetated fields are of adequate extent for wildlife to use as movement corridors (TVA 2008a).

Wildlife using areas adjacent to the proposed B&W and AP1 000 footprints include locally abundant species that are tolerant of human activity and highly modified habitats. Species associated with upland grassy areas and scrub-shrub communities surrounding existing BLN facilities include cottontail rabbit, woodchuck, hispid cotton rat, least shrew, eastern meadowlark, field sparrow, gray rat snake, eastern garter snake, and American toad. Other common species associated with the forested and emergent wetland communities include upland chorus frog, marbled salamander, and red-winged blackbird. Forested upland communities surrounding the site provide habitat for common wildlife including white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, raccoon, red-bellied woodpecker, blue jay, wood thrush, wild turkey, ring-necked snake, ground skink, and slimy salamander. Nearby embayments of Guntersville Reservoir are used by a wide variety of wildlife that favor riparian habitats.

These areas are used extensively by waterfowl including gadwall, American coot, blue-winged teal, mallard, American wigeon, ruddy duck, and Canada geese. Pied-billed grebe, great blue heron, belted kingfisher, mink, muskrat, beaver, red-eared slider, false map turtles, and common musk turtles are also common in these embayments (Keiser et al.

1995).

3.6.2.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A There would be no impacts from construction or operation to wildlife under the No Action Alternative. Wildlife and their habitat occurring on BLN properties would change very little in the foreseeable future as no substantive changes are expected to occur under this alternative.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 145

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Alternative B Under Alternative B; new construction would occur in areas that previously were cleared.

Criteria gaseous or particulate air pollutants emitted from the facility during construction or operation would meet the ambient air quality standards and would have no adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on wildlife. In addition, previous studies conclude that small radioactive exposure relative to acceptable benchmarks, as would be the case under normal operating circumstances, are not expected to cause observable changes in terrestrial animal populations (International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] 1992; DOE 1999).

Potential for collisions between birds and structures, vehicles, and transmission lines exists.

Many authors on the subject of avian collisions with utility structures agree that collisions are not a significant source of mortality for thriving populations of birds with good reproductive potential. NRC reviewed monitoring data concerning avian collisions with cooling towers at nuclear power plants and determined that overall avian mortality is low (NRC 1996),

Wildlife and their habitat occurring on BLN properties would change very little in the foreseeable future as no substantive changes are expected to occur to terrestrial wildlife under this alternative. No adverse direct or cumulative impacts to wildlife are expected under Alternative B.

Alternative C Construction of an AP1000 unit would result in upgrading existing infrastructure on site and construction of new buildings and parking areas inside the perimeter road. Construction within the perimeter road would clear about 50 acres of a mixed hardwood forest, forested wetlands, native grass fields, and mixed pine-hardwood forest. Review of aerial photographs and results of field reconnaissance indicate that the existing habitat contains only a small amount of interior forest habitat favored by woodland species. Therefore, clearing approximately 50 acres would result in minor impacts to common species of wildlife inhabiting the Bellefonte project area. Potential effects on wildlife from operation of the plant would be similar to those described under Alternative B. No impacts on wildlife associated with operation are anticipated under Alternative C.

Because wildlife on the BLN property is locally abundant and no uncommon terrestrial habitats are currently known to exist within the Bellefonte project area, no cumulative impacts to terrestrial animal resources are anticipated from selection of Alternative C.

3.7. Endangered and Threatened Species The ESA prohibits any person from taking a federally listed species. Significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury of federally protected species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering is also prohibited. Most of the disturbance to aquatic and terrestrial habitats associated with completion of BLN has already occurred. The following sections provide updated information on the presence of federally listed and state-listed species found on and near (as defined in each subsection) the Bellefonte project area and the potential for impacts from proposed alternatives for nuclear generation.

To evaluate effects to federally listed species from completion (or construction) and operation of a single BLN nuclear unit, TVA prepared a biological assessment (BA) pursuant to the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA (TVA 2009d). The BA examined 146 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 potential impacts of completing and operating a single B&W unit, as well as constructing and operating a single AP1 000 unit and associated transmission system improvements.

Fifty-two plants and animals federally listed as endangered, threatened, candidate for listing, or protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle ProtectionAct were addressed in the BA. Only two of the 52 of these species, the pink mucket pearlymussel (Lampsilis abrupta -

federally listed as endangered and hereafter referred to as pink mucket) and sheepnose mussel (Plethobasuscyphyus - federal candidate) were identified in the TVA BA as occurring in areas potentially affected by construction activities at the BLN site or by subsequent operation of the facility. Potential impacts to the pink mucket and sheepnose mussel and measures to minimize those impacts are described in Subsection 3.7.1 below.

The analysis and conclusions of the BA regarding plant construction and operation are discussed in Subsections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3. BA conclusions regarding the potential to impact species in the affected transmission line ROWs are discussed in Section 4.6.

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, TVA has conducted formal consultation with the USFWS to determine reasonable and prudent measures designed to avoid or minimize take of the two mussel species that would occur under either Action Alternative. TVA transmitted a BA to USFWS on November 14, 2009. USFWS (Daphne, Alabama, field office) acknowledged receipt of the BA in a December 7, 2009, letter. A follow-up letter from the USFWS (Daphne, Alabama, field office) dated January 21, 2010, stated the USFWS conclusion that only the pink mucket could be affected by the project and that there would be no effect on the candidate species sheepnose mussel.

USFWS issued a biological opinion (BO) for this project by letter dated April 15, 2010. The BO contains a "take" permit that allows for impacts to the federally listed pink mucket under either Action Alternative. Due to the poor habitat quality and low densities of mussels present in the project area, and the minimal effects on pink mucket identified in the BA, TVA has committed to providing a total of $30,000 to be used for research and recovery of pink mucket. Copies of these letters, including the BO, are included in Appendix H.

3.7.1. Aquatic Animals 3.7.1.1. Affected Environment Seven federally listed aquatic species are known to occur recently in Jackson County, Alabama. These include one fish, one snail, and five mussels. Two federal candidate mussels are also reported from Jackson County (Table 3-8). There are historic records of six other federally listed mussels in Jackson County, but those species are presumed extirpated from Guntersville Reservoir. Only one species recently occurring in Jackson County, the pink mucket, has been documented in Guntersville Reservoir in the vicinity of the BLN site. Mussel and snail surveys in Guntersville Reservoir immediately adjacent to the site in 1995, 2007, and 2009 discovered one live pink mucket and one empty pink mucket valve. No other federally listed mussel or snail species were encountered. Habitat that could support the federal candidate sheepnose mussel was identified during this survey. On this basis, it is assumed that the sheepnose mussel, as well as pink mucket, is present Within areas affected by BLN site development.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 147

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Table 3-8. Federally Listed and State-Listed Aquatic Species Present in Jackson County, Alabama Federal Alabama Stat ank Common Name TStatus Scientific Name Stat (Status- Rank)

Insects A caddisfly Rhyacophila alabama (POTL, S)

A glossosomatid caddisfly Agapetus hessi (TRKD, S)

Hine's emerald dragonfly Somatochlora hineana LE (PROT, SH)

Snails Anthony's riversnail Athearnia anthonyi LE (PROT, S)

Corpulent hornsnail Pleuroceracorpulenta _)TRKD, S1 Varicose rocksnail Lithasia verrucosa (TRKD, S3)

Mussels Alabama lampmussel Lampsilis virescens LE (PROT, S)

Butterfly* Ellipsarialineolata (TRKD, S3)

Cumberland moccasinshell Medionidus conradicus (PROT, S)

Deertoe Truncilla truncata (TRKD, S)

Fine-rayed pigtoe Fusconaiacuneolus LE (PROT, S1)

Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus.fasciolaris (TRKD, S)

Monkeyface* Quadrulametanevra - (TRKD, S3)

Ohio pigtoe* Pleurobema cordatum - (TRKD, S2)

Painted creekshell Villosa taeniata - (TRKD, S3)

Pale lilliput Toxolasma cylindrellus LE (PROT, S)

Pheasantshell Actinonaias pectorosa (TRKD, 1 )

Pink mucket* Lampsilis abrupta LE (PROT, S)

Purple lilliput Toxolasma lividus - (TRKD, S2)

Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica - (PROT SI) cylindrica Rainbow Villosa iris - (TRKD, S3)

Round hickorynut Obovaria subrotunda - (TRKD, S2)

Sheepnose* Plethobasuscyphyus C (PROT, Si)

Shiny pigtoe pearlymussel Fusconaiacor LE (PROT, S)

Slabside pearlymussel Lexingtonia dolabelloides C (PROT, S)

Slippershell mussel Alasmidonta viridis - (PROT, S)

Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra - (TRKD, S)

Spike Elliptio dilatata - (TRKD, S)

Tennessee clubshell Pleurobemaoviforme - TRKD, S)

Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia - (TRKD, SIS2)

Tennessee pigtoe Fusconaiabamesiana - TRKD, S)

Wavy-rayed lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola (TRKD, S1S2)

Fish Blotched chub Erimystax insignis - TRKD, S2)

Blotchside logperch Percinaburtoni - (TRKD, S)

Palezone shiner Notropis albizonatus LE (PROT, S1 Southern cavefish Typhlichthys subterraneus (PROT, S3)

• Denotes species that are known or likely to occur in Guntersville Reservoir and could be directly or indirectly affected by BLN site construction activities.

Federal status abbreviations: C = Candidate for federal listing; LE = Listed endangered State status abbreviations: POTL = Potential candidate for state listing; PROT =.Protected; TRKD =

Tracked by the state natural heritage program State rank abbreviations: S1 = Critically imperiled, often with five or fewer occurrences; S2 = Imperiled, often with <20 occurrences; S3 = Rare or uncommon, often with <80 occurrences; SH = Historical record; S#S# = Occurrence numbers are uncertain 148 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 The 1995, 2007, and 2009 surveys indicated Anthony's riversnail does not occur adjacent to the BLN site. No suitable habitat for other federally listed aquatic species known from Jackson County, Alabama, is present in streams near the BLN site or in Guntersville Reservoir adjacent to the BLN site. Three Alabama state-listed mussel species, Ohio pigtoe, butterfly, and monkeyface, were identified during the 2007 survey adjacent to the BLN site. These species are currently tracked by the state, but are not formally protected.

3.7.1.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A There would be no construction or operation of a nuclear plant at BLN under Alternative A.

Existing discharge to Guntersville Reservoir is in accordance with NPDES permits, which are designed to maintain water quality and aquatic habitat conditions that are suitable for aquatic life, including federally listed and state-listed species. Therefore, there would be no impacts to federally listed or state-listed aquatic species under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative B Under Alternative B, a B&W unit would be completed and operated. The effects to listed aquatic species from site construction, dredging, towing barges, and operating the plant were evaluated.

Intake and discharge structures for the nuclear unit are already in place and new construction is not expected to occur near the banks of the reservoir. Accidental discharge and storm water runoff is limited under the construction SWPPP and a site-specific SPCC plan, which would be implemented prior to initiating construction. Refurbishment of the barge unloading dock would be performed in accordance with ADCNR and applicable ADEM and USACE permits. All site construction work would be conducted using appropriate BMPs, and no discharge-related impacts would occur. Therefore, on-site construction activities would not result in direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the federally listed or state-listed aquatic animals in Guntersville Reservoir and its tributaries near BLN.

Dredging the intake channel may adversely affect the pink mucket and the three state-listed species present in the potentially affected areas. Due to the poor habitat quality and low densities of mussels present in the project area, few individuals would likely be directly harmed. The greatest number of mussels affected would be individuals inhabiting areas surrounding, and particularly downstream of, dredged areas in the main channel of the Tennessee River. Mussels in those areas would be indirectly affected by turbulence and the suspension and deposition of fine sediments. Although brief and temporary, turbulence and suspended silt could interfere with respiration, feeding, and reproductive activity of federally listed mussels. The use of BMPs such as silt curtains should limit the area affected by suspended sediments and sedimentation.

Mussels also may be indirectly affected by tows delivering less than 50 total barges prior to operation of BLN. Effects from tow propeller wash include brief periods of extreme turbulence, increased suspended sediments, scouring of substrate (and mussels) from the riverbed, and accumulation of fine sediments in surrounding areas. Subsequent effects could interfere with mussel respiration, feeding, and reproductive activity, including interactions with potential fish hosts; such effects may last months to years.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 149

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Discharge of chemicals needed to operate the plant is not expected to harm aquatic species. Concentrations of chemicals added to cooling tower blowdown are very small by the time they are discharged to the Tennessee River. The discharge is regulated and monitored under an NPDES permit. Results of studies at TVA's WBN show mussels and fish are not affected even if exposed to undiluted effluent.

Exposure to heated effluent may cause minor indirect effects to federally listed mussels by stressing the fish that carry larval mussels in their gills. Thermal effluent is not expected to harm mussels inhabiting the bottom of the river directly. As stated above in Section 3.5, modeling indicates that the river bottom area in Guntersville Reservoir that would be directly contacted by the thermal plume is small. Bottom contact would only occur within the mixing zone defined in Subsection 3.1.3.1. Therefore, exposure to heated discharge is minimal, and any potential thermal effects would be minor.

In addition to thermal and chemical discharges, operational effects may include impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (see Section 3.5 above). Impingement and entrainment could affect fish species that may serve as hosts for the pink mucket (e.g.,

largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, freshwater drum, sauger, white crappie, and walleye) and sheepnose (e.g., sauger and central stoneroller) and other state-listed species. Effects on these species are anticipated to be minor, and would not have a measurable adverse indirect or cumulative effect on the pink mucket, sheepnose, or other listed aquatic species.

In conclusion, TVA has determined that proposed dredging and barge towing proposed under Alternative B would result in adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the pink mucket and minor adverse affects to the state-listed mussels. Operation of the proposed B&W unit may have minor indirect impacts on those species. In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, USFWS has issued a "take permit" that allows for these impacts to the federally listed as endangered pink mucket. Measures designed to minimize and/or mitigate for impacts to pink mucket identified in the USFWS BO are identified in Subsection 2.8 of this FSEIS and would become commitments in TVA's ROD. Due to the low densities of mussels present in the project area, and the minimal effects on pink mucket identified in the BA, rather than conduct an extensive mussel relocation effort for relatively few mussels, TVA has committed to providing a total of $30,000 to be used for research and recovery of the pink mucket.

Alternative C Similar to Alternative B, proposed activities under Alternative C would use existing intake and discharge, all site construction work would be conducted using appropriate BMPs, and no discharge-related impacts would occur. On-site construction activities would not result in direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the federally listed or state-listed aquatic species in Guntersville Reservoir or its tributaries near BLN.

As described under Alternative B, dredging may affect the pink mucket and the three state-listed species present in the potentially affected areas. As with Alternative B, due to the poor habitat quality and low densities of mussels present in the project area, few individuals would likely be directly harmed. Under Alternative C, dredging would occur in part of the intake channel and at the barge unloading dock. Because the portion of intake channel nearest the river would not be dredged, indirect impacts to the pink mucket and sheepnose mussel are about 70 percent less under Alternative C than Alternative B.

150 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Transportation of materials by barge would occur more frequently during the site construction activities proposed under Alternative C than Alternative B. The greater number of barges would result in greater indirect effects to federally listed mussels near the barge unloading dock from turbulence, suspended sediments, and scouring, as compared to Alternative B.

Impacts from thermal and chemical discharge, as well as impingement and entrainment of potential fish hosts would be the same under Alternative C as described for Alternative B.

Therefore, proposed dredging and barge towing proposed under Alternative C would result in adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the pink mucket and minor adverse effects to the state-listed mussels. Operation of the proposed AP1000 unit could have minor indirect impacts on those species. As with Alternative B, the USFWS has issued a take permit that allows for these impacts to the federally listed as endangered pink mucket, and TVA has committed to providing a total of $30,000 to be used for research and recovery of the pink mucket. Measures designed to minimize and/or mitigate for impacts to the pink mucket identified in the USFWS BO are identified in Subsection 2.8 of this FSEIS and would become commitments in TVA's ROD.

3.7.2. Plants 3.7.2.1. Affected Environment A review of the TVA Natural Heritage database indicated no federally listed plants and 25 state-listed plant species occur within 5 miles of BLN (Table 3-9). No critical habitat has been designated for plant species within or near the BLN site. Four federally listed plant species and one candidate for federal listing are reported from greater than 5 miles from BLN but within Jackson County, Alabama. These include: American hart's-tongue fern, green pitcher plant, Morefield's leather-flower, Price's potato bean, and monkey-face orchid. The USFWS recommended that surveys be conducted to investigate presence of the green pitcher plant, monkey-face orchid, Mbrefield's leather flower, and Price's potato bean (TVA 2008a). Subseque~nt surveys conducted during winter 2007 and summer 2008 indicated no habitat suitable for any of the five federally listed or candidate plant species exists within the TVA property boundary at BLN. In addition, no state-listed species were identified during several field surveys within the TVA property boundary.

3.7.2.2. Environmental Consequences Alternatives A, B, and C Because no federally listed, candidate for federal listing, or state-listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the TVA property boundary at BLN, and no habitat suitable to support those species is present, no adverse impacts to federally listed or state-listed plant species would occur under any of the alternatives.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 151

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Table 3-9. State-Listed Plants Found Within 5 Miles of the BLN Site and Federally Listed Species Documented in Jackson County, Alabama Federal* State Common Name Scientific Name Fdal State Status Rank/Status Alabama snow-wreath Neviusia alabamensis -- S2/SLNS American hart's-tongue fern* Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum LT S1/SLNS American smoke-tree Cotinus obovatus -- S2/SLNS Appalachian quillwort Isoetes engelmannii -- S3/SLNS Butler's quillwort Isoetes butleri -- S2/SLNS Canada violet Viola canadensis -- S2/SLNS Carolina silverbell Halesia carolina -- S2/SLNS Creeping aster Eurybia surculosa -- S1/SLNS Cumberland rosinweed Silphium brachiatum -- S2/SLNS Goldenseal Hydrastis canadensis -- S2/SLNS Green pitcher plant* Sarraceniaoreophila LE S2/SLNS Harper's dodder Cuscuta harperi -- S2/SLNS Horse-gentian Triosteum angustifolium -- S1/SLNS Michaux leavenworthia Leavenworthia uniflora -- S2/SLNS Monkey-face orchid (white Platanthera integrilabia C S2ISLNS fringeless orchid)*

Morefield's leather-flower* Clematis morefieldii LE S1S2/SLNS Nuttall's rayless golden-rod Bigelowia nuttallii -- S3/SLNS One-flowered broomrape Orobanche uniflora -- S2/SLNS Price's potato bean* Apios priceana LT S2/SLNS Sedge Carex purpurifera -- S2/SLNS Spotted mandarin Disporum maculatum -- S1/SLNS Sunnybell Schoenolirion croceum -- S2/SLNS Tennessee bladderfern Cystopteris tennesseensis -- S2/SLNS Tennessee leafcup Polymnia laevigata -- S2S3/SLNS Twinleaf Jeffersonia diphylla -- S2/SLNS Wahoo Euonymus atropurpureus -- S3/SLNS White-leaved sunflower Helianthus glaucophyllus -- SH/SLNS Wister coral-root Corallorhizawisteriana -- S2/SLNS Woodland tickseed Coreopsis pulchra -- S2/SLNS Yellowwood Cladrastiskentukea -- S3/SLNS Denotes known from the county but not from within 5 miles of the project area Federal status abbreviations: C = Candidate; LE = Listed endangered; LT = Listed threatened State rank abbreviations: S1 = Critically imperiled, often with five or fewer occurrences; S2 = Imperiled, often with <20 occurrences; S3 = Rare or uncommon, often, with <80 occurrences; S4 = Apparently secure in the state with many occurrences; SH = Historical record; S#S# = Occurrence numbers are uncertain State status: Alabama does not give status to state-listed species; SLNS = No state status 3.7.3. Wildlife 3.7.3.1. Affected Environment No populations of terrestrial animal species federally listed as threatened or endangered (or species that are proposed or candidates for federal listing) are reportedwithin 3 miles of BLN. Populations of two federally listed as endangered species, the gray bat (Myotis grisescens)and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), are reported from the region but have not been documented on or within 3 miles of the Bellefonte project area. Gray bats roost in several caves in the county and routinely forage over Guntersville Reservoir near the BLN 152 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 facility (Thomas and Best 2000; Best et al. 1995). No suitable roosting habitat for this species (caves) exists on the BLN property.

Small colonies of Indiana bats hibernate in caves in Jackson County. No caves occur within the project boundary; however, suitable summer roosting habitat exists in forested portions of the property within the Bellefonte project area. Suitable habitat in the project area was examined in 2008 to assess the quality of this potential'habitat for Indiana bats (TVA 2008a). Although a few moderate-quality roost trees were present, the overall habitat quality for Indiana bats was low because the subcanopy is relatively dense, and the site lacks multiple trees suitable for Indiana bat roosts. Indiana bat habitats typically roost in multiple trees having varying exposure to sunlight (Miller et al. 2002).

Additionally, bald eagles (Haliaeetusleucocephalus), which are federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle ProtectionAct, occur near BLN. Prior to 2009, the species was reported nesting approximately 1.4 miles east of the Bellefonte project area.

Several Alabama state-listed species are reported from Jackson County (TVA 2008a). Of these, ospreys (Pandionhaliaetus)are the only state-listed terrestrial animal species known from the BLN project area. Osprey nests are present on transmission line structures within the proposed Bellefonte project area.

Eastern big-eared bats (Corynorhinusrafinesquii)are reported from Jackson County. The species has rarely been observed in recent years despite numerous cave and bat surveys performed byTVA and the ADCNR. Forested habitat within the Bellefonte project area was examined in 2008 (TVA 2008a). No potential roost trees suitable for big-eared bats (large hollow trees) were found on the site. Because big-eared bats often roost in man-made structures, an old water storage and pump facility on the property was examined for signs of bat use; no evidence of bats was identified. The closest suitable habitat for this species exists at wetlands on Bellefonte Island (mature hollow trees) in the Tennessee River and along the extensive sandstone escarpment of Sand Mountain located south and across the river from BLN.

3.7.3.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A There would be no impacts to federally listed or state-listed wildlife under the No Action Alternative. Habitat suitable for these species, including foraging areas used by gray bats and low- to moderate-quality roosting habitat for Indiana bats would not be affected under this alternative.

Alternative B Construction and operation activities proposed under Alternative B are not expected to negatively affect federally listed or state-listed wildlife. No suitable roosting habitat for gray bats exists on the BLN property. The proposed actions would not result in adverse impacts to roosting or foraging gray bats. Because construction would occur in nonforested areas, habitat potentially suitable for roosting Indiana bats would not be affected.

Given the overall lack of suitable roost trees, caves, or sandstone outcrops and no evidence of bat use at the water pump facility, eastern big-eared bats are unlikely to be present, and no impacts to that species are expected.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 153

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The distance between the Bellefonte project area and the single known bald eagle nest is greater than the recommended nesting buffer zone (660 feet) established by National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to protect bald eagles. Therefore, construction activities at

'BLN are not expected to result in adverse impacts to bald eagles.

Operational impacts on threatened and endangered terrestrial animals could occur through the release of thermal, chemical, or radioactive discharges to the atmosphere Or river.

These releases could affect listed species near the site and in the reservoir downstream of the site, either directly or indirectly through the food chain. However, any potential uptake of excessive toxins would be incidental and localized, resulting in minimal impacts to protected species' populations. Noise associated with regular on-site operations is not expected to carry to nearby forested tracts that contain potential foraging habitat for some species. Infrequent activities occurring near these forested areas may cause species to leave the area temporarily, but no long-term effects on individuals or populations nearby are anticipated.

The use of habitats at BLN by federally listed and state-listed terrestrial animals is limited.

Construction and operation activities proposed under Alternative B are not expected to result in adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to federally listed or state-listed species or their habitats.

Alternative C Under Alternative C, potential effects from construction and operation of the AP1 000 unit are the same as described for the B&W unit with one exception. Construction proposed under Alternative C involves removal of approximately 50 acres of forest within the perimeter road. Some potential roost trees of moderate quality exist in this area. Prior to clearing forest within the BLN site, TVA would conduct a survey for Indiana bats using methods approved by the USFWS. If Indiana bats are not detected, trees may be removed.

If Indiana bats are detected, TVA would coordinate with the USFWS to establish methods to avoid or minimize effects to Indiana bats. In either instance, impacts to Indiana bats under Alternative C would be minor.

All other construction and operation activities proposed at BLN are not expected to result in adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to federally listed or state-listed species or their habitats.

3.8. Natural Areas 3.8.1.1. Affected Environment Natural areas include managed areas, ecologically significant sites, and Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) streams. This section addresses natural areas that are on, immediately adjacent to, or within 3 miles of BLN. No ecologically significant sites or NRI streams occur within that area.

Changes since the 1974 FES (TVA 1974a) concerning natural areas and the environmental impact on natural areas within 3 miles of BLN are assessed below for the purpose of updating previous documentation to current conditions.

Mud Creek State Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Bellefonte Island TVA Small Wild Area (SWA), Coon Gulf TVA SWA, and Section Bluff TVA SWA are the four natural areas currently listed in the TVA Natural Heritage database within 3 miles of BLN property 154 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 boundaries. Mud Creek State WMA and Bellefonte Island TVA SWA are within 1 mile of the BLN site. The remaining two areas are between 1 and 3 miles of BLN.

Mud Creek State WMA is located in Jackson County, Alabama, approximately 0.2 mile northeast of BLN property boundaries. Mud Creek WMA comprises approximately 8,273 acres owned by TVA and managed by ADCNR for waterfowl and small and big game hunting.

Bellefonte Island TVA SWA is located in Jackson County, Alabama, approximately 0.2 mile east of BLN. property boundaries, within the midchannel of the Tennessee River between TRM 392.5 and TRM 394. Bellefonte Island TVA SWA comprises approximately 100 acres of property managed by TVA and features a naturally occurring stand of tupelo gum swamp that is suitable habitat for numerous species of waterfowl.

Coon Gulf TVA SWA is located in Jackson County, Alabama, approximately 1 mile northeast of BLN property boundaries. Coon Gulf TVA SWA comprises. approximately 2,366 acres managed by TVA, features a forested cove on Guntersville Reservoir, and provides habitat for federally listed and state-listed species.

Section Bluff TVA SWA is located in Jackson County, Alabama, approximately 2.6 miles south of and across the river from BLN property boundaries. Section Bluff comprises approximately 600 acres managed by TVA and features extensive sandstone outcrops and mature hardwoods that provide habitat for federally listed and state-listed species.

3.8.1.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, no alterations or improvements would be made to existing facilities for the purpose of nuclear power generation. Therefore, no natural areas would be directly or indirectly affected, and no cumulative effects would result from adoption of this alternative.

Alternatives B and C Under the Action Alternatives, improvements to existing facilities and continued operation of the plant would take place. Construction associated with completion of existing facilities would not directly or indirectly affect natural areas in the vicinity, because construction-related activities would be confined to land already previously altered due to the initial BLN construction. The distance between these areas and the BLN site provides ample buffer from any construction noise originating from the BLN site. Emissions of gaseous and particulate air pollutants from operation of combustion sources on site would result in small increases in air pollutant concentrations. However, the resulting concentrations of the pollutants in the vicinity would meet the ambient standards and would have no adverse effect on people or wildlife using these areas. In addition, previous studies conclude that small radioactive exposure relative to acceptable benchmarks, as would be the case under normal operating circumstances, are not expected to cause changes in terrestrial animal populations (IAEA 1992; DOE 1999). Therefore, potential for cumulative impacts to these areas resulting from the initial construction and long-term operation of either a single B&W unit or a single AP1 000 unit are anticipated to be minor.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 155

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 3.9. Recreation 3.9.1.1. Affected Environment As documented in previous environmental assessments of the BLN site, the area within a 50-mile radius of BLN is well suited to a variety of outdoor recreation pursuits. There are several major parks and recreation resources within this region including Chattahoochee National Forest, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, Little River Canyon National Preserve, and several state parks. Guntersville Reservoir, which has 69,000 surface acres and approximately 80 developed public, commercial, or quasi-public recreation areas around its shoreline, is also one of the region's major recreation resources. The waters of this reservoir provide opportunities for a variety of recreation activities including power and nonpower boating, swimming, fishing, and waterfowl hunting. The surrounding shorelines offer accommodations for camping, hiking, hunting and wildlife observation, golfing, and vacationing.

While most of the recreation areas on Guntersville Reservoir, including major areas such as Lake Guntersville State Park, Buck's Pocket State Park, Goose Pond Colony, and most commercial recreation facilities, are more than 10 miles away from the BLN site, there are six areas within the 6-mile radius of the BLN. Figure 3-14 shows the location of these areas, as well as three additional reservoir recreation areas situated within 10 miles of the BLN site.

3.9.1.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under this alternative, because no nuclear plant would be built or operated, no impact on recreational facilities or activities is anticipated.

Alternatives B and C As indicated in earlier NEPA assessments (TVA 1974a; 2008a), plant construction and operation under either alternative would generate some noise and would also result in the removal and use of a small amount of water from Guntersville Reservoir.

As discussed in Section 3.12, some activities conducted during the construction of either of the alternatives would generate noise that could be an annoyance to recreationists and others in the vicinity of the plant site. Because such noise levels would occur over a short period of time, impacts on recreation would be negligible. Under either alternative, plant operation noise is expected to be attenuated to near ambient levels beyond the site boundary. Consequently, noise from plant operation would have a minor impact, and no mitigation would be required. No cumulative effects would be expected.

Plant water use would represent a minimal amount relative to total water flow in the waterways around BLN (Subsection 3.1.2). River level associated with consumptive water losses resulting from plant operations would not affect recreational boating in summer, when river use is at its highest, even during extreme low-flow conditions (TVA 2008a).

Therefore, impacts on water-based recreation would be minor, and no mitigation would be required. No cumulative effects would be expected.

156 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 2 72 Hal Z0 Paa Comer Bride 4 Legend Bellefonte Nuclea- Plant Site Center Point Bellefonte Site 6-mile Radius a Boat Ramp Guntersville Reservoir N

= Recreation Area W-46L E 0 1 2 3 4 Mile S

Figure 3-14. BLN Recreation Instream Use Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 157

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 3.10. Archaeological Resources and Historic Structures 3.10.1. Affected Environment As noted in previous environmental reviews, the area surrounding the BLN property has been occupied by humans for more than 15,000 years. The archaeological record of the Tennessee River Valley has documented four major prehistoric occupational periods that began with the Paleo-lndian (14,000-8000 B.C.), the Archaic Period (8000-900 B.C.), the Woodland Period (900 B.C-A.D. 1100), and the Mississippian Culture (A.D. 1100-1630).

Although the earliest European contact in the region severely impacted the Native American cultures, occupation by Cherokees continued through the early 19th century, when they were removed along the Trail of Tears. European settlers soon began to occupy the region, and Jackson County was established in 1819.

Previous undertakings associated with this area have documented the archaeology within the BLN site. A summary of these earlier investigations is included in the COLA ER. TVA determined the area of potential effects (APE), shown on Figure 2-1, for both Action Alternatives to be the approximate 606 acres surrounding the proposed construction and its associated infrastructure for archaeological resources and the 1-mile viewshed for historic structures, due to similarity of areas needed for construction and operation. This 606-acre APE is the same APE determined with concurrence of the Alabama SHPO for evaluating BLN 3&4. The archaeological APE is identified on Figure 2-1 (B&W site plan) and Figure 2-12 (AP1 000 site plan) as "Bellefonte Project Area."

Previous archaeological surveys conducted within the archaeological APE identified four sites (1JA111, 1JA113, 1JA300, and 1JA301). Only two of these sites were recommended for additional archaeological investigations (1JA300 and 1JA301) (Oakley 1972).

Excavations-were conducted at site 1JA300 prior to construction of the original plant.

When TVA began developing a demonstration COLA for new nuclear generation at BLN, it was determined that a more systematic survey would be necessary to ensure that no historic properties (which includes prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects) would be affected. Two new surveys were subsequently conducted within the APE to identify archaeological sites or historic structures that may be impacted by this undertaking (Deter-Wolf 2007; Jenkins 2008).

Results of the new archaeological survey concluded that sites 1JA300 and 1JA301 were completely destroyed during construction of the intake. Site I JAI 11 was determined to be potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). One new site (1JAI 103) was identified that was considered, along with 1JAI 13, to be ineligible for listing in the NRHP.

Five historic structures had been previously recorded within the visual APE for this project (Jenkins 2008). The new survey for historic structures conducted in 2008 revisited these sites and identified 10 new properties, for a total of 15 historic properties (Jenkins 2008).

Only two of these properties (Bellefonte Cemetery and the African-American Bellefonte Cemetery) were determined to meet the criteria of eligibility for the NRHP. Both cemeteries are nearly 1 mile from the BLN cooling towers.

158 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 3.10.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A The No Action Alternative would result in no new construction and therefore would have no effect on historic properties.

Alternative B Site 1JA1 11 was identified within the archaeological APE and was recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. TVA has determined that I JA1 11 would be fenced off, marked on the BLN site drawings, and avoided by any future planned construction should Alternative B be selected. Any future modification to current project plans that have a potential to affect this site would require TVA to conduct further testing of 1JA1 11 to determine its NRHP-eligibility status.

Two historic resources eligible for listing in the NRHP were identified within the historic viewshed (visual APE) of the proposed construction site. The Bellefonte Cemetery and the African-American Bellefonte Cemetery are both protected by dense vegetative buffers and would not be affected by Alternative B.

With the avoidance of archaeological site 1JA1 11 and the presence of vegetative buffers surrounding the cemeteries, TVA has determined that Alternative B would have no direct or indirect effect on historic properties. In a letter dated September 9, 2009, the Alabama SHPO concurred with TVA's findings that proposed completion of the BLN site would have no effect on historic properties (see Appendix H). Because no effects are anticipated, there are no cumulative effects to historic properties from B&W completion and operation.

Alternative C Effects to historic properties under Alternative C would be the same as those anticipated under Alternative B. Although the construction of a new reactor would result in slightly more ground disturbance than under Alternative B, the construction area was surveyed and no historic properties were identified within this area. As with Alternative B, 1JA1 11 would be fenced off, marked on the BLN site drawings, and avoided by any future planned construction. Any future modification to current project plans for a single AP1 000 that would have a potential to affect this site would require TVA to conduct further testing of 1JA1 11 to determine its NRHP-eligibility status.

With the avoidance of archaeological site 1 JA1 11 and the vegetative buffers surrounding the cemeteries, TVA has determined that the implementation of Alternative C would have no direct or indirect effect on historic properties. Because no effects are anticipated, there would be no cumulative effects to historic properties from API 000 construction and operation. As with Alternative B, TVA consulted with the Alabama SHPO, who concurred with TVA's no effects finding in the September 9, 2009, letter (see Appendix H).

3.11. Visual Resources 3.11.1. Affected Environment The BLN site.is buffered from the main river channel by a wooded ridgeline that rises approximately 200 feet above the lake surface. Only distant views of the existing cooling towers are experienced by passing river traffic as a result of the close proximity of the ridgeline to the lake shoreline. The plant site is situated on level to gently rolling bottomland formerly used for agricultural purposes. Pasture and crop land still extend southwesterly Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 159

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site from the plant, site toward Scottsboro, Alabama. Scattered residential development can be seen along county roads ranging from abandoned farmhouses to new subdivisions. The terrain is generally open with occasional stands of bottomland hardwoods dotted with patches of pine and cedar.

The existing plant site is most visible to more than 50 cabins, second homes, and primary residences located along the north shore of Town Creek embayment, an area known as Creeks Edge development (see Figure 3-15). The embayment, which bounds the west side of the BLN site, is only accessible to small boat traffic as passage is limited by a box culvert under the BLN site's secondary entrance road. Fishermen and pleasure boaters using other portions of Town Creek and Mud Creek to the northeast of BLN have direct views into the plant site.

The town of Hollywood is located approximately 3 miles to the northwest of BLN. Its location to the north of U.S. Highway 72 is screened somewhat from a view of the plant by Backbone Ridge.

The BLN site is seen most frequently by passing motorists from various points along U.S.

Highway 72. The plant facilities such as roads, parking, and administration-type buildings are screened for the most part by low rolling terrain in the foreground. Distant views of the 474-foot cooling towers and the reactor domes can be seen in excess of 5 miles away. The cooling towers along with the multiple high-voltage transmission lines associated with the BLN site are the dominant man-made visual features in the surrounding landscape.

Sand Mountain stretches in either direction from the plant site as it forms the eastern shoreline of Guntersville Reservoir. While it is the most dominant natural feature in the landscape, it provides background to easterly views of BLN. Views of the existing plant facilities appear as focal points when one looks west off the rim of the mountain. No public viewing areas appear along the mountain's edge, but a few residences have spectacular views of the valley below. A different visual/aesthetic character of landscape can be experienced in the coves and hollows along the Sand Mountain rim. Laurel and rhododendron line the creeks that cascade over limestone creek beds on their descent to the Tennessee River. Distant glimpses of the plant site can be seen from these mountainside vantage points. Additional views can be seen by highway travelers traversing the mountain on Alabama State Routes 35 and 40, as well as by those crossing the lake on the Comer Bridge.

As described in Section 3.8, Natural Areas, Bellefonte Island and the Mud Creek State WMAs, adjacent to and just upstream of the BLN site also provide a visual quality protector to the scenic environment. A heron rookery can be seen by boaters at the tip of the peninsula between the Town and Mud creek's confluence with the Guntersville Reservoir.

Coon Gulf TVA SWA, approximately 1.0 mile upstream on the opposite bank, also contributes to the visual quality. Section Bluff TVA SWA is approximately 2.5 miles downstream on the opposite bank.

In summary, the BLN site is located in a valley setting partially screened from the passing Tennessee River and overlooked by Sand Mountain. The existing plant facilities, in particular the cooling towers, and the associated transmission lines currently present the most noticeable visual/aesthetic change in character to an area generally within a 5- to 7-mile radius.

160 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Date of Imagery:

June 15, 2006 N

Legend M Creeks Edge Development w E Residential Roads D 1.000 ZDOD 3,0 S FFeet Figure 3-15. Creeks Edge Development Near BLN Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 161

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 3.11.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under this alternative, TVA would not complete or operate one partially completed B&W unit or construct and operate an AP1000 unit. Visual resources would not be affected.

Alternative B Under this alternative, TVA would refurbish the existing 161-kV and 500-kV switchyards, construct a new laydown area southwest of the existing BLN 1 &2 cooling towers and reconfigure the northern parking areas. The new laydown area would be visually similar to the industrial buildings and storage yards in the area now. There would likely be associated support structures constructed throughout the plant site area. These support structures would add to the number of discordantly contrasting elements seen at the plant site, but would be visually insignificant in the industrial environment.

Visual impacts during construction would be minor and insignificant. Motorists along U.S.

Highway 72 to the west would likely not have views of construction activities at the plant site. Residents along County Road 33 entering the plant site would notice a small increase in traffic for plant site deliveries and an increase in the number of employees and contractors entering and leaving the site. This would be temporary until construction activities are complete.

During operation of the B&W, residents along Town Creek and motorists along U.S.

Highway 72 would notice a water vapor plume from one of the existing 474-foot cooling towers on the plant site. The visibility of the plume would vary with atmospheric conditions.

The plume would be most discernible during the winter months following leaf drop and the differences between the temperature and humidity of the plume and ambient conditions are the greatest; under these conditions it can be visible for many miles in all directions.

Plumes would be less visible during the summer months when temperature and humidity are higher, hazy conditions persist, and morning fog is more common. Visual presence of these fog/plume conditions would be similar to those currently associated with the operation of the Smurfit Stone Plant and WCF located upstream.

The new plume seen in the landscape would have a potential minor cumulative impact on visual resources. Increasing the number of adversely contrasting elements would contribute to reducing visual harmony and coherence of the rural landscape. The visual impact of incremental changes may not be individually significant, but when additions are seen in combination with similar existing features, the impact continues to grow. This would cause a cumulative minor change in the visible landscape and the aesthetic sense of place.

Alternative C Under this alternative, visual impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative B.

However, the AP1000 would require construction of a new turbine andreactor building on the north side of the existing employee and visitor parking lot. This structure would likely be visible to residents along Town Creek, and while it would add a new broadly horizontal element to the industrial landscape, the new structure would be visually similar to other structures seen on the plant site now. In addition, the overall plant arrangement for an AP1000 unit is designed to minimize the building volumes and quantities of bulk materials consistent with safety, operational, maintenance, and structural needs to provide an aesthetically pleasing effect. Natural features of the site would be preserved as much as possible and utilized to reduce the plant's impact on the environment, and landscaping for 162 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 the site, areas adjacent to the structures, and the parking areas would blend with the natural surroundings to reduce visual impacts.. Visual impacts would be minor.

3.12. Noise 3.12.1. Affected Environment At high levels, noise can cause hearing loss and at moderate levels noise can interfere with communication, disrupt sleep, and cause stress. Even at relatively low levels, noise can cause annoyance. Noise is measured in decibels (dB), a logarithmic unit, so an increase of 3 dB is just noticeable and an increase of 10 dB is perceived as a doubling of sound level.

Because not all noise frequencies are perceptible to the human ear, A-weighted decibels (dBA), which filters out sound in frequencies above and below human hearing, were used for this assessment. Ambient environmental noise is usually assessed using the day-night noise level (Ldn). The day-night noise level is a weighted logarithmic 24-hour average with a 10 dB penalty added to noise between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to account for the potential for sleep disruption.

Community noise impacts are typically judged based on the magnitude of the increase above existing background sound levels. There are no federal, state, or local industrial noise statutes for the communities surrounding the BLN site. EPA recommends an Ldn less than 55 dBA to protect the health and well-being of the public with an adequate margin of safety. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers areas with an upper limit Ldn of 65 dBA to be acceptable for residential development. In addition, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (1992) recommends that a 3 dB increase indicates a possible impact requiring further analysis when the existing Ldn is 65 dBA or less.

BLN is located in a rural area along the Tennessee River in northeast Alabama. The nearest residence, situated across Town Creek, is located 0.75 mile from the Unit 1 steam generators and 0.66 mile from the Unit 1 cooling tower. There are approximately 50 cabins, second homes, and primary residences located along the north shore of Town Creek embayment in the Creeks Edge development. The homes most likely to be impacted by noise are clustered in the southwestern portion of the development (see Figure 3-15).

Background ambient sound levels were measured in 2006 at BLN fenceline locations with values ranging from 47 to 55 dBA, which is typical of a rural community (TVA 2008a).

Noise sources in the vicinity of the BLN site include barge traffic, road traffic, dogs barking, insects, power boats, plant equipment at BLN (fans, transformers, compressors), and power line hum.

3.12.2. EnvironmentalConsequences Alternative A Because there would be no construction/completion and operation of a nuclear plant, implementation of this alternative would have no impact on noise levels near BLN.

Alternative B During completion of a B&W unit, the largest source of noise would be the hydrodemolition to access the steam generators. Hydrodemolition can be very loud, with noise levels often exceeding 110 dBA. However, all hydrodemolition work would be done inside the containment walls, which would greatly decrease the potential for off-site impacts.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 163

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Hydrodemolition would take place 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, seven days a week, for up to 12 days.

While limiting most of the construction activities to daytime hours can reduce potential noise impacts, hydrodemolition would not be limited to daylight hours. Any noise impacts of hydrodemolition at nearby residences would be temporary and would last for no more than 12 days.

Other phases of construction would require the use of cranes, forklifts, man lifts, compressors, backhoes, dump trucks, and pier driller and portable welding machines. This type of equipment would generate noise levels up to 91 dB at 50 feet (EPA 1971).

Construction noise of 91 dBA at 50 feet would be about 56 dBA at the nearest residence approximately 0.75 mile away. Most construction activites would be limited to daylight hours and would not exceed either EPA's recommendation or HUD's guideline for residential areas. Noise from construction equipment is expected to be audible over background noise levels, but it is not expected to cause a significant adverse impact.

Based on the projected noise levels and the duration of construction activities, noise impacts from construction activities associated with Alternative B are expected to be minor for the surrounding communities, and minor to moderate for the nearest residents of Creeks Edge development (Figure 3-15).

The major noise source in the operation of a B&W unit is the cooling tower. Noise from the cooling tower is expected to be 85 dBA near the tower and approximately 55 dBA 1,000 feet from the tower. At the nearest residence, noise from the cooling tower is expected to be approximately 48 dBA, which is similar to background noise levels in the area.

Considering that the cooling towers would operate 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day when the plant is in operation, the Ldn at the nearest residence would be 54.6 dBA, which is an increase of 1.8 dBA over background levels. If thecooling tower were operated less frequently, the increase in noise levels would be even less. These levels would not exceed EPA's recommendation or HUD's guideline for residential areas. Based on the projected noise levels, noise impacts associated with operation of a B&W unit are expected to be minor, for both the surrounding communities and for the nearest residents of Creeks Edge development.

Alternative C As shown in Figure 2-12, construction of an AP1 000 would be slightly closer to the nearest residences across Town Creek. Most activities necessary to construct an AP1000 unit would be similar to those implemented under Alternative B and would have similar impacts on noise levels in the vicinity, of BLN. Although no hydrodemolition work on the steam generator would be necessary under this alternative, site preparation for the construction of an AP1 000 unit would require blasting, which would cause temporary noise impacts. Peak instantaneous A-weighted noise levels from blasting are predicted to be 75 dBA at the source and approximately 40 dBA at the nearest residence. Blasting is expected to occur intermittently over the course of one year, though there would likely be several weeks when blasting would occur daily. When blasting does occur, there would likely be two or three detonations per day, each lasting less than one second. Potential mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the use of blasting blankets, notification of the surrounding receptors prior to blasting, and limiting blasting activities to daylight hours. Based on the projected noise levels and the duration of construction activities, noise impacts from construction activities associated with Alternative C are expected to be minor for the surrounding communities and minor to moderate for the nearest residents of Creeks Edge development.

164 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 The major noise source in the operation of an AP1 000 is the cooling tower and the impacts of operation of an AP1000 unit on noise levels in the vicinity of BLN are identical to the impacts anticipated under Alternative B. Based on the projected noise levels, noise impacts from the operation of Alternative C are expected to be minor for both the surrounding communities and for the nearest residents of Creeks Edge development.

3.13. Socioeconomics The direct and indirect effects of 10 aspects of the socioeconomic environment are described in the following subsections. Environmental consequences are described for both construction and operation. The cumulative effects on socioeconomics of TVA's proposed action in concert with other past, present, and future projects known from a 50-mile radius around the BLN site are included in Subsection 3.13.11 3.13.1. Population 3.13.1.1. Affected Environment The BLN site is located in Jackson County, Alabama, in the northeast corner of the state (Figure 1-1). Population of the area was described in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 1.2; the 1999 CLWR FEIS, Subsection 4.2.3.8; and the 1997 BLN Fossil Conversion FEIS, Subsection 3.1.12.1. Since that time, the population of the county has increased.

The 2000 Census of Population count for Jackson County was 53,926 (Census 2000a).

Population and demographic characteristics were discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.1. Population was estimated from the proposed reactor location. The basic geographic unit was block groups; as necessary, individual blocks were used to divide block groups that crossed the 5-mile boundary. As cited, the U.S. Census of Population, 2000, SF1 was used. Estimated population by direction and distance from the site are provided in COLA ER, Figures 2.5-2 and 2.5-3. These include 16 compass directions with concentric circles at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 40, 60, and 80 kilometers.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimate for 2009 shows a small decline in population to 52,838 (Census 2009). The estimated population living within 10 miles of the site is approximately 25,500; of these, about 4,600 live within 5 miles. Except for a small area in DeKalb County, southeast of the site, all of the area within 10 miles of the BLN site is in Jackson County.

Scottsboro, Alabama, is the principal economic center closest to the site. The closest incorporated place is Hollywood, a small town of slightly fewer than 1,000 residents.

In addition to the residential population surrounding the site, there are substantial transient populations within 50 miles of the site due to the following major nearby attractions: Lake Guntersville Park; a campgroundthat can host as many as about 650 campers daily; the Unclaimed Baggage Center in Scottsboro, with over a million visitors per year; and the Goose Pond Colony Golf Course, the second-largest attractor of transient population in the area with more than 100,000 visitors per year. Transient populations are discussed in detail in the COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.1.3.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 165

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 3.13.1.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a plant would occur, and therefore there would be no impacts from construction or operation.

Alternatives B and C Completion of Alternative B is expected to take about 4.7 years (56 months), with a peak on-site workforce of approximately 3,000. About 1,900 of these would be construction employees, and the remainder (approximately 1,100) would be engineering operations, testing, and security workforce. If Alternative C were selected, construction is expected to take about 6.5 years (two years site preparation and 54 months construction), with a peak on-site workforce of approximately 3,000. About 2,200 of these would be construction workers, and the remainder (approximately 800) would be engineering operations, testing, and security workforce. Impacts from a temporary increase in population due to construction are discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 2.8; the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.8; and the BLN Conversion FE!S, Subsection 4.2.12.1. Under either Alternative B or Alternative C, according to Subsection 4.4.2.1 of the COLA ER, construction-phase workers and their families would represent a small percentage of the existing county population, and the impact of in-migration is anticipated to be small. The impacts to the communities within the 6-mile vicinity (Scottsboro, and the area along its major transportation routes) are expected to be moderate.

During operation, under Alternative B, the BLN site is expected to employ approximately 800 operations workers at the new unit. Under Alternative C, operations employment is expected to be approximately 650. However, some of those would already be working at the site during construction. Therefore, not all operations workers would be additions to the local population after completion of the construction phase. The impacts of plant operation would be similar to those discussed in the CLWR FEIS (Subsection 5.2.3.8) and'probably somewhat greater than those anticipated in the Bellefonte Conversion FEIS (Subsection 4.2.12.2) or the 1974 FES (Section 2.8). Under either Alternative B or Alternative C, the impacts are expected to be minor, similar to those discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 5.8.2,1., where the percent of increase in population is below 1 percent for Jackson County.

Because a number of operations workers (including security personnel) would have moved into the area during the construction phase, the remaining operations workers would represent a very small long-term increase in the existing population. Within the communities in the 6-mile vicinity, the influx of operations workers during scheduled outages helps reduce the effect of population decline caused by the departure of construction workers. Impacts under Alternative C would be slightly less than under Alternative B, because operations employment would be lower for the AP1000.

3.13.2. Employment and Income 3.13.2.1. Affected Environment Employment and income in the area were not discussed in TVA's 1974 FES. They were discussed in the 1997 BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 3.1.12.2, and in the 1999 CLWR FEIS, Subsection 4.2.3.8. Employment and income in Jackson County have increased since these earlier studies were prepared (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] 2010a). In 2008, total employment in Jackson County averaged 25,841, compared to 25,999 in 2007 (BEA 2010b). However in 2009, the county 166 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 unemployment rate rose to 11.7 percent, more than double the 5.7 percent rate in 2008 (Alabama Department of Industrial Relations 2010), and more than the Alabama rate of 10.1 and the U.S. rate of 9.3 percent (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010). Per capita personal income in Jackson County in 2008 averaged $28,842, about 86 percent of the state average and 72 percent of the national average (BEA 2010c) (see Table 3-10).

In Jackson County, the largest employer is the manufacturing sector with 22.8 percent of total jobs (Table 3-10), followed by government (16.9 percent) and retail trade (12.5 percent). Farming, manufacturing, retail trade, and government account for a greater share of employment in Jackson County than they do at either the state or national level (see Table 3-10). The private service sector accounts for a smaller share. While the production of textile products dominates, other industries in Jackson County include paper products, machinery, and furniture and related products. Industries based in the town of Hollywood include structural steel fabrication, sheet metal works, automotive interior carpeting, and specialty signs. Both employment and income are discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.2.1.

Table 3-10. Employment and Income in 2008 Percent by Region Category Jackson County Alabama United States Farming 5.7 1.9 1.5 Mining 0.4 0.4 0.6 Construction 6.4 6.9 6.1 Manufacturing 22.8 11.1 7.8 Wholesale Trade 3.1 3.4 3.6

-Retail Trade 12.5 11.0 10.4 Finance, Insurance, 4.6 7.7 9.6 and Real Estate Government 16.9 15.6 13.5 Other 27.5 42.0 46.9 Total Employment 25,841 2,640,717 181,755,100 Per Capita Personal $28,842 $33,655 $40,166 Income $28,842_$33,655_$40,166 Source: BEA 2010c The manufacturing sector accounts for about 29 percent of total earnings in the county, considerably more than in the state as a whole (15 percent) and the nation (11 percent).

Farm earnings accounted for almost 5 percent of total earnings in the county, compared to less than 1 percent in the state and less than 1 percent in the nation. (BEA 201 Oc) 3.13.2.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a new plant would occur, and therefore there would be no impacts.

Alternatives B and C Employment and income impacts of the employment increases are discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 2.8; the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.8; and the Bellefonte Conversion Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 167

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site EELS, Subsection 4.2.12. Under either Alternative B or Alternative C, the increase in employment for completion or construction of a single nuclear unit at BLN could result in creation of some new temporary secondary jobs, especially during and near peak employment. Many of these jobs would be temporary in nature, and the number of such jobs would vary depending on the level of employment. These impacts would be beneficial.

Impacts from Alternative B are expected to.be similar to, but somewhat smaller than, those discussed for the AP1000 in the COLA ER, Subsection 4.4.2.2. For both Action Alternatives, these beneficial impacts are considered to be moderate to significant in the county and minor regionally.

Impacts on employment and income in Jackson County were assessed using the BEA, Economics and Statistics Division's multipliers for industry jobs, earnings, and expenditures. The economic model is called regional input-output modeling system (RIMS II) and incorporates buying and selling linkages among regional industries creating multipliers for both jobs and monetary expenditures. The multiplier from RIMS II analysis for construction jobs is 1.4218. Thus, for every newly created construction job, an estimated additional 0.422 jobs are created in the region. The RIMS II (utilities) multiplier for operations jobs is 1.759. Thus, for every operations job, an estimated additional 0.759 jobs are created in the region. Operations jobs occur as the construction jobs approach the end of the construction phase, with some overlap.

Expenditures within the region for goods and services during construction of the BLN site would also have a small beneficial impact on income in the region under either Alternative B or Alternative C. This increase could be noticeable in the local area, especially for establishments providing frequently purchased items such as food, and would be considered moderate and beneficial.

Operation of the plant would result in creation of permanent jobs from the hiring of employees to supervise, operate, and maintain the plant. Impacts from the presence of operations employees are discussed in the TVA 1974 FEIS, Section 2.8; however, the expected number of employees estimated for that project was well below the approximately 800 (for Alternative B) or 650 (for Alternative C) workers that are currently anticipated during operation. The impacts likely would be more similar to the operations impacts discussed in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.8, and similar to the upper end of the range discussed in the BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 4.2.12.2. The impacts should also be less than those discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 5.8.2.2, because the employment level would be about 15 percent lower under Alternative B and 35 percent lower under Alternative C. The impacts would generally be beneficial, resulting in a small increase in the average income in the county, small increases in sales at retail and service establishments, and a temporary increase in home sales or rentals. These impacts could lead to some additional hiring, particularly at retail and service establishments, causing a small decrease in unemployment. Overall impacts on employment and income are expected to be small and beneficial in the region and moderate and beneficial in the county.

3.13.3. Low-Income and Minority Populations 3.13.3.1. Affected Environment The minority population in Jackson County as of the 2000 Census was 8.8 percent of the total Jackson County population, well below the state average of 29.7 percent and the national average of 30.9 percent. The BLN site is located in Census Tract 9509, Block N

168 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Group 1. This block group had a minority population of 15.0 percent in 2000, higher than the county average but still well below the state and national averages (Census 2000b).

An in-depth analysis of the low-income and minority populations was conducted in 2008 in response to NRC sufficiency review comments on the COLA ER. In a letter to the NRC dated May 2, 2008, TVA responded and referred the reviewers to a paper titled "Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Environmental Justice Impact Assessment Methodology and Findings," dated April 2008 (TVA 2008f). That paper further discussed the methodology used to identify low-income and minority populations located on or near the BLN site, identified the agencies and other parties contacted to assist in identifying these populations, and provided an explanation of the environmental justice impacts assessments. The paper describes the method of assessment used to analyze possible pathways or vulnerabilities pertaining to the identified minority and low-income census blocks and block groups, and it includes two tables, one for construction and one for operation, which summarize impacts described in the ER that could potentially be associated with environmental justice. Each impact includes an assessment of potential pathways between the impact and the identified low-income or minority census block and block groups. The analysis results, which include degree and significance, are recorded in the "EJ Impact'" column of the tables.

In its May 2, 2008, letter, TVA noted that the BLN population analysis for the COLA ER was performed using the current decade U.S. Census Bureau data (2000 data) in conformance with NUREG-1555 guidance, and guidance provided by the Council on Environmental Quality. Eight years had passed since the 2000 Census, and TVA acknowledged that a substantial increase in area Hispanic population may have occurred, as noted by the NRC reviewers. However, given the qualitative nature of the available information about this increase, it was not incorporated into the statistical population analysis conducted for the COLA ER in conformance with NUREG-1555 guidance.

However, as discussed in the 2008 paper (TVA 2008f), during the development of the COLA ER, various organizations were contacted to help locate and assess uniquely vulnerable minority and low-income populations that do not rely on the mainstream economy for all of their income and can be more difficult to find. In addition, local and county services and resources were contacted because managers of these services and resources are closest to the communities and may have knowledge about cultural practices that help identify these populations in ways that federal databases and current literature do not. Research was further extended to contacting local sporting goods and bait and tackle shops in an effort to help identify low-income or subsistence populations that historically obtain or supplement their food supply through hunting and fishing.

Based on the demographic and environmental justice analyses set forth above, TVA is not aware of any subsistence resource dependencies, practices, or other circumstances that could result in disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations. Specifically, TVA identified no low-income populations within 2 miles of the BLN center point where potential plant-related impacts would be expected to be most significant. Four minority census blocks located within 2 miles of the BLN site center point were identified in COLA ER, (Figures 2.5-9 through 2.5-26). Subsection 2.5.4.3 of the COLA ER describes these census blocks and their demography. In brief, the sizes of populations in the census blocks are equivalent to single families, and each of these identified blocks are dispersed within a collection of nonminority census blocks.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 169

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site As reflected in COLA ER, Figures 2.5-27 and 2.5-28, low-income populations identified within the BLN 50-mile region are located primarily within urban areas, where subsistence dependence on natural resources (e.g., fish, game, agricultural products, and natural water sources) is difficult to identify or quantify. To the extent that fishing, hunting, or gardening occur in the BLN vicinity or region, it is difficult to differentiate between those activities that are recreational in nature, as opposed to those that are subsistence practices. No quantifiable data have been identified that associates subsistence practices with any TVA-identified minority or low-income groups.

Estimates of minority population in 2008 indicate an increase in the national minority share to 34.4 percent, the state share to 31.6 percent, and the county share to 9.7 percent (Census 2008a). Estimates are not available for smaller areas. However, it is highly likely that any local increase would still result in the block group share remaining below the state and national averages. Should the number of blocks containing minorities increase, there is no evidence suggesting that this distribution trend would be any different from what was found with the 2000 Census.

The latest estimates for number of persons below poverty level indicate that in 2008, 13.2 percent of the population was below the poverty level nationally, compared to 15.9 percent in the state of Alabama and 16.9 percent in Jackson County (Census 2008b). These estimates are not available for smaller areas. However, the 2000 Census showed a poverty level in Census Tract 9509, Block Group 1, of 3.4 percent. This was below the 5.1 percent level in Census Tract 9509 and well below the 13.7 percent level in Jackson County, the 16.1 percent in Alabama, and the 12.4 percent nationally (Census 2000c). As described in Subsection 4.4.3 of the COLA ER, the nearest low-income population is in Scottsboro, 6 miles away from the BLN site.

3.13.3.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a plant would occur, and therefore there would be no impacts from construction or operation.

Alternatives B and C Environmental justice impacts were not evaluated in TVA's 1974 FES. However, they were evaluated in the BLN Conversion EIS, Section 4.9, and in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.10, and in Appendix G. The COLA ER evaluated potential environmental justice impacts from construction in Subsection 4.4.3. It was determined that socioeconomic impacts other than transportation, housing, and education would be small, and due to the spatial distribution of minorities and low-income population in the region, the potential for disproportionate socioeconomic impacts in these categories on minority and low-income populations would be small. Transportation, housing, and education were identified as the socioeconomic impact categories with the greatest potential to affect minorities and low-income populations disproportionately during construction.

Although there are two minority populations identified on the opposite side of Town Creek, none are located adjacent to site access roads. Thus, the minority populations are not expected to be impacted adversely by the construction traffic. The May 2, 2008, environmental justice impact assessment paper (TVA 2008f) identified one pathway that showed a.potential relationship between housing costs during construction and the 170 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 identified low-income block groups. Subsection 4.4.3.2 of the COLA ER described the potential housing impact on low-income populations from construction.' The COLA ER determined that because available housing in the vicinity is limited, there is a potential for increased demand from the influx of plant construction workers to result in rental rate and housing cost increases. Any such increases would affect the low-income population in the vicinity disproportionately to higher income groups, which could better absorb the increased costs. However, with mitigation measures, such as those described in the COLA ER, Subsection 4.4.2.4, and Subsection 3.13.4.2 of this SEIS, this impact could be reduced to small to moderate. TVA would review the availability of housing prior to the construction phase to assess the need for mitigation.

During construction, the impacts on the local education system are expected to be moderate to large, but the effects are also expected to be temporary. Because education impacts would affect every school in Jackson County, there would be no disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations.

Beneficial socioeconomic impacts from construction of a nuclear unit at the BLN site were described in the COLA ER, Subsection 4.4.2. They are principally applicable to the counties in the region and include increased employment opportunities, potentially greater income, both directly and indirectly related to plant construction. These beneficial impacts also would be realized by minority and low-income populations and would not be disproportionate to minority and low-income populations in the vicinity and region.

Environmental justice impacts from operation were not evaluated in TVA's 1974 FES but were evaluated in the BLN Conversion EIS, Section 4.9, and in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.10, and in Appendix G. The COLA ER evaluated operational and socioeconomic impacts on low-income and minority populations in Subsection 5.8.3 and concluded that, overall, impacts would be minor, and given the distribution of minority and low-income populations, the potential for disproportionate impacts to those populations would be small.

TVA did not identify any location-dependent, disproportionate high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations. Overall, socioeconomic impacts other than education impacts would be minor, and given the distribution of minority and low-income populations, the potential for disproportionate impacts to those populations would be small. Based on the analysis in the COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.4, no significant natural resource dependencies in any population were identified in the 50-mile region.

Beneficial impacts from the operation of a nuclear unit at the BLN site to the surrounding vicinity and region include the addition of new jobs, revenues paid by TVA, and taxes paid by BLN workers, which in turn benefit local public services and the local education systems.

These beneficial impacts also would be realized by minority and low-income populations, and would not be disproportionate to minority and low-income populations in the vicinity and region.

3.13.4. Housing 3.13.4.1. Affected Environment Housing is discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 2.8. It also is discussed in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 4.2.3.8, and in the BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 3.1.12. Based on prior TVA evaluations, no more than half of the BLN construction workers are expected to Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 171

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site need housing in the area (TVA 1985a; 2008a). For most movers, Jackson County is expected to be the preferred location if accommodations are available, for both construction and operations workers. As of the 2000 Census, Jackson County had 2,553 vacant housing units, with 894 housing units available, either for sale or for rent (Census 2000d).

Temporary housing is also available at local hotels/motels in the Scottsboro area, and other temporary housing is available at local campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) parks.

The Census Bureau 2006-2008 estimates indicate 3,831 housing units are available in Jackson County, but the estimate does not provide the percent available for rent or sale (Census 2010). As described in Subsection 4.4.2.4 of the COLA ER, as of July 2008, there were approximately 330 hotel guest rooms. However, the addition of two recently opened hotels in Scottsboro brings the total number of guest rooms to approximately 470. There are also 320 campsites in Jackson County. Housing is discussed in greater detail in the COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.2.6.

As described in the COLA ER, the real estate market in Jackson County, Alabama, remained fairly steady between 2000 and 2007, and in April 2008, 141 houses in Jackson County were listed by realtors. Approximately 12 properties were available near the Mud Creek embayment, and the Creeks Edge development had 73 lots available for purchase.

A new subdivision called Riverside, located in Scottsboro, was in the first phase of development, with 45 lots available. Riverside is a 200-acre planned residential development with many amenities, and seven phases of development are planned.

In addition, the COLA ER identified Goose Pond Island as a lake community (housing development) on the northern end of the 2,700-acre wooded island in the Tennessee River at Scottsboro, with more than 250 home sites. More than 75 percent of the home sites are sold. The City of Scottsboro still owns the remaining 1,500 acres on the island and plans to develop the acreage as a complement to the housing on the north side of the island.

3.13.4.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction and no new plant and, therefore, no impacts.

Alternatives B and C During construction under either Alternative B or C, the majority of the BLN employees are expected to live in Jackson County. Workers who do not find acceptable facilities in Jackson County would likely locate to the west in Madison County, south or east in Marshall or DeKalb counties, or to the north in Tennessee. Impacts of in-migration are discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 2.8, and have been updated in the BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 4.2.12.1; the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.8; and Subsection 4.4.2.4 of the COLA ER. The impacts of Alternative B or C are expected to be similar to those described in the COLA ER, Subsection 4.4.2.4. That analysis concluded that the impacts in Jackson County are expected to be moderate to large, but that mitigation could reduce these impacts to a small to moderate range. If either Action Alternative were implemented, TVA would review the availability of housing prior to the construction phase to assess the need for mitigation, which could include housing assistance for employees, transportation assistance for commuting employees, or remote parking areas with shuttles. No known changes in the amount of available housing or expectations of in-migration would lead TVA to modify this conclusion under either Alternative B or Alternative C.

172 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Housing impacts during operations are discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 2.8. They are also discussed in the BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 4.2.12.2, and in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.8. The impacts of either proposed action are expected to be similar to those discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 5.8.2.3.2, where a number of operations workers moving into Jackson County were accounted for during the construction phase.

Based on availability of housing units and rental units in Jackson County in relation to the number of remaining operations workers expected to arrive after construction, the analysis concludes that the impact on housing would be minor and insignificant in the 50-mile region and in the county. There are no known changes that would modify this conclusion under either Alternative B or Alternative C.

3.13.5. Water Supply and Wastewater 3.13.5.1. Affected Environment There are several water systems in Jackson County, including the Scottsboro Municipal Water System, the Stevenson Water System, the Bridgeport Water System, and the Section/Dutton Water System. Wastewater is treated by a combination of wastewater treatment facilities and septic tanks. Industrial and public water supply, but not wastewater, was discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 1.2. Water supply and quality were also discussed in the CLWR FEIS in Subsection 4.2.3.4. Water supply and usage, but not wastewater, were described in the BLN Conversion FEIS (Subsections 3.1.6 and 3.1.8).

Water supply and wastewater treatment are also described in the COLA ER, Subsections 2.3.2 and 2.5.2.7.1. Subsection 3.1.2 of this SEIS updates the surface water use and trends for the Guntersville watershed. Table 3-2 identifies the water users, the supply source, and water demands in 2005 and projections for2030. The COLA ER, Subsection 4.2.1.3, provides a discussion on the supply of water for construction activities, such as concrete batching and dust suppression.

Potable water at the BLN site is currently supplied by the Jackson County Water Authority.

Wastewater (sanitary waste) treatment is currently provided by the Jackson County Water Authority at the County Road 33 wastewater treatment.plant. This plant has a capacity of 125,000 gallons per day (Robert Hill, Jackson County Water Authority, personal communication, January 2010). Under normal conditions, the County Road 33 plant treats approximately 30,000 gallons per day.

During construction of either a B&W or an AP1 000 unit, the construction field workforce would use portable toilets, which would be supplied by vendors licensed by the Alabama Onsite Wastewater Board. There would be no sanitary system discharge from the portable toilets at the construction site into the effluent stream. Sanitary waste from the construction administration and office buildings (used by plant personnel) would be routed to the County Road 33 treatment plant. As construction is completed, sanitary waste from new buildings, such as the maintenance building, would also be routed to the County Road 33 treatment plant.

During operation of either Alternative B or C, potable water would be supplied by the Jackson County Water Authority, which receives 100 percent of its water supply from the Scottsboro Municipal Water System (TVA 2008a). Sanitary waste treatment would be supplied by the Jackson County Water Authority, using the County. Road 33 treatment plant. Plant staff for one unit would contribute an additional approximate 40,000 gallons per day to the County Road 33wastewater treatment plant's daily load. Even with some local Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 173

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site growth, the County Road 33 treatment plant should have adequate capacity to handle the increase from TVA's operations workforce.

Currently, Jackson County Water Authority reports water infiltration problems at the County Road 33 wastewater treatment plant during wet weather. The county reported it will repair this problem in the near future. Should capacity at the County Road 33 plant become an issue prior to BLN operation, TVA has the option of connecting to the Scottsboro Wastewater Treatment Facility. As described in Subsection 2.5.2.7.1 of the COLA ER, the Scottsboro Wastewater Treatment Facility has a maximum capacity of 5 MGD and is currently operating at approximately 4 MGD. The facility is permitted for up to 15 MGD, but there are no current plans to expand the facility.

3.13.5.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, because no construction would occur and there would be no new plant, there would be no impacts to the supply of water or management of wastewater.

Alternatives B and C Water supply and wastewater impacts were not explicitly addressed in TVA's 1974 FES, except for a commitment to handle on-site sewage properly (Subsection 2.7.1.4). These issues are addressed in the BLN Conversion FEIS (Subsection 4.2.6) and in the CLWR FEIS (Subsection 5.2.3.4). For completion of a single BLN unit, these impacts are expected to be similar to those discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 4.4.2.3. No concerns were identified with water supplies, as county water systems and wastewater treatment facilities are generally not operating at or near capacity. Local communities are adequately served by the existing water supplies, and there are no plans, or needs, to expand. Therefore, impacts to water supplies and wastewater treatment would be insignificant in the county and in the region under either Alternative B or Alternative C.

Impacts from operation are briefly addressed in the BLN Conversion FEIS (Subsection 4.2.6.2). However, the COLA ER addresses operations impacts to these services in Subsection 5.8.2.3.1. No concerns were identified. As discussed in the COLA ER, existing systems are expected to be adequate to handle the increased need resulting from operation of the plant. Therefore, impacts to water suppliers would be minor in the county and in the region under either Alternative B or Alternative C.

3.13.6. Police, Fire, and Medical Services 3.13.6.1. Affected Environment Jackson County, as of February 2010, has a total of 102 sworn officers and approximately 500 firefighters (K. Stapleton, Enercon, personal communications, February 2010). Local police and fire protection are currently considered adequate, but future expansion and facility upgrades may be needed to accommodate future population growth.

In addition to the Jackson County Sheriff's Department (38 officers), there are seven local police departments in the county. These seven departments have the following number of law enforcement officers: Hollywood (2), Scottsboro (47), Section (1), Woodville (1),

Skyline (1), Stevenson (5), and Bridgeport (7), with jurisdiction within and around their 174 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 respective city/town limits. Scottsboro city jurisdiction extends 3 miles beyond the city limits. (K. Stapleton, Enercon, personal communications, February 2010)

There are 25 fire departments in the county and 31 fire stations (includes Scottsboro's three stations). There are 38 paid firefighters and approximately 480 volunteer firefighters (no less than 10 per station). Fire departments receive grant money from the county and forestry commission, so each station must maintain no less than 10 firefighters, but each usually has approximately 13 volunteer firefighters. Some communities may have as many as 30 volunteers. (K. Stapleton, Enercon, personal communications, February 2010)

The Hollywood Fire Department would be the first responder for the BLN site (see COLA ER Subsection 2.5.2.7.2.), and the department is a volunteer fire department with 12 firefighters, one brush truck, three pumper trucks, and two response vehicles (one medical and one with overall supplies). Hollywood has two fire stations. The closest station is located at the municipal building on U.S. Highway 72 west of the intersection of U.S.

Highway 72 and County Road 33, approximately 2 miles measured in a straight line from the BLN site. The second fire station is located in downtown Hollywood, east of the intersection of County Road 33 and Rail Road Street, approximately 3 miles measured in a straight line from the BLN site. Three other municipalities in Jackson County provide firefighters: Scottsboro (36 paid firefighters); Bridgeport (19 volunteer firefighters, and a paid fire chief and deputy fire chief); and Stevenson (10 volunteer firefighters) (K. Stapleton, Enercon, personal communications, February 2010). The balance of firefighters are volunteers, as noted above.

The single hospital in Jackson County, Highlands Medical Center, is located in Scottsboro.

The center currently has 39 doctors and employs approximately 700 staff, (including nursing home and part-time). Approximately 95 beds are currently occupied, but the center is licensed for 170 beds (K. Stapleton, Enercon, personal communication, February 2010).

The center also operates Highlands Health & Rehab, a 50-bed short-term rehabilitation and long-term nursing home facility (Highlands Medical Center 2010). The Jackson County Health Department provides general medical services for approximately 6,100 individuals per year as discussed in the COLA ER Subsection 2.5.2.7.2.

Police, fire, and medical services, including other nursing home facilities, are discussed in greater detail in the COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.2.7.2.

3.13.6.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, the in-migration of people associated with construction and plant operation would not occur. Therefore, there would be no additional demand for public services under Alternative A.

Alternatives B and C Impacts to these services are not analyzed in the earlier studies, except for fire, which was discussed in the Conversion FEIS (TVA 1997), Subsection 4.2.12. The COLA ER, Subsection 4.4.2.3, concludes that construction at BLN would result in a minor, short-term increase in the ratio of population to police officers and to firefighters. Likewise, the COLA ER, Subsection 5.8.2.3.1, concludes that operation of BLN would result in a small increase in the ratio of population to those services. However, these ratios would still be within existing guidelines. Impacts from completion of a single BLN unit should be similar to those Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 175

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site in the COLA ER. Therefore, under either Alternative B or C, the impacts of on-site construction and operation of a nuclear plant on local police and firefighters are expected to be insignificant and offset by increased tax revenue.

Regarding medical services, the shortage of physicians is a statewide problem in Alabama, including Jackson County. Minor injuries to workers would be treated by on-site medical personnel. Other injuries likely would be treated at Highlands Medical Center.

Construction of a single BLN unit would have a minor effect on the already-existing physician shortage. Overall, as discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 4.4.2, the impact of plant construction on medical services likely would be minor under either Alternative B or Alternative C. The COLA ER, Subsection 5.8.2, concludes that operation of BLN would have a small impact on the already-existing physician shortage. Furthermore, employment levels for single unit operation would be less than two-unit operation employment levels described in the COLA ER, which would reduce anticipated impacts on demand for physicians relative to the impact reported in the COLA ER. Increased need for hospital services would impact Highlands Medical Center, which currently has adequate beds and staff. Overall, under either Alternative B or Alternative C, the impact of plant operations on medical services likely would be minor and insignificant.

3.13.7. Schools 3.13.7.1. Affected Environment Public schools are discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 2.8. Schools are also discussed in the BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 3.1.12.3, and in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 4.2.3.8. There are two school systems within Jackson County-Jackson County Schools and Scottsboro City Schools-both providing K-12 education. Jackson County Schools has 19 schools under its jurisdiction, while Scottsboro City Schools has six schools under its jurisdiction. For the 2007-08 school year, these districts had 5,998 and 2,681 enrolled students, respectively.

There are 50 school districts associated with the counties and cities that are either wholly or partially within the 50-mile radius of the BLN site center point. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, more than 297,091 students were enrolled in these school districts for the 2004-2005 school year. School districts within the 50-mile radius do not, in general, have a maximum capacity. Instead, virtually no student is turned away.

The COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.2.8.2, provides a detailed discussion on K-12 schools in Jackson County, nearby vocational and technical schools, and community colleges and universities within the 50-mile region. Also included in the COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.2.8.2, is a brief discussion on entry-level training in the duties for various positions specific to operations and maintenance of their facilities that is periodically offered by TVA.

3.13.7.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur, and the population increase associated with operation of a nuclear plant would not occur. Therefore, there would be no additional demand for public schools.

176 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Alternatives B and C In TVA's 1974 FES, Section 2.8, it was concluded that the school system could handle the additional students with ease. The BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 4.2.12.1, concluded that the system would have adequate space for the projected increase. However, the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.8.1, concluded that while long-term receipts from TVA would offset additional cost, there would be a short-term gap in costs that would need to be filled.

A more current analysis in the COLA ER, Subsection 4.4.2.5., concluded that the impact would be potentially significant but temporary, depending on the speed with which current school district expansion plans are implemented. Under either Alternative B or Alternative C, the impact from construction of a single BLN unit is expected to be moderate to significant, as concluded in the COLA ER.

The TVA 1974 FES did not evaluate operations impacts on schools. In the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.8.1, it was concluded that over the long term, increased school receipts from TVA in-lieu-of-tax payments would exceed increased costs. The BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 4.2.12.2, noted that operations impacts should present no special problems. Under either Alternative B or Alternative C, the impact from operation of a single BLN unit is expected to be similar to, but less than, the impact discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 5.8.2.3.3, where it was estimated that operation of BLN 3&4 would result in about 340 additional school-age children. This impact is considered small to moderate.

3.13.8. Land Use 3.13.8.1. Affected Environment Jackson County, Alabama, in which the plant would be located, has an area of approximately 1,127 square miles.

Scottsboro, the county seat of Jackson County, is the largest city in the county, with an estimated 2008 population of 14,994. As described in Subsection 2.5.2.4 of the COLA ER, the city has a well-developed zoning plan and supporting zoning laws in place for land inside the city limits.

Hollywood, immediately to the west of the site, is the closest town to the site, with an estimated 2008 population of 924. The town of Hollywood, Alabama, has basic zoning laws, which designate agricultural, residential, or business zones within the city limits; however, no detailed zoning information is available. Areas outside of incorporated communities in Jackson County, including the Bellefonte site, do not have zoning laws. In Alabama and specifically Jackson County, because there is little zoning or designated land use outside of the communities, code and regulation enforcement is administered through the appropriate town or city, county, state, or federal governmental agency with the appointed oversight powers.

Land use is discussed in detail in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 1.2 and Appendix A, as well as in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 4.2:3.1, and the BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 3.1.14.

These describe the surrounding area as largely forest and agriculture or undeveloped, with development concentrated largely along the Scottsboro-Stevenson-Bridgeport corridor around U.S. Highway 72. Since these studies were completed, there has been a noticeable increase in development, primarily commercial, along U.S. Highway 72 through most of Jackson County. The COLA ER, Section 2.2 and Subsection 2.5.2.4, contain a recent description of land use. Section 3.9 of this FSEIS discusses recreational land use within Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 177

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site the 50-mile region, and Figure 3-14 illustrates the distance from the site to recreational locations within the 6-mile vicinity.

3.13.8.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur, and there would be no new plant. Therefore, there would be no impacts to land use.

Alternatives B and C Impacts of plant construction on land use were discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 2.9.

They are also discussed in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.1, and in the Conversion FEIS, Subsection 4.2.14.1. Under either Alternative B or Alternative C, the proposed construction would require no changes in designated land use, no additional land acquisition, and no road relocations. No new transmission lines or other uses of off-site land related to construction are proposed. According to COLA ER, Figure 2.5-29, the nearest residence is located across Town Creek, 2,309 feet from the north cooling tower location. The demand for housing could convert some land in the area to residential housing or to use for temporary housing units, such as mobile homes or RVs. To a great extent, this conversion likely would be an acceleration of the longer-term trend reflecting growth in the area and likely would not significantly alter the long-term trends in land use.

These impacts are expected to be minor and similar to those described in more detail in the COLA ER, Section 4.1.

Impacts of plant operation on land use were discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Sections 2.9 and 3.0. They are also discussed in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.1, and in the Conversion FEIS, Subsection 4.2.14.2. Under either Alternative B or Alternative C, adverse impacts to land use from operation of a single BLN unit would be insignificant. A detailed discussion of these impacts is included in the COLA ER, Section 5.1. No additional land is expected to be disturbed after the construction phase.

3.13.9. Local Government Revenues 3.13.9.1. Affected Environment Local government revenues are not discussed in TVA's 1974 FES. They are discussed in the CLWR FEIS in Subsection 4.2.3.8, but not in the BLN Conversion FEIS. A more recent and extensive discussion is included in the COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.2.3, and the TVA in-lieu-of-tax payments are discussed in detail in that subsection. These payments are made to eight states, including Alabama. The State of Alabama allocates its payments in accordance with state law (Title 40 "Revenue and Taxation"). The state distributes 78 percent of the payments to the 16 TVA-served counties based on the book value of TVA power property and TVA power sales in each of these counties.. A portion of the county receipts is then shared with cities, schools, hospitals, etc., within their boundaries. In fiscal year 2007, TVA paid the state $112.1 million, of which $87.4 million was paid to the TVA-served counties, including Jackson County, which received $10.4 million. As discussed in the COLA ER, the book value of the partially completed BLN 1&2 is used in determining the payment to Jackson County. The book value of these units is likely to be entirely or largely depreciated by the time the proposed unit would be operational.

178 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 3.13.9.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, tax revenues would continue to decrease slowly due to depreciation, because the plant would not be constructed or operated.

Alternatives B and C Under either Alternative B or C, construction activities and purchases and expenditures by workers and their families would increase revenues on various state and local taxes. These impacts, including TVA in-lieu-of-tax payments, are discussed in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.8.1, but not in the Bellefonte Conversion FEIS. These impacts would be similar to those described in the COLA ER, Subsection 4.4.2.2.1. They are expected to be moderate to significant and beneficial in Jackson County, but minor and beneficial in the region.

Under either Alternative B or C, revenues from state and local taxes would increase during operations, although to a lesser extent than during construction. TVA in-lieu-of-tax payments to the State of Alabama also would increase. As a result, the amount allocated from these payments to Jackson County would increase. These impacts are discussed in the CLWR FEIS, Subsection 5.2.3.8.1. The amount of the increase has not been estimated; however, it would be a noticeable increase. These impacts would be similar to those described in the COLA ER, Subsection 5.8.2.2.1, considered moderately beneficial in Jackson County. As discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 5.8.2.2.1, the increase in tax-equivalent payments to Jackson County due to construction of two units has been estimated to be about $3.2 million. The increase from one unit would be expected to be somewhat larger than half of this amount, because the cost of constructing one unit likely would be more than half the cost of two at the same site. However, many other factors would affect the actual payment. Completion of the Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 2 and other construction of TVA facilities outside of Alabama would somewhat decrease the Alabama share of the total TVA payments, thereby decreasing the BLN-related payment. Other future events would also affect this payment, such as fluctuations or growth in revenue from power sales, plant retirements, and future depreciation of assets. In addition to the direct effects of the proposed plant, other state and local tax revenues would see small increases due to increased employment and population in the county. Because of the many variables involved, the final net impact could vary considerably, but the result would be a moderate positive impact to local government revenues.

3.13.10. Transportation 3.13.10.1 Affected Environment Transportation was discussed in TVA's 1974 FES, Section 1.2. U.S. Highway 72 was identified as the primary highway near (within 2 miles of) the BLN site and was being widened to four lanes with unlimited access. Two access roads to the BLN site were identified: one via existing roads on the south end of the site and a second new permanent access road (Bellefonte Road) from U.S. Highway 72 on the north end of the site. No new roads or general upgrading of existing roads were planned, but repairs were anticipated due to abnormal use (construction traffic). TVA's 1997 Bellefonte Conversion Project FEIS, Subsections 3.1.13.1 and 4.2.1.3, provided a detailed description of the major highways and local roads near the BLN site. In that study, the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) 1994 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) count indicated a traffic count of 12,910 vehicles on U.S. Highway 72 in the vicinity of the intersection of U.S. Highway 72 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 179

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site and the south access road. A traffic count of 9,670 vehicles was reported on U.S. Highway 72 approximately 1.5 miles northeast of that intersection. The CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999),

Subsection 4.2.3.8, identified primary transportation routes and effect on transportation related to the operation of at least one unit at the BLN site for the production of tritium.

Most recently, the COLA ER (TVA 2008a), Subsection 2.5.2.2, described the transportation network of federal and state highways within the BLN region, as well as local roads in Jackson County. Within Jackson County, Alabama, the one federal highway, U.S. Highway 72, runs east across the county into the city of Scottsboro, Alabama, then northeast through the town of Hollywood, Alabama, into the state of Tennessee. U.S. Highway 72, the closest major road to BLN, is a four-lane divided highway that connects the BLN site to Interstate 24 in Marion County, Tennessee, and to Interstate 565 in Madison County, Alabama, as shown in Figure 1-1. Numerous state routes traverse the county, providing rural areas access to the larger populated areas as shown in Figure 3-16. A small vehicular public transportation system exists in Jackson County, which transports residents from rural portions of the county into Scottsboro for shopping.

Vehicle volume on roads, obtained from estimated AADT counts from ALDOT, reflects the urban and rural traffic characteristics of the county. AADT counts in 2008 indicate that approximately 16,600 vehicles travel on U.S. Highway 72 at Mile 145.4 (west of the site).

Approximately 4,900 vehicles travel on Alabama State Route 279 at Mile 9.0 (west of the site), which is located, before east-bound traffic on Alabama State Route 279 merges with U.S. Highway 72. Approximately 5,600 vehicles travel on Alabama State Route 40 at mile 1.7 (south of the site). On average, 13,700 vehicles travel past Mile 148.2 (north of the site) on U.S. Highway 72. These counts are slightly lower than the 2005 traffic counts reported in the COLA ER.

No road modifications near the BLN site are planned; however, several road construction projects have been planned and/or completed in Jackson County. As noted in the COLA ER, the existing truss bridge over the Tennessee River on Alabama State Route 35 was scheduled for replacement, and the highway was to be widened to four lanes between the Tennessee River and Section, Alabama. There are also plans to build a west bypass around the city of Scottsboro, Alabama (ALDOT 2006). Replacement of the bridge on Alabama State Route 35 over the Tennessee River is estimated to be completed in spring 2010 (ALDOT 2009a). In addition, the bridge on Alabama State Route 35 over Roseberry Creek west of Scottsboro is scheduled for replacement (ALDOT 2009b).

Both construction workers and truck deliveries would access the site via U.S. Highway 72 and County Road 33. Operations workers and security personnel are expected to access the site during construction and operations using U.S. Highway 72 and Bellefonte Road.

3.13.10.2 Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur, and no new plant would be operated. Therefore, there would be no impacts on transportation.

180 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Legend Bellefonte Site County Boundary 0 City or Town - Interstate Highway Urban Area -U.S. Highway N

Tennessee Riv er - State Highway State Boundary Railroad S

Figure 3-16. Road and Highway System in Jackson County Providing Access to the BLN Site Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 181

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Alternatives B and C Plant construction at the BLN site would increase 'traffic on local roads. TVA's 1974 FES estimated approximately 1,200 worker vehicles (TVA and contractor employees) would travel to and from the BLN site at the peak of construction and reported a 1970 daily traffic count on U.S. Highway 72 past the plant of approximately 3,700. As a result, increased traffic, some congestion, and delays were anticipated. Because most equipment was expected to be shipped by rail or barge, numerous truck shipments of equipment were not expected; however, deliveries of concrete aggregate, cement, etc., were expected to require many shipments by truck. For the Bellefonte Conversion Project (TVA 1997),

increased traffic during construction was expected to affect primarily U.S. Highway 72 and the access roads leading off the highway to the plant. It was also noted that effects on the local road network during construction might require mitigation measures to improve future service levels on Bellefonte Road and County Road 33 (e.g., physical improvements to the local road network to increase capacity, employee programs that offer flexible work hours, incentives for ride-sharing, and bus and/or van pool programs. In the CLWR FEIS, DOE concluded that traffic generated by construction activities could strain the local road network and would be temporary, but similar to the effects identified in the Bellefonte Conversion FEIS.

The COLA ER (TVA 2008a) described planned road use for the construction of API 000 units, which is also applicable to the completion of a B&W unit. All construction workers and plant staff would commute to the site, because there are no provisions for housing at the BLN site. The construction workers and plant staff who live in Jackson County, Alabama, are anticipated to commute from two major areas, western Jackson County (areas west of the Tennessee River) and eastern Jackson County (areas east of the Tennessee River). The roads and highways in Jackson County that provide vehicular access to the BLN site are illustrated in Figure 3-16. For the construction workers and plant staff who would live outside Jackson County, including those who might commute from the suburbs of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Huntsville, Alabama, an adequate road network is already present to allow these workers to commute to the BLN as discussed above.

County Road 33 is planned to be used as the sole access road for construction workers.

During peak construction period, a single "construction" shift of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> during daylight hours would be scheduled. However, to accommodate construction traffic converging on the site during this shift, TVA. expects to use staggered shift start times (over a two-hour period). Using staggered shifts also allows for extra road capacity that could prove useful for scheduling flexibility and the occasional delivery during dayshift start times. As construction ramps up, scheduling of a nightshift dedicated to preparation of the site for the next day's construction work is expected. Approximately 70 percent of the construction workers would work the dayshift and approximately 30 percent would work the nightshift.

Truck deliveries would occur during daytime hours and in-bound shipments would occur outside of the startup shift hours. These deliveries include shipmentsof materials, trash removal, etc. In addition to the construction workers, the peak on-site construction workforce would include operations engineering and testing and security workforce that would access the site during the construction period using Bellefonte Road.

For both Alternatives B and C, impacts on transportation corridors from the construction period workforce and deliveries are considered minor for all roads except Jackson County Road 33, where impacts are expected to be temporary, but minor to moderate, during the construction period. Should traffic counts exceed predicted levels, TVA would meet with local officials to determine an appropriate solution. Potential mitigation measures include 182 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 establishing a temporary centralized parking area away from the site and shuttling construction workers to the site, mandatory carpooling, installing traffic-control lighting and directional signage, county road modifications, and further staggering of shifts further to avoid traditional traffic congestion time periods.

Plant operation would increase traffic on local roads. The 1974 FES (TVA 1974a),

Bellefonte Conversion FEIS (TVA 1997), and CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999) all indicated commuter traffic generated by operation of a plant at the BLN site would increase traffic loads on the local road network and decrease availability capacity of the roads. However, the effects of commuter traffic during operations would be less than during the construction phase, especially peak construction. The Bellefonte Conversion FEIS indicated that any.

mitigation efforts accomplished for the construction phase were expected only to improve, the capacity levels during operation. The CLWR FEIS offered mitigation measures for transportation effects similar to those discussed in the Bellefonte Conversion FEIS.

The COLA ER (TVA 2008a) noted that impacts on transportation and traffic from operating nuclear units at the BLN site would be greatest on the rural roads of Jackson County and during shift changes. Impacts on traffic are determined .by (1) number of operations workers and their vehicles on the roads, (2) number of shift changes for the operations workforce, (3) projected population growth rate in the region, and (4) capacity of the roads.

For plant operations, it was assumed that the BLN site would operate in three shifts. The dayshift would comprise 60 percent of the workers, the nightshift would comprise 30 percent of the workers, and the midnight (graveyard) shift would comprise 10 percent of the workers. The largest number of the worker vehicles is expected to be on the roadway at the end of the dayshift and start of the nightshift (shift change). Other impacts may be present during outages and during refueling periods when more workers are present.

Additional information on transportation is discussed in the COLA ER, Subsection 2.5.2.

Because approximately half of the B&W operations workers and half of the AP1 000 operations workers are expected to be temporally phased in during the construction stage, the initial impact on transportation from worker vehicular traffic at the start of BLN operations would be lessened. Given the volume of traffic on the road network (indicated by AADT counts discussed in Subsection 3.13.10.1), the impact on transportation from the addition of operations worker vehicles on the roadway during shift change between dayshift and nightshift would be minor. Should traffic concerns arise, TVA would meet with local officials to determine an appropriate solution. Potential mitigation measures could include mandatory carpooling, staggering outage shifts opposite traditional high-traffic periods, and busing in employees, if necessary.

3.13.11. Cumulative Socioeconomic Effects TVA's 1974 FES did not address cumulative effects, other than radiological impact on the Tennessee River (see Appendix J of the FES). They were discussed in the CLWR FEIS, Section 5.3, and in the BLN Conversion FEIS, Subsection 4.4.2. In the COLA ER, Subsection 4.7.3, the only foreseeable project identified as having the potential to contribute to cumulative socioeconomic effects within 50 miles of BLN was the realignment of Redstone Arsenal as part of the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005. Because Redstone Arsenal is located at the periphery of the 50-mile BLN region and the construction periods of Redstone Arsenal and BLN would not likely coincide, BLN is not likely to result in significant cumulative impacts on socioeconomics. The impacts would be similar to those discussed in more detail in the COLA ER, Section 4.7.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 183

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Several other projects are now identified that will be occurring within the 50-mile radius. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, a new Volkswagen manufacturing plant will be completed in early 2011, and Alstom has announced it will build a new facility to manufacture turbines and other major components for U.S. power generation facilities. Construction of the Alstom plant is expected to be complete in late 2010. Another company is said to be planning construction of a facility in Marion County, Tennessee, to begin in the near future.

In Madison County, Alabama, the University of Alabama-Huntsville has some large construction projects underway. In DeKalb County, a small metal fabrication facility is under construction that will employ 25 people beginning in March 2010. The county is also recruiting a Canadian automotive supplier that would employee 158 initially and up to 350 in the long term. Additionally, the local highway projects described in Subsection 3.13.10.1 are either underway or could occur within the project time period.

Because all of these efforts are either underway, or will likely be completed before the construction workforce begins to grow at the Bellefonte site, it is unlikely that these facilities and highway projects would impact recruiting for construction for a nuclear reactor at Bellefonte. None of these projects are close enough to Hollywood, Alabama, to contribute co-impact community services or traffic congestion on local roads, including any traffic congestion due to the road projects discussed in Subsection 3.13.10.1, which are located near Scottsboro. If the local highway projects are completed by peak construction for either alternative, the cumulative effects of traffic would be reduced due to these improvements.

No cumulative effects on socioeconomics are expected from construction or completion and operation of a single nuclear unit at the BLN site in combination with the projects described above.

For over a decade, the Federal Highway Administration has discussed the need for a new interstate highway connecting Memphis, Tennessee, to Atlanta, Georgia, via Huntsville, Alabama. This project was tabled before the 2008-2009 recession and is not likely to be funded and under construction until after the construction at the Bellefonte site would be completed.

3.14. Solid and Hazardous Waste 3.14.1. Affected Environment The earliest BLN NEPA document, TVA's 1974 FES, addressed expected solid waste generation resulting from plant construction, normal plant activities, and transmission line clearing and maintenance practices, and the proposed disposal of those wastes.

Plant construction solid waste, such as metal, lumber scrap, and. other salvageable material, was to be collected periodically for sale or removal from the site. Trees having no commercial value and stumps were cut, piled, and burned in accordance with federal, state, and local air quality regulations. Broken concrete, rock, and residue from wood burning were "used in landfill material" on site.

Normal nonradiological solid wastes included sludge from water treatment plant filters and demineralizers, paper, soft drink cans, glass, wood, and to a much lesser extent garbage.

Scrap metals (other than cans) were to be salvaged and sold. Scrap lumber was to be salvaged for TVA use, or made available to scavengers, and the remainder disposed of with other solid waste. It was anticipated that this solid waste would be disposed of at either a TVA sanitary landfill operated by TVA personnel in accordance with EPA 184 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 regulations, or in a state-approved landfill operated on non-TVA property by a municipality, county, or private contractor. Economics was expected to be a major determinant of the option selected for disposal.

The 1974 FES analysis formed the general basis (template) for the evaluation of the management and disposal of solid waste in the subsequent NEPA documents, addressing the various phases and alternative options for the use of the plant and the site. Thus, while the nominal categories changed over time, the general assemblage of wastes remained largely the same. Furthermore, the manner/location of disposal varied, with off-site disposal retained as the favored option, but with disposal of various wastes on site being maintained as an option. Actual and planned disposal was always in accordance with existing applicable environmental regulations.

TVA 1976 restated the solid waste categories as demolition/construction waste, domestic (municipal type) waste, clearing and demolition/construction waste, and added the category nonradiological hazardous waste or problem waste..

An exhaustive list of typical domestic waste was provided: garbage, paper, plastic, packing materials (metal-retaining bands, excelsior, cardboard), leather, rubber, glass, soft drink and food cans, dead animals and fish, oil and air filters, floor sweepings, ashes, wood, textiles, and scrap metal. Domestic waste, by this definition, was listed as the largest type of nonradiological solid waste. Domestic and demolition/construction wastes were to be disposed of in a local, state-approved sanitary landfill.

Broken concrete and bricks, waste concrete, asphalt, rocks, and dirt, along with the residue from burning clearing wastes, were used as unclassified fill material on site. In addition, there was no planned disposal of domestic solid waste or hazardous wastes in the fill area.

All lumber used for forms, scaffolding, etc., was reused as long as practical and then offered to the general public for firewood or other use. Unwanted scrap lumber from the salvaging operation was disposed of in an unclassified fill area. Scrap metals and other recyclable materials were collected, offered for periodic sale, and removed from the site.

Nonradiological hazardous wastes were represented as those that require special handling and/or disposal methods to avoid illness or injury to persons or damage to the environment.

Examples of hazardous waste were empty containers from paints, solvents, pesticides, acids, oils, PCBs, chemical grouts, as well as the materials themselves. Problem wastes were those wastes that are difficult to handle by conventional means. Examples of problem wastes were sludges from water and wastewater treatment plants, tires, materials from intake screens, and materials used in the clean up of chemical or oil spills. It should be noted that the RCRA regulations (40 CFR Parts 260-273), the basis for current hazardous waste management, were not yet in force at the time of TVA's 1976 final environmental report.

The TVA white paper (TVA 1993a), was developed to determine if the 1974 FES needed to be supplemented for the proposed change from deferred status, and it added asbestos materials to the list of BLN wastes. For the disposal of certain nonradiological nonhazardous waste, the intent was to be able to dispose of these wastes either off site in state-approved sanitary landfills or in on-site approved landfills, depending on the economics. Any hazardous wastes would be disposed of or treated off site at state-approved treatment/disposal facilities.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 185

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The BLN Conversion FEIS (TVA 1997) addressed solid and hazardous wastes generated by five fossil-based alternatives to the exclusion of the nuclear option for the BLN plant.

Only relatively small quantities of solid hazardous and nonfossil-based nonhazardous wastes were generated at the BLN site at that time, as the existing plant was in regulatory deferred status. In addition to large-volume solid wastes associated with the fossil-based options, the typical hazardous and nonhazardous waste generation was discussed.

Discussions of the tritium option (TVA 2000), in addition to a relisting of the likely solid wastes, included estimates of the hazardous and nonhazardous waste generated by the completion of Unit 1 and Units 1&2.

In the 2006 final environmental assessment, solid and hazardous waste generation was included in the discussion of impacts associated with the cancellation of construction of the existing facility and withdrawal of the construction permits. This action was taken to pursue other site alternatives. Further details are presented and discussed in the Environmental Consequences section below.

Most recently, the COLA ER provided a description of the estimated solid waste generation associated with the construction and operation of BLN 3&4 (two AP1000 units), including a discussion on the types of solid waste and the quantities. Further details are presented and discussed under Alternative C below.

The changes in solid and hazardous waste generation at BLN from the earlier NEPA review conditions are the result of further reduction of plant activities from those prevailing under the deferred status (TVA 2006) and reflect changes primarily in the quantitative distribution of wastes rather than changes in the types of wastes.

With the plant in deferred status, the solid waste generated is minimal, commensurate with the low level of activity at the plant. Typical sanitary solid waste is routinely put in dumpsters on site and subsequently disposed of off site in an approved sanitary landfill.

Within the last three years (2007 to present), nonhazardous waste generated at BLN included four roll-offs (20 cubic yards each) of roofing materials (flashing, felt, etc.), 11 roll-offs (20 cubic yards each) of asbestos waste generated from the repair and upkeep of plant buildings, and one roll-off (20 cubic yards) of oily debris (dirt and gravel). Material contained in the roll-offs was disposed of at the ADEM-approved Sand Valley Landfill in Collinsville, Alabama. This landfill has available capacity for the disposal of solid waste for the next 59 years, at the current disposal rates.

Other nonhazardous solid waste generated at BLN during the same period, included 1,392 kg of used oil (used oil, oily water, used grease, etc.) in large part from the decommissioning of plant operating equipment; 2,489 kg of oily debris (oily rags, pads, and absorbents); and 125 kg of non-PCB ballasts. These drummed nonhazardous materials were shipped to the TVA Hazardous Waste Storage Facility (HWSF) for disposal or recycling, as appropriate. The TVA HWSF provides interim storage of some of TVA's nonhazardous waste prior to disposal.

As with solid waste, the hazardous waste generated is minimal, again commensurate with the reduced level of activity at the plant. The BLN site is a conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG). A CESQG generates hazardous waste at a rate of less than 100 kg (220 pounds [Ib)]) in any calendar month and manages the waste in a manner specified by the EPA (40 CFR §261.5). Within the last three years (2007 to present),

18AR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 761 kg of hazardous waste were shipped to the TVA HWSF for disposal. These hazardous wastes included paints, paint-related materials, solvents, corrosive liquids, aerosol cans, discarded chemicals, and broken fluorescent bulbs. Drummed PCB ballasts (268 kg),

which can be described as toxic rather than hazardous in terms of the regulations, were also sent to the TVA HWSF for disposal. Just as for the solid waste, the TVA HWSF manages a number of waste management contracts that provide TVA with a variety of hazardous waste disposal options approved by regulators (Table 3-11).

The TVA HWSF is located in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, and provides interim storage of most of the TVA hazardous wastes and some other wastes, pending shipment to permitted commercial facilities for appropriate disposal.

Table 3-11. Hazardous Waste Storage/Disposal Capacity Available to BLN Facility Specialty Capacity Interim storage prior to 720 55-gallon (gal) equivalent shipment for disposal containers 87,750 gal/day treatment in containers Veolia Environmental Services 110,000 gal/day treatment in tanks RMI, Morrow, Georgia Fuel blending 167,500 gal storage in containers 176,598 gal storage in tanks Veolia Environmental Services 4x63 cubic yards solid bulka TWli, Sauget, Illinois Incineration 300,000 gallons liquid bulka 11,380 55-gal containersa Chemical Waste Management Stabilization and Emelle, Alabama landfilling - 800,000 tons/year for 10 to 20 years a Maximum to be held on site at any one time.

3.14.2. EnvironmentalConsequences 3.14.3. Alternative A For this alternative, there would be no construction activity beyond routine maintenance of the physical plant. Any construction/demolition waste would be minimal and would be disposed of in a state-approved landfill. A minor amount of construction-related hazardous waste is anticipated for this alternative beyond paint-related waste, and this would be sent to the TVA HWSF for disposal. There would be limited quantities of solid waste for disposal and, with regard to hazardous waste, the plant would continue to be a CESQG.

Alternative B The quantities and types of solid waste generated by this option during the construction phase would be determined primarily by the number of buildings demolished and/or renovated to meet the needs of the new generation system and the equipment that must be taken out and replaced. In the CLWR FEIS, DOE estimated that 392 cubic meters of concrete waste and 208 tons of steel waste would be generated for the completion of BLN Unit 1 for the duration of the construction period (DOE 1999). Under Alternative B, no major buildings would be demolished. However, it is expected that scrap metal waste would be generated from the replacement of old equipment and components. Therefore, it is expected that a large number of motors would be discarded, producing steel and copper for recycling. Other sources for scrap metal for recycling include steel from the replacement of the steam generator, copper from the replacement of electrical cables, and sheet metal from the renovation of the Control Room/Building. This material would be Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 187

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site recycled as much as practicable. In addition, as indicated in the COLA ER, the intended use of an existing cooling tower would require some maintenance and refurbishment. This renovation would include removal of asbestos fill material and replacement with a nonhazardous material. This process would generate asbestos waste for disposal. Any construction/demolition wastes generated during the building/renovation process would be managed through the existing TVA waste disposal contracts to access permitted disposal capacity or recycling facilities, as needed.

Likely hazardous wastes generated during the construction phase would include paint wastes, paint thinners, dried paint, and parts cleaning liquids. In the CLWR FEIS, DOE estimated that 6.3 tons of solid hazardous waste and 56.ý7 tons of liquid hazardous waste would be generated for the completion of BLN Unit I for the duration of the construction period (DOE 1999). These hazardous wastes would be sent to the TVA HWSF for disposal.

Although the exact calculations of the quantities of solid and hazardous waste that would be generated during operation are yet to be determined by the DSEP process, indications can be gleaned from the ongoing experience of existing nuclear plants. Solid wastes generated currently by the TVA nuclear plants include oily debris (absorbent, boom, rags from cleanup, oily gravel and dirt), spent resin, desiccant, and alkaline batteries. These wastes are shipped to the TVA HWSF for disposal by contractor in a permitted landfill.

Wood waste that cannot be recycled also goes to a permitted landfill. Scrap metal is recycled. Based on waste generated at SQN from 2004 through 2008, the estimated quantity of solid nonhazardous, nonradiological waste generated annually during operation of a single B&W unit would be approximately 500 tons.

Types of hazardous waste generated currently by the TVA nuclear plants include paint, paint thinners, paint solids, discarded laboratory chemicals, spent fixer (X-ray solution),

parts washer liquid, hydrazine, rags from hydrazine cleanup, and sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide waste from demineralizer beds and makeup water treatment, and broken fluorescent bulbs. These operating plants tend to be EPA hazardous waste small quantity generators (SQGs) (i.e., they generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per calendar month). During outages, these plants may temporarily become EPA hazardous waste large quantity generators (greater than 1,000 kg per calendar month) for the period of the outage. The operating TVA nuclear plants providing these generation rates are multiunit plants, thus it is likely that the proposed single unit plant would have a lower generation rate, and it is likely that the single unit plant would be a CESQG during normal operation. Based on waste totals from SQN from 2004 through 2008, operation of a single B&W unit would generate approximately 1,300 lb (approximately 600 kg) of hazardous, nonradiological per year.

Regardless, the hazardous wastes are shipped to the TVA HWSF in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, for interim storage prior to disposal at a permitted facility. The TVA HWSF has contracts for hazardous waste disposal by a number of methods (Table 3-11) with companies with significant disposal capacity.

In summary, under Alternative B, recycling of potential waste materials such as oils, wood/lumber, and scrap metal, reduces the pressure on sanitary and other landfill capacity, ultimately mitigating any potential adverse disposal effects. Furthermore, the likely implementation of a chemical traffic control program at the plant minimizes the discarded chemicals hazardous waste stream, reducing the pressure on hazardous waste disposal 188 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 landfill capacity, ultimately mitigating any potential adverse disposal effects. Because all of the solid and hazardous wastes would be disposed of off site, there would be no direct effects. Because the disposal of the solid and hazardous wastes from construction and operation would be in accordance with the applicable regulations and at permitted facilities, and these facilities currently have adequate capacity to serve BLN needs, any adverse effects from the generation, management, and disposal of these wastes are likely to be small. In addition, cumulative effects would be minimized by the use of permitted landfills.

These facilities would provide substantive barriers separating the waste from the at-risk groundwater and would be capped as well, minimizing the cumulative effect of placing BLN and non-BLN waste in the same facility.

Alternative C During the initial phase of construction, solid waste for this alternative would be generated from the demolition of several existing buildings, the construction of the new plant, and the clearing and grubbing of a limited amount of additional acreage. Based on a comparison of the existing structures on the Alternative B and Alternative C site plans (Figures 2-1 and 2-12), several buildings including the existing turbine building and the office and service.

building would need to be demolished.

Construction/demolition wastes are likely to include scrap metal, masonry, broken concrete, wallboard, lumber, manufactured wood products, cardboard, plastics, broken glass, roofing material, and such. The additional acreage to be disturbed is currently covered in overgrowth and some forestation (TVA 2008a). As a result, site preparation would generate some wood and other vegetative waste from the clearing and grubbing. As stated for Alternative B, the intended use of an existing cooling tower would require some maintenance and refurbishment and would result in similar effects. All solid wastes would be disposed of in state-approved landfills, as needed.

Hazardous waste generated during construction would include paint wastes, paint thinners, dried paint, and parts cleaning liquids. The COLA ER estimated that 5,000 lb (2,230 kg) of hazardous waste per year would be generated during the construction of a two-unit AP1 000 plant. This translates into about 2,500 lb (1,115 kg) per year for Alternative C. Assuming a uniform distribution of the hazardous waste generation over the year would make the plant a CESQG. Therefore, based upon the assumption that construction of the AP1000 would last 6.5 years, an estimated 16,250 lb (8.1 tons) of hazardous waste would be generated during construction of the AP1 000.

Anticipated nonradioactive waste for the operation of an AP1 000 would include typical industrial wastes such as metal, wood, and paper, as well as process wastes such as nonradioactive resins, filters, and sludge (TVA 2008a). That study estimated "the plant

[Units 3&4] would generate approximately 800 tons of nonhazardous, nonradiological solid waste (i.e., trash) during each year of plant operation." Based on this estimate for two AP1000 units, the estimated quantity of nonhazardous, nonradiological solid waste generated annually during operation of a single AP1 000 unit would be approximately 400 tons. Based on TVA's experience, additional smaller amounts of nonhazardous waste, such as oily debris and desiccant, would be expected also.

Hazardous waste generated during normal plant operation would include paint wastes, paint thinners, dried paint, parts cleaning liquids, discarded chemicals, waste acid and waste base. Based on waste totals from SQN from 2004 through 2008, operation of a single AP1 000 would generate about 1,300 lb (approximately 600 kg) of hazardous, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 189

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site nonradiological waste per year. Assigning a uniform distribution of the hazardous waste generation over the year would make the plant a CESQG. Hazardous wastes would be shipped to the TVA HWSF for disposal.

As with Alternative B, the direct and cumulative effects on the environment from disposal of solid and hazardous waste disposal would be small.

3.15. Seismology 3.15.1. Affected Environment TVA's 1974 FES describes the maximum historical Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI, a scale of earthquake effects that ranges from Roman numeral I through XII) experienced at BLN from nearby earthquakes. Section 2.5 of the BLN FSAR (TVA 1986) describes the geology and seismicity in the vicinity of BLN and contains a summary of significant regional earthquakes through 1973. The seismic history of the region around BLN from 1974 through January 2005 is contained in Appendix 2AA of the COLA FSAR. Table 3-12 lists the most recent seismic history (February 2005 through December 2008) for earthquakes within 200 miles of BLN having magnitudes of 2.5 or greater based on the earthquake catalog maintained by the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) 2010.

Table 3-12. Earthquakes Within 200 Miles of BLN (February 2005-December 2008)1 Time Latitude Longitude Mnu S (Universal Depth Magnitude C

SCoordinated iDatenated (Degrees (Degrees (km) agnitude Type Time) North) West) 03/18/2005 01:02:16.3 35.723 -84.164 9.1 2.7 Md 03/22/2005 08:11:50.5 31.836 -88.060 5.0 3.3 ML 04/05/2005 20:37:42.6 36.147 -83.693 10.0 2.9 Md 04/14/2005 15:38:15.7 35.468 -84.091 15.5 2.8 Md 06/07/2005 16:33:36.7 33.531 -87.304 5.0 2.8 ML 10/12/2005 06:27:30.1 35.509 -84.544 8.1 3.3 Md 10/25/2005 05:18:10.5 34.429 -85.315 9.1 2.6 Md 10/28/2005 21:05:40.3 33.003 -83.094 14.4 2.7 Md 10/29/2005 23:46:20.7 33.034 -83.156 17.1 2.5 Md 03/11/2006 02:37:20.1 35.192 -87.996 0.0 2.9 Md 03/11/2006 08:08:54.2 32.712 -88.159 30.7 2.6 Md 04/11/2006 03:29:20.8 35.362 -84.480 19.6 3.3 Md 05/10/2006 12:17:29.2 35.533 -84.396 24.7 3.2 Md 05/16/2006 05:23:19.9 32.850 -88.087 20.5 2.5 Md 06/16/2006 00:57:26.8 35.512 -83.203 1.4 3.4 Md 07/11/2006 13:45:40.7 33.606 -87.146 1.0 2.8 ML 08/07/2006 08:44:27.7 34.937 -85.461 14.2 2.9 Md 09/05/2006 04:32:42.6 33.705 -82.992 10.2 2.5 Md 10/02/2006 19:56:19.2 35.468 -84.984 8.7 2.5 Md 12/18/2006 08:34:26.5 35.356 -84.351 17.7 3.3 Md 01/03/2007 23:05:44.7 35.916 -83.955 15.3 2.7 Md 01/30/2007 21:20:29.4 .33.664 87.107. 1.0 2.6 ML 02/07/2007 00:34:53.6 34.607 -85.308 10.7 2.6 Md 03/23/2007 14:15:33.3 33.652 -87.067 5.0 2.6 ML 05/04/2007 16:16:28.2 33.797 -87.299 5.0 3.0 ML 06/19/2007 18:16:26.8 35.793 -85.362 1.2 3.5 Md 190 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Time imer Latitude Longitude Date(Degrees (Degrees Dep Magnitude Coordinated ( West) (ki M t Type Time) North) 07/27/2007 17:16:39.8 33.834 -87.329 1.0 2.6 ML 10/23/2007 05:16:11.6 35.591 -84.104 21.3 2.8 Md 11/17/2007 19:22:55.7 37.393 -83.087 1.0 2.5 ML 01/01/2008 10:59:53.0 37.039 -88.894 4.0 2.5 Md 01/04/2008 14:55:28.5 33.106 -86.161 5.0 2.5 ML 01/23/2008 22:22:13.8 33.739 -87.180 1.0 2.8 ML 02/23/2008 17:03:18.5 33.864 -87.165 1.0 2.6 ML 04/08/2008 17:43:44.4 33.649 -87.502 1.0 2.6 ML 05/07/2008 16:44:35.1 33.691 -87.211 1.0 2.7 ML 05/10/2008 17:52:49.6 34.350 -88.835 0.0 3.1 Md 05/16/2008 18:39:14.9 31.773 -88.203 5.0 3.1 ML 06/23/2008 23:30:20.0 34.925 -84.841 8.8 3.1 Md 06/28/2008 01:40:36.5 33.276 -87.396 5.0 3.1 ML 08/19/2008 01:47:58.0 34.276 -87.988 0.0 2.6 Md 10/25/2008 23:47:17.3 36.052 -83.604 15.8 2.5 Md 10/31/2008 16:37:34.0 35.768 -84.000 7.6 2.9 Md 11/10/2008 02:29:00.8 35.766 -84.591 25.1 2.5 Md 12/18/2008 00:05:07.1 1 36.050 -83.592 9.5 3.3 Md Md = Duration magnitude (USGS 2010)

ML = Local magnitude (USGS 2010) 1 Source: Advanced National Seismic System Earthquake Catalog (2010)

The most significant earthquake to occur near BLN since 1973 was the Fort Payne earthquake, which occurred on April 29, 2003, in northeastern Alabama, near the Georgia border. This earthquake has a measured Lg wave magnitude (mbLg) of 4.9 and a moment magnitude (M) of 4.6 (USGS 2009). The Fort Payne earthquake caused minor damage, including damage to chimneys, cracked walls and foundations, broken windows, and collapse of a sinkhole 9 meters (29 feet) wide near the epicenter (Geological Survey of Alabama 2009). Based on reconnaissance in the epicentral area, no landslides were reported, and damage to chimneys was observed only for chimneys with masonry in poor/weakened condition. Other masonry, including chimneys in good condition, and several old masonry buildings did not appear to be damaged. The earthquake occurred at a depth of about 8 to 15 km (5.0 to 9.3 miles) (Kim 2009; USGS 2009). Based on the U.S.

Geological Survey's Community Internet Intensity Map, the observed MMI at BLN would have been IV to V (USGS 2009). The Fort Payne earthquake's magnitude is still lower than that of the maximum historical earthquake in the southern Appalachians, which was the 1897 Giles County, Virginia, earthquake. The 1897 earthquake had a maximum MMI of VIII and an estimated body wave magnitude of 5.8. Therefore, the 2003 Fort Payne earthquake is well within the known historical maximum magnitude earthquake in the southern Appalachian region and is consistent with the earthquake history of the region described in TVA's 1974 FES, 1986 BLN FSAR, and 2009 BLN FSAR.

As the record of recent earthquakes indicates, small to occasionally moderate earthquakes continue to occur in the southern Appalachians. Data from regional seismic monitoring networks, which have been in operation since the 1980s, indicate that the vast majority of these earthquakes occur within the basement rocks of the southern Appalachians at depths from 5 to 26 km (3.1 to 16.1 miles). Reactivation of zones of existing weaknesses within Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 191

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site the basement rocks are believed to be responsible for present day earthquake activity in the region (Algermissen and Bollinger 1993).

3.15.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, because there would be no completion or construction and operation of a new plant, there would be no impacts.

Alternatives B and C Given the historic record of seismic activity in the BLN region described above, TVA believes the basis for the safe shutdown earthquake described in Section 2.5 of the BLN FSAR (TVA 1986) is still valid. The largest historical earthquake in the Southern Appalachian Tectonic Province remains the 1897 Giles County, Virginia, earthquake.

TVA has performed feasibility studies relative to a comparison of the original seismic design basis spectra (NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 Rev 1) (NRC 1973) to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix S (Regulatory Guide 1.208 and Interim Staff Guidance) (NRC 2007a). The present regulatory requirements apply to new generation plant sites; however, TVA felt it prudent to perform analyses to understand how the BLN 1&2 original design and construction compared to the latest requirements. Based on results of these studies, it can be demonstrated that the existing seismic Category I structures compare favorably with the latest requirements (AREVA 2009b). At such time that an agreed regulatory framework is established for the completion of either BLN 1 or 2 under Alternative B, design-basis analyses would be performed to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.

As a standard plant, the seismic adequacy of the AP1 000 design proposed under Alternative C is addressed through the NRC's review and approval of the vendor-supplied Design Control Document (DCD).

3.16. Climatology and Meteorology, Air Quality, and Global Climate Change The COLA ER contains an extensive discussion of the meteorology, air quality, and climatology for the BLN site. The COLA ER used information contained in TVA's 1974 FES, on-site data from 1979 to 1982, more recent climatological records, and on-site data for 2006-2007. This information is supplemented in the following sections by data collected for 15 additional months, into 2008.

3.16.1. Climatology and Meteorology 3.16.1.1. Affected Environment Regional Climatology The overall regional climate description in the COLA ER remains accurate, as conditions since the application was submitted are consistent with those reported. The COLA ER acknowledged the 2006-2008 drought; however, it was not possible to make substantive conclusions about the impacts of the drought because it was ongoing. Since the application was submitted, the drought has ended, and conditions have returned to near normal. Although this drought represented extreme conditions for northeast Alabama and adjacent areas, it was not as intense as the other regional droughts discussed in the COLA ER in terms of magnitude and duration.

192 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Local Meteorology The meteorological data collected from the BLN meteorological facility have been expanded by an additional 15 months beyond the 2006-2007 period used in the COLA ER. The data for the full 2006-2008 period are presented in Appendix I. The different data periods (1979-1982, 2006-2007 COLA, and 2006-2008 full period) are compared in Appendix J. The differences between the three data periods are within the normal year-to-year variation for Bellefonte. The conclusions in the COLA ER are updated as discussed below.

The COLA ER discussed only the winds measured at 10 meters above the ground (10-meter winds) and atmospheric stability represented by temperatures measured between 55 and 10 meters above the ground (55-10 meter atmospheric stability), because only that information was relevant to the AP1 000 units. However, because of the potential for elevated releases of radioactive effluent from the B&W reactor (releases into the air that rise above the influence of the plant structures), it is also necessary to examine the winds measured at 55 meters above the ground (55-meter winds).

10-meter winds--For the entire 2006-2008 sampling period of 27 months, the most frequent wind directions at 10 meters are from the north-northeast at 13.15 percent and from the south-southwest at 12.54 percent. This is consistent with the downvalley-upvalley flow pattern in the COLA ER and the earlier 1979-1982 data collected at BLN.

The average wind speed of 4.11 miles per hour (mph) equals the value in the COLA ER but is less than the 4.95 mph for the 1979-1982 data. The frequency of calms (defined as wind speeds less than 0.6 mph decreased from 0.753 percent in 1979-1982 to 0.397 percent in 2006-2008.

55-10 meter atmospheric stability--The 2006-2008 data were measured for a 55-10 meter layer, while the 1979-1982 data were measured for a 60-10 meter layer. This slight difference in layer depth should have minimal impact on stability class.

The differences between the 1979-1982 data, the BLN COLA ER data, and the data for the entire 2006-2008 sampling period of 27 months are summarized in Table 3-13.

Table 3-13. Comparison of Atmospheric Stability Data Collected at BLN (Percent Occurrence) I Stability Classification 1979-1982 2007 COLA ER 2006-2008 Unstable (Classes A, B, and C) 8.93 7.3 7.63 Neutral (Class D) 48.75 44.4 44.11 Stable (Classes E, F, and G) 42.33 48.2 48.27 Notes: 1979-1982 data were measured for a 60-10 meter layer above ground.

2006-2007 and 2006-2008 data were measured for a 55-10 meter layer above ground. The 2006-2007 data were used in the COLA ER. The 2006-2008 includes the COLA ER data plus an additional 15 months of data.

The COLA ER states "stability class frequency distributions show that the BLN site data gathered over both time periods (11979-1982 and 2006-2007) are relatively similar."

Because the data for the entire 2006-2008 period agree closely with the COLA ER, this conclusion still applies.,

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 193

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 55-meter winds--The 2006-2008 data were measured at 55 meters above ground, while the 1979-1982 data, were measured at 60 meters above ground. This slight difference in elevation should have minimal impact on interpretation of wind data.

For the entire 2006-2008 sampling period of 27 months, the most frequent wind directions at 55 meters are from the northeast at 18.35 percent, from the north-northeast at 15.13 percent, and from the south-southwest at 11.97 percent. This is consistent with the downvalley-upvalley flow pattern in the 1979-1982 data.

The average wind speed of 6.46 mph is less than the 7.13 mph for the 1979-1982 data.

The frequency of calms (defined as wind speeds less than 0.6 mph) decreased from 0.085 percent in 1979-1982 to 0.005 percent in 2006-2008.

Severe Weather During 1980-2008, 17 tornadoes occurred in Jackson County, including two storms with a strength of F4/EF-4. Of these tornadoes, seven (including one EF-4 tornado) had tracks (all or part) within 10 miles of the BLN site. Appendix K lists these tornadoes.

In addition to tornadoes, numerous other significant weather events were identified for Jackson County during 1980-2008 from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Storm Events Web site (NCDC 2010). These include the following events:

• 22 Months of Drought (March 2007-December 2008)

• 17 Flood

• 1 Funnel Cloud

• 73 Hail (0.75-2.75 in)

• 3 Hurricane and Tropical Storm

• 10 Lightning

• 3 Precipitation (Heavy Rain)

• 21 Snow and Ice

• 5 Temperature Extremes (3 cold, 2 hot) 0 144 Thunderstorm and High Wind These are generally typical numbers of events for the region based on equivalent information from surrounding counties.

Subsection 2.7.1.2 of the COLA ER describes possible impacts of hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, and hail at BLN. This section remains accurate with the exception of the tornado probability discussion in Subsection 2.7.1.2.2.

The COLA ER estimate is based on 1950-2005 data. Based on data from Jackson County alone, the probability of a tornado striking the site is calculated as 2.84E-4 (or a 0.000284/1 chance of a tornado striking the site within any single year). This converts to.a tornado striking the site every 3,516 years (i.e., recurrence interval of 3,516 years). For data based on Jackson County and five surrounding counties, this probability is 6.44E-4 with a recurrence interval of 1,552 years.

When the tornado database extends to 2008, the probability calculation changes to 4.1 E-4 with a recurrence interval of 2,460 years (for Jackson County only). For data based on Jackson County and five surrounding counties, this probability is 6.7E-4 with a recurrence interval of 1,482 years.

194 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 3.16.1.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, because there would be no completion or construction and operation of a new plant, there would be no impacts.

Alternatives B and C Atmospheric dispersion, or the transport and dilution of radioactive materials in the form of aerosols, vapors, or gasses released into the atmosphere from a nuclear power station are a function of the state of the atmosphere along the plume path, the topography of the region, and the characteristics of the effluents themselves. The downwind concentrations of released materials are estimated by atmospheric dispersion models and analysis.

Atmospheric dispersion analysis considers two categories of radiological releases: routine and accident. The atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) values for the B&W units were estimated for both release types using meteorological data collected at BLN during 2006-2008. The AP1000 atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) values were estimated using meteorological data collected at BLN during 2006-2007 in order to maintain consistency with the atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) values reported in the BLN COLA. Low atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) values are indicative of better transport and dilution of released effluents. In all cases, the atmospheric dispersion characteristics of the BLN site result in off-site doses within the regulatory limits of 10 CFR Part 100 for accident effluent releases and 10 CFR Part 20 for normal effluent releases (see Section 3.17).

Routine Releases For routine airborne releases, the concentration of the radioactive material in the surrounding region depends on the amount of effluent released, the height of the release, the momentum and buoyancy of the emitted plume, the wind speed, atmospheric stability, airflow patterns of the site, and various effluent removal mechanisms. Geographic features and surface roughness can also influence dispersion and airflow patterns.

NRC Regulatory Guide 1.111, "Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors" (NRC 1977b), identifies types of atmospheric transport and diffusion models, source configuration, removal mechanisms, and input data that are acceptable to the NRC for use in providing assessments of potential annual radiation doses to the public resulting from routine releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents. The guidance on acceptable models and necessary input data provided in Regulatory Guide 1.111 are utilized in the calculation of annual average relative concentration (X/Q) and annual average relative deposition (D/Q) values for gaseous effluent routine releases from BLN.

The XOQDOQ software, "Computer Program for the Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations," which is provided under NUREG/CR-2919 (NRC 1982b) and implements the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.111, was used to develop these X/Q and D/Q values. This program is used by the NRC meteorology staff in their independent evaluation of routine or anticipated intermittent releases at nuclear power plants.

Figures 3-17 and 3-18 provide the site layout and distances to the EAB for the B&W and AP1000 reactor units, respectively. Figures 3-19 and 3-20 provide the release vents and building heights for the B&W and AP1000 reactor units, respectively. Figure 3-21 provides the off-site receptor locations.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 195

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Leged 0 7w 2,60 N EM1Exchuoofthj Bmnwiuy (EM8) - COs.W OwUno. OEM U.S(Vs 1AW

- SONNOWl She PfltYftySw~dary Figure 3-17. EAB Distance for B&W Reactor Unit Layout 196 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Legend N

C*c,.,¶DwtAr" In EAUtfr1) 0 700 t400 2¶0 r-1 E.*son4Ar abos-dwyEA8i Eftwo4 Roh.n. Bo.M'dar - BelebIr~ei S4. Property Bwurdary Mif.. W+k Figure 3-18. EAB Distance for AP1000 Reactor Units Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 197

co o/)

CD z

CD i F I I et. *, (266.5Sfeet above plant grade)

CD C

I CD qr0 I

CDD CD m

CD . _

C)C Fn I 1 -

c)rI V -- -- -- - -

Figur 3-T & ec ln ensadBidn egt

Chapter 3 I-i .0. IA (182 feet 8 3/4 inches above plant grade)

ALIt

'I-1.

IF IV Ar LA .r4 1~

A," All I ALl Source: WEC 2008 Figure 3-20. AP1000 Reactor Plant Vents and Building Heights Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 199

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site

/

?t N, 0 t /

N,'

X Maximum Receptor Locations *AP1000 OB&W Note that the more conservative atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) value of either a physical receptor location or a peak (XTQ) value location were used for each pathway and dose analysis. Because peak (X/Q) value locations do not represent a physical receptor type and are dependent only on meteorological conditions, distance from the release point, and release point conditions, the physical peak (X/Q) locations may exist over water. These values and locations are used, regardless, for conservatism.

Figure 3-21. Maximum Atmospheric Dispersion (X/Q) Value Receptor Locations 200 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 The atmospheric dispersion factors for normal releases were determined to provide a conservative estimate of the off-site doses due to normal airborne effluent releases. The locations with the highest X/Q and D/Q values outside the EAB result in the most conservative off-site doses. Normally, the atmospheric dispersion factors decrease linearly with distance from the site such that larger distances produce lower concentrations (i.e.,

smaller X/Qs). However, because a mixed-mode release is used for the station vent, there are locations outside of the site boundary where the %/Q and D/Q values peak due to aerodynamic downwash. Therefore, the atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) value used for each receptor type is the more conservative of the maximum peak x/Q value or the x/Q value for the actual receptor.

The dose pathways are evaluated at the most conservative location outside the EAB where a receptor currently exists. Because a mixed-mode release is also used, there are locations outside of the site boundary where the x/Q and D/Q values peak. However, a comparison of the locations of the peaks to the locations of the nearest receptors in each sector demonstrates that the peaks occur at distances closer than the nearest receptor identified in the appropriate sectors. Because there are no actual receptors at the peak locations, the receptor location with the maximum X/Q and D/Q values was used to evaluate all pathways except doses due to immersion in the plume. The highest %/Q and D/Q values occur at the nearest garden in the southwest sector.The calculated atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) values are a means of quantifying the relative concentration of released effluents. These values, in conjunction with the isotopic source description of the released effluents, are used to produce doses due to the released effluents. In order to account for radioisotope removal mechanisms accurately, atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) values are calculated taking into account radioisotope removal via decay in transit corresponding to noble gas radionuclide Xe-1 33m decay (2.26-day half-life) [see Tables 3-14, 3-15, and 3-16, 2.26-day decay undepleted X/Q values]. Atmospheric dispersion factors with decay and depletion are used in population dose calculations. For this case, radiological decay in transit is included corresponding to radioiodine 1-131 (8-day half-life). Ground deposition factors (D/Qs) are used in population dose calculations. The ground deposition factors do not include radiological decay.

The B&W unit uses two main release locations, the station vent (266 feet above plant grade) and the turbine building vent (152 feet above plant grade). In accordance with the guidance from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.111, the station vent was modeled as a mixed-mode release because the release height is above the height of adjacent buildings. The turbine building vent was modeled as a ground level release because the release height is less than the containment building elevation. The locations with the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) doses are presented in Table 3-14 (station vent) and Table 3-15 (turbine building). In Tables 3-14 and Table 3-16, the column titled "Maximum Receptor Type Values" indicates whether the value selected represents an actual receptor location or whether the peak value is conservatively used as a surrogate location. This distinction is not necessary for Table 3-15 because the turbine building releases are ground level releases that do not exhibit off-site peak values. The distances given in Tables 3-14 and 3-15 are relative to the center point between Units 1 and 2. Likewise, the distances given in Table 3-16 are relative to the center point between Units 3 and 4.

The AP1 000 unit uses the plant vent release location (182.6 feet above grade), which was modeled as a mixed-mode release as it is near the elevation of the tallest adjacent building.

The locations with the MEI doses are presented in Table 3-16. In this table, the cow, goat, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 201

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site and house receptor locations were assumed to be at the garden location to maximize the resulting doses even though these receptors do not occur at this location.

Table 3-14. B&W Unit Station Vent X/Q Values Used for Calculating MEI Doses at BLN Recetor Maximum, " /Q X/Q 3

Directton Receptor Distance ' .Q (secl ) (sec/M3 ) (sec/r 3)

Type DType (miles) No Decay 2.26 Da 8.00 Day 2)

Analyzed Values Undepleted Decay Decay

______.._... ___ Undepleted Depleted EAB S PEAK 1.77 2.4E-06 2.3E-06 2.3E-06 4.1E-09 GARDEN SW GARDEN 0.85 1.2E-06 1.2E-06 1.1E-06 8.3E-09 COW S PEAK 1.77 2.4E-06 2.3E-06 2.3E-06 4.1E-09 GOAT S PEAK 1.77 2.4E-06 2.3E-06 2.3E-06 4.1E-09 HOUSE S PEAK 1.77 2.4E-06 2.3E-06 2.3E-06 4.1E-09 Note: Receptor locations with maximum D/Q or X/Q values for each receptor type for the station vent mixed-mode release Table 3-15. BLN B&W Unit Turbine Building Vent X/Q Values Used for Calculating MEl Doses 2

Type of, Location' Sector Distance (seclm) (2ecrn 3 (sc/na3 MaxD/

(miles) No Decay 2.6Dy80 / 2 Undepletedcay Decay )

Udped Undepleted Depleted EAB W 0.56 2.9E-05 2.9E-05 2.6E-05 2.9E-08 GARDEN SW 0.85 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 1.7E-05 3.8E-08 COW NW 0.89 6.1E-06 6.1E-06 5.4E-06 7.9E-09 GOAT NNE 2.9 1.9E-06 1.8E-06 1.5E-06 1.9E-09 HOUSE NW 0.81 7.8E-06 7.7E-06 6.9E-06 1.OE-08 Note: Receptor locations with maximum D/Q or X/Q values for each receptor type for the turbine building ground-level release Table 3-16. BLN AP1000 Unit ,/Q Values Used for Calculating MEI Doses Receptor MxmmD/ sey D Dircton Receptor. Distance (secirn)ýNo ,(e/ 3 s~/,~ D/Qý-

TType DperectionDec 2.26 Day 8.00 Day m2)

An~alyzed values yeay Dea

ýUndepleted ea ea S___________Undepleted Depleted:____

EAB S PEAK 1.74 2.8E-06 2.7E-06 2.7E-06 4.8E-09 GARDEN SW GARDEN 1.13 1. 1E-06 1.1E-06 1.OE-06 4.8E-09 COW SW GARDEN 1.13 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.OE-06 4,8E-09 GOAT SW GARDEN 1.13 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.OE-06 4.8E-09 HOUSE SW GARDEN 1.13 1.1E-06 1.1E-06 1.OE-06 4.8E-09

Reference:

BLN AP1000 COL Application, Environmental Report Table 2.7-125 Note: Receptor locations with maximum DIQ or X/Q values for each receptor type for the station vent mixed-mode release 202 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 As shown in Subsection 3.17.3.1, the favorable atmospheric dispersion characteristics presented in the above tables result in annual gaseous-effluent doses within the limits of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 to any individual in unrestricted areas. Because of the favorable atmospheric dispersion at the BLN site, the doses due to routine gaseous effluents, when added to the doses due to liquid effluent releases, meet the requirements of 10 CFR §20.1301 and are not significant. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of routine gaseous and liquid effluent releases are expected to be minor.

Accidental Releases The accident %/Q values were determined for time periods of two hours, eight hours, 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />, four days, and 30 days, in accordance with the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.145 and Regulatory Guide 1.70. The releases were conservatively modeled as ground-level releases because the highest release location, the plant vent, is less than 2.5 times the height of adjacent buildings.

For accidental releases to the EAB, the X/Q calculations use a release boundary to determine distances. The release boundaries define the perimeters around all of the release locations for each unit. Therefore, all potential release locations would be contained within this release boundary. Receptor distances are then calculated based on the distance from the closest point on the release boundary perimeter to the EAB. For each of the 16 direction sectors, the distance used in this analysis represents the minimum distance to the EAB within a 45-degree sector centered on the compass direction of interest. This approach conservatively encompasses all release locations and results in higher accident X/Q values at the EAB. For the B&W unit, a release boundary with a radius of 475 feet centered near the midpoint of the turbine building was used. For the AP1 000 Unit, a release boundary with a radius of 525 feet centered on the BLN 3&4 site center was used.

For accidental releases to the Low Population Zone (LPZ), a circle with a 2-mile radius from the BLN site center is used, as shown in Figure 3-21.

In accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.145, the 50 percent probability X/Q values were determined to provide more realistic doses (Tables 3-17 and 3-18).

Table 3-17. BLN B&W Unit 50 Percent Probability-Level Accident X/Q Values (sec/m3)

Afee Affected 0-2 Hours 0-8 Hours Area 8-24 Hours 24-96 Hours96-720 Hours EAB 1.07E-04 LPZ 9.39E-06 8.09E-06 5.84E-06 3.66E-06 Table 3-18. BLN-AP1000 Unit 50 Percent Probability-Level Accident X/Q Values (sec/m3)

Affected 0-2 Hours 0-8 Hours 8-24 Hours 24-96 Hours96-720 Hours Area EAB 1.04E-04 LPZ 9.65E-06 8.35E-06 6.09E-06 3.88E-06 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 203

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The favorable atmospheric dispersion characteristics presented in the above tables result in accident doses at the EAB and LPZ that are well within the limits of 10 CFR Part 100, thereby demonstrating site suitability. The design-basis Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) dose results presented in Subsection 3.19.1 show that the highest EAB dose is 1.2 rem Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE), compared with the 25 rem TEDE regulatory limit. As another means of comparison, the annual average dose per person from all sources is about 360 mrem (0.36 rem). Therefore, the doses due to accidental releases are not significant.

3.16.2. Air Quality 3.16.2.1. Affected Environment The 1974 TVA FES identified anticipated gaseous emission rates from auxiliary systems for particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. In the intervening years, different air quality standards and criteria have been developed and implemented. According to the 1974 FES, the oil-fired auxiliary steam generators would, at peak load, release sulfur oxides to the atmosphere from a 125-foot stack at a rate of almost 143 lb/hour or 18 grams/second. The maximum SO2 concentration was calculated to be 0.12 ppm. This peak would occur quite close to the plant stack and decrease quite rapidly with distance. At the time of the 1974 FES, the State of Alabama SO 2 standard was 0.15 ppm for a 24-hour average. The current EPA NAAQS for SO 2 is 0.14 ppm for a 24-hour average. The 1974 FES concluded that the SO 2 releases from the oil-fired auxiliary steam generators were acceptable. The COLA ER Regional Air Quality section updated and discussed recent air quality criteria and attainment status of the area.

It references an 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm, which is the 1997 standard. The newly revised 2008 8-hour ozone standard is 0.075 ppm. The PM2.5 24-hour standard has also been lowered from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m 3 ) to 35 IJg/m 3, although this standard was not specifically referenced in the COLA ER.

A pertinent "air-shed" for the BLN site cannot be defined as parcels of air move among undefined boundaries, and regional pollutants are capable of long-range transport.

However, the COLA ER identifies Jackson County as being located within the Tennessee River Valley (Alabama)-Cumberland Mountains (Tennessee) Interstate Air Quality Control Region. This region includes Colbert, Cullman, DeKalb, Franklin, Jackson, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Morgan, and Winston counties in Alabama and Bledsoe, Coffee, Cumberland, Fentress, Franklin, Grundy, Marion, Morgan, Overton, Pickett, Putnam, Scott, Sequatchie, Warren, White, and Van Buren counties in Tennessee (40 CFR §81.72). Typically, Class 1 areas are only identified within a 100-km radius of the site. The two Class 1 areas nearest to BLN are the Cohutta Wilderness, located in north Georgia, and the Sipsey Wilderness, located in north Alabama. Both are outside the 100-km radius from BLN. This information is shown on Figure 3-22.

The COLA ER identified Jefferson and Shelby counties in Alabama as being designated nonattainment for 8-hour ozone. Since the COLA ER, some of the nonattainment designations have changed for ozone. The original implementation schedule for the new NAAQS required states to send their recommended designations to EPA in March 2009 with EPA finalizing designations in March 2010. However, EPA is now reconsidering the ground-level ozone standards set in 2008. EPA is proposing to strengthen the 8-hour "primary" ozone standard to a level within the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm and to establish a distinct cumulative, seasonal "secondary" standard within the range of 7-15 ppm-hours.

EPA will issue final standards by August 31, 2010. If the EPA issues different ozone 204 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3

a. Hgw yress

....... Aei Legendy CumblandMounains(Tenesse) w

~a

• Majo Cityso Rsrvi Coh Cubean Montin Moegsses N""==-* el u

E Soterstate Air Quaoty Control Regior 0 "10 20 30 4 Wilderness Area Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 205

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site standards at that time, an accelerated schedule for designating areas for the primary standard has been proposed. State recommendations would be due by January 2011, with EPA making final area designations by July 2011. As shown in Table 3-19, areas recommended for nonattainment designation in the vicinity of the Bellefonte site are located in north Alabama, north Georgia, and southeast Tennessee.

Table 3-19. Current Ozone Nonattainment State Recommendations Near BLN County State Recommendations City/State Jefferson County, Alabama Ozone - Whole County Birmingham, Ala.

Shelby County, Alabama Ozone - Whole County Birmingham, Ala.

Madison County, Alabama Ozone - Whole County Huntsville, Ala.

Murray County, Georgia Ozone - Partial County Georgia Hamilton County, Tennessee Ozone - Whole County Chattanooga, Tenn.

Meigs County, Tennessee Ozone - Whole County Chattanooga, Tenn.

Source: EPA 2008b The COLA ER identified the Birmingham area counties of Jefferson, Shelby, and part of Walker as being designated nonattainment for 24-hour PM2.5. In addition, part of Jackson County was designated nonattainment due to Chattanooga exceeding the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed previously, the PM2.5 24-hour standard was lowered in 2006 from 65 pg/m 3 to 35 pg/m 3 , with EPA finalizing designations in December 2008. At this time, EPA retained the 1997 annual fine particle standard of 15 pg/m 3, with designations effective since 2005. As shown in Table 3-20, the nearest nonattainment areas to the Bellefonte site are located in central Alabama and east Tennessee. It should be noted that the portion of Jackson County that is listed as nonattainment does not encompass the area around the Bellefonte site.

Table 3-20. Current PM2 .5 Nonattainment Designations Near BLN County Designation City/State Jefferson County, Ala. 1 PM 2 .5 - Whole County Birmingham, Ala.

Shelby County, Ala. 1 PM 2.5 - Whole County Birmingham, Ala.

Walker County, Ala.' PM 2.5 - Partial County Birmingham, Ala.

Jackson County, Ala.' PM 2.5 - Annual Only - Partial County Chattanooga, Tenn.-Ga.

Catoosa County, Ga.. PM2. 5 - Annual Only - Whole County Chattanooga, Tenn.-Ga.

Walker County, Ga.2 PM 2.5 - Annual Only - Whole County Chattanooga, Tenn.-Ga.

Hamilton County, Tenn.' PM 2 5- Annual Only - Whole County Chattanooga, Tenn.-Ga.

EPA 2006 2 EPA 1997 3.16.2.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, the equipment would not be replaced nor operated, and there would be no increase in vehicular traffic; therefore, these emissions would not occur.

Alternatives B and C Under Alternative B, construction activities and intermittent operation of emergency diesel generators and potentially the auxiliary boilers would emit small amounts of air pollutants as addressed in the 1974 TVA FES. Adoption of Alternative C would involve more construction activities than Alternative B, while activities related to operations of Alternative C would be roughly equivalent to, or slightly less than, those under Alternative B.

206 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 The current EPA NAAQS for S02 is 0.14 ppm for a 24-hour average. The 1974 FES concluded that the S02 releases from the oil-fired auxiliary steam generators were acceptable. Even with the slightly lower NAAQS, it is still believed that these releases are acceptable. The auxiliary oil-fired boilers associated with the B&W auxiliary steam generators have since been sold and various options for their replacement are being considered, including an electric boiler, which would have no emissions. Because the AP1000 also utilizes an electric boiler, no emissions would occur from the auxiliary boiler with Alternative C. Therefore, operational activities, emissions, and impacts related to Alternative C would be roughly equivalent to, or less than those under Alternative B. The emissions related to either alternative would be controlled to meet applicable regulatory requirements such that resulting impacts are minor.

According to workload projections for Alternative B, an estimated peak of approximately 3,000 personnel would be on site during construction, and approximately 800 personnel would be on site once the plant is operational. Based on these projections and ALDOT statistics for Jackson County, anticipated vehicular traffic would increase as much as 21 percent during peak construction and as much as 6 percent after the plant becomes operational. According to workload projections for Alternative C, an estimated peak of approximately 3,000 personnel would be on site during construction, and approximately 650 personnel would be on site once the plant is operational. Based on these projections and ALDOT statistics for Jackson County, anticipated vehicular traffic would increase as much as 20 percent during peak construction and as much as 5 percent after the plant becomes operational. These percentages are "worst case" meaning they assume that none of the added workforce is local, and therefore not already accounted for in the current traffic statistics, and no carpooling.

The personal vehicle emissions related to either alternative would likely be only for a few hours each day, during shift changes. Gasoline and diesel emissions, in personal vehicles and construction vehicles and equipment, related to either alternative would be controlled to meet current applicable regulatory requirements such as those found in EPA 40 CFR Part 80, which provides regulations concerning fuel and fuel additives. Due to fuel regulations and the intermittent nature of the emissions, the resulting impacts are minor.

Cumulative impacts on local or regional air quality during the course of construction and operation of a single unit at the BLN site would likely be minor and insignificant.

3.16.3. Global Climate Change 3.16.3.1. Affected Environment Global Climate Change and Relationship to Greenhouse Gases The topic of greenhouse gases (GHG) and global climate change (GCC) was not discussed in the original 1974 FES for BLN. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming of the earth that can occur as a result of emissions of GHG in the atmosphere.

Global warming can occur from a variety of both natural and anthropogenic causes.

"Climate change" refers to any substantive change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but the climate change is broader as it conveys that there are other changes in addition to rising atmospheric temperature.

The following carbon cycle and CO 2 discussion is based primarily on TVA's supplemental environmental assessment for the Tenaska Site (TVA 2008g). It is believed that certain Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 207

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site substances present in the atmosphere act like the glass in a greenhouse to retain a portion of the heat that is radiated from the surface of the earth. The common term for this phenomenon is the "greenhouse effect," and it is essential for sustaining life on earth.

Water vapor and, to a lesser extent, water droplets in the atmosphere are responsible for 90 to 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. The most abundant long-lived GHG are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. Both man-made and natural processes produce GHG. According to some sources, increases in the earth's average surface temperatures are linked in part to .increasing concentrations of GHG, particularly C0 2, in the atmosphere.

This has been a cause for concern among scientists and policymakers. On the international level, this phenomenon has been studied since 1992 by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The global carbon cycle is made up of large carbon sources and sinks. Billions of tons of carbon in the form of CO 2 are absorbed by oceans and living biomass (i.e., sinks) and are emitted to the atmosphere annually through natural and man-made processes (i.e.,

sources). When in equilibrium, carbon fluxes among these various reservoirs are roughly' balanced. According to the IPCC (2007), since the Industrial Revolution (i.e., about 1750),

global atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 have risen about 36 percent, principally due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions The primary GHG emitted by electric utilities is C0 2 produced by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels; others include methane and nitrous oxide. Nuclear power plants do not emit large amounts of GHG in the normal course of reactor operations. However, fossil fuels are often used as part of the infrastructure needed to operate a nuclear power facility, primarily for the manufacture of the fuel that is used in.the facility. Nuclear energy life-cycle emissions include emissions associated with construction of the plant, mining and processing the fuel, routine operation of the plant, waste disposal, and decommissioning.

On a life-cycle-based comparison, nuclear-generated electricity emits about the same amount of GHG per kWh as renewable energy sources and far less than fossil fuel sources.

This will be discussed in more detail in a later section.

Worldwide man-made annual CO 2 emissions from utilities are estimated at 29 billion tons, with the United States responsible for 20 percent. U.S. electric utilities, in turn, emit 2.5 billion tons, roughly 39 percent of the U.S. total. Figure 3-23 shows how TVA's approximately 114 million tons of annual CO 2 emissions from energy production ranked in terms of worldwide, national, and industry emissions in 2004.

208 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Worldwide Utilities United States (29 billion tons) (6.5 billion tons)

N TVA U United States Other U TVA E Electric Utilities Other 0.3%

21.7"A 39.4%

59.0%

78.0%

U.S. Electric (2.5 billion tons) Proposed Bellefonte Nuclear 0 TVA NOther BLNOneUnit ETVA

-4.0%

96.0% 99.8%

Figure 3-23. Man-Made Carbon Dioxide Emission Percentages in 2004 Regional Climate Change in the Southeast and the Tennessee River Valley Compared to the rest of the United States, the climate of the Southeast is warm and wet, with high humidity and mild winters. The present-day regional climate specific to the Tennessee Valley and local meteorology are described in Subsection 3.16.1, along with air quality in Subsection 3.16.2. Average annual temperature across the southeastern United States did not change significantly over the last century; however, since 1970, annual average temperature has risen about 2°F. The greatest seasonal increase in temperature has been during the winter months. Since the 1970s, the number of freezing days in the Southeast has declined by four to seven days per year for most of the region. Average autumn precipitation has increased by 30 percent for the region since 1901. There has been an increase in heavy downpours in many parts of the region, while at the same time the percentage of the region experiencing moderate to severe drought increased over the past three decades (Global Climate Change Impacts 2009).

In order to understand future climate scenarios in the TVA region better, TVA contracted with the EPRI to prepare a report on the impacts of global climate change on various resources throughout the Tennessee Valley, including water and air, which could be Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 209

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site reasonably anticipated to occur over the 21st century (EPRI 2009b). Emphasis was placed on the near future (through 2050) as high uncertainty exists for longer-range predictions.

The basis for this report is the United Nations IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, and assumes a medium GHG emissions projection, which does not reflect additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions. In addition to this report, TVA received and reviewed comments (Christy 2009) on the 2009 EPRI report (EPRI 2009b). The 2009 EPRI report forecasts temperatures to increase as much as +0.80C between 1990 and 2020, and

+40C by the end of the 21st century in the TVA region. Christy (2009) presented two arguments regarding these estimates. First, based on historical climate records, a change of +0.80C in 30 years is within the natural climate variations of the region. Second, the

+4°C estimate is an "up to" result that is the least likely to occur. Furthermore, evidence suggests that climate models are often too sensitive to C02 and therefore overestimate temperature rise (Spencer 2008). Precipitation forecasts are more uncertain and vary depending on location in the Valley and time of year. According to the EPRI report, precipitation is forecast to increase in the winter across the Valley as a whole, while in the western portion of the Valley, summers may be drier, and in the eastern portion of the Valley, summers may remain unchanged. Changes in water resource practices may become necessary to adapt to changes in the temporal distribution of precipitation across the region. It is important to emphasize that the current scientific knowledge of climate change is improving but still contains a great amount of uncertainty.

3.16.3.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A In order to meet its obligation to provide safe, reliable power to the region, TVA would need to either purchase the power from other sources, or build elsewhere to create the additional generating capacity identified in the Need for Power discussion. As part of the diverse mix of TVA generation assets, this capacity would be above and beyond that which was obtained from other sources such as energy efficiency efforts or purchase of power from renewable energy sources (see Section 1.4). If purchased, assuming such power would be regionally available when needed, the probable sources of that power would be other base load sources, either fossil-fueled (gas-fired) or nuclear generation from other neighboring utilities. Additionally this No Action Alternative does not meet the portion of TVA's purpose and need of maximizing use of existing TVA assets. If TVA had to construct such nuclear capacity elsewhere, the amounts of GHG created would be greater than those created by the completion of a B&W unit at the BLN site, because it is already partially completed.

Furthermore, if a fossil fuel-fired source were constructed to fill this need, as discussed below, the emission of GHG during construction or operation of the facility and from other aspects of the associated fuel cycle would be substantially greater.

Alternatives B and C There are primarily two ways in which one BLN unit would potentially interact with GHG and GCC. The first is the emissions of GHG resulting from the construction and operation of one BLN unit operation; as noted above, these emissions would occur through the life cycle of the plant, including the uranium fuel cycle (UFC). The second is the manner in which climate change could affect operations of the BLN facility itself.

210 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Lifecycle Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Production& Mitigation Potential As discussed previously, nuclear power plants do not emit GHG in large quantities during the normal course of operations. However, fossil fuels are used as part of the infrastructure needed to operate a nuclear power facility, primarily for the manufacture of the fuel that is used in the facility. Nuclear energy life-cycle emissions include emissions associated with construction of the plant, mining and processing the fuel, routine operation of the plant, waste disposal, and decommissioning. Numerous studies demonstrate that over the life cycle of the fuel, electricity generated from nuclear power results in emissions of about the same amount of GHG per kWh as renewable energy sources and far less than fossil fuel sources. One such study is Meier (2002). Using data from that study, Figure 3-24 displays the life-cycle GHG emissions of various energy sources. The GHG emissions are expressed in terms of C02 equivalents, in which the emissions of the various GHG are weighted according to their global warming potential relative to the global warming potential of C02. The largest variables in life-cycle GHG emissions of a nuclear plant, aside from the operating lifetime, electrical output, and capacity factor, are the type of uranium enrichment process and the source of power for enrichment facilities. Current enrichment facilities use the energy-intensive gaseous diffusion process largely powered by fossil fuels. New enrichment facilities currently under construction will use much less energy-intensive processes resulting in reduced nuclear plant life-cycle GHG emissions. Although the construction-related life-cycle GHG emissions of the Alternative B B&W unit would be slightly less than those of the Alternative C AP1 000 unit because the B&W unit would require less construction of new facilities, the difference in overall life-cycle GHG emissions would be negligible.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and NRC estimates, approximately 115,747 tons of carbon would be produced for every 1,000 MW of power produced from a nuclear power plant operating year-round (NRC 2008). Using these estimates, the addition of one unit at the BLN site operating in a projected maximum capacity mode would increase TVA's total CO 2 emissions by approximately 150,000 tons annually. This is less than 0.5 percent of TVA's total output of CO 2.

Even considering life-cycle emissions, the resulting emissions GHG (in C02 equivalents) would overall be substantially less than that of a comparable 1,100-1,200 MW coal-fired plant supplying equivalent base load power. As such, nuclear power (i.e., BLN for example), is an effective alternative to help TVA reduce GHG emissions. Given the need for additional capacity (i.e., beyond what can be offset by energy-efficiency efforts), the nuclear option overall leads to substantially lower emissions of GHG than other major sources of new generation in the Tennessee Valley and adjoining service areas in the Southeast and Central United States.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 211

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 1,041 875 622 46 39 18 17 15 R(:C Source: Meier 2002 Figure 3-24. Tons of CO 2 Equivalent Emitted per Gigawatt Hour Potentialfor Effects of Climate Change on BLN Operations Higher air and water temperatures and altered frequency of precipitation resulting from climate change can influence processes for maintaining compliance with environmental and safety standards at nuclear (and fossil) plants, as well as the efficiency of plant operations.

Similar to other TVA nuclear plants, BLN would withdraw cooling water from the Tennessee River to operate the plant condenser cooling water system. However, as compared to a once-through, open cooling system, the amount of water needed for the operation of BLN would be reduced considerably by the use of a closed-cycle cooling system. For closed-cycle cooling, water containing waste heat from the condensers is conveyed through cooling towers where the waste heat is rejected to the atmosphere by evaporation. The cooled water, exiting the towers, is then returned and reused in the condensers. This design feature significantly reduces the volume of water needed from the river. Essentially, the water required for secondary plant systems, and that necessary to replenish the loss due to evaporation and cooling tower blowdown, constitute the makeup water. On a daily average basis, the makeup water for a closed-cycle system is typically less than 5 percent of the volume of water that would be required for once-through system. The BLN operation would be less susceptible to climate'change influences because it is equipped with a closed-cycle cooling system.

Regulatory requirements for environmental compliance prescribe the maximum temperature of water that could be released from BLN into the Tennessee River. Additional information concerning the BLN requirements for water temperature and the expected impact of the plant releases on the river are discussed in Subsection 3.1.3.

At generating plants with closed-cycle cooling such as BLN, the cooling towers are operated continuously. Increased temperature of the makeup water from the river reduces the efficiency of the power production cycle. In general, hotter, more humid air is less 212 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 receptive to evaporation, thereby also reducing the efficiency of cooling tower performance and potentially reducing power output. This is expected to be the case for the.hyperbolic, natural draft cooling towers that currently exist at BLN.

When cooling water intake temperatures are high at a closed-cycle plant, derating would be an option available to avoid exceeding the thermal limits of the current NPDES permit, as well as other environmental and safety limits addressed in Subsection 3.1.3. The estimated need for derating of BLN under baseline conditions and current meteorology would occur approximately 0.04 percent of the time under both Alternatives B and C. The construction of additional cooling capacity is a possibility if such derating events become operationally or financially unacceptable.

TVA has previous operational experience in managing the river system during extended, extreme meteorological events. In response to a record drought in the 1980s in the Tennessee River Valley, TVA conducted a multiphase study to assess the impacts of extreme meteorology on the TVA reservoir system and power supply (Miller et al. 1993).

The base study examined effects to power operations during representative years in which air temperatures were 3 0 F cooler and 25 percent wetter (1974), as well as years that were 2°F warmer and 60 percent drier (1986) than normal, in combination with modeled projections. The analysis identified the interrelationship, resiliency, and vulnerabilities of the reservoir and power supply systems to meteorological extremes. Important general trends and critical operating thresholds were also identified. Because the vulnerability of specific plants is a function of plant design, location, and stringency of regulatory constraints, the results of this multiphase study can only provide general indicators of how operations of a closed-cycle plant, such as BLN, located on the midreach of the Tennessee River could be affected.

The Miller study (1993) showed that in the upper Tennessee River drainage, for each 1OF increase in air temperature (April through October), water temperatures increased by 0.250 F to almost 0.5°F, depending upon year and location in the TVA reservoir system. In general, air temperature effects cascaded down the reservoir system. In the Tennessee River system, for both closed- and open-cycle TVA nuclear plants in Tennessee (on or above Chickamauga Reservoir) and in Alabama (on Wheeler Reservoir below both Chickamauga Reservoir and Guntersville Reservoir where BLN is situated), this study found that the incremental impact to operations from increased temperature were greatest during hot-dry years. Operation of nuclear facilities in the TVA power system was resilient to temperature increases during cold-wet and average meteorological years.

Given the general nature of this study (1993) and its uncertainties, some effects on BLN operations may be anticipated assuming an initial 40-year license that runs from approximately the 2018-2020 time frame to about 2058-2060. Thermal, mechanical, and operational limitations; cooling tower performance and use; and environmental and intake safety limits for water temperature would adversely affect the performance of the plant.

While plant performance could potentially also be affected by climate change impacts, some of these impacts could be partially ameliorated by the flexibility that the ROS FEIS (TVA 2004) provides TVA in operating the Tennessee River and tributaries as an integrated system.

Based upon (1) the projected air temperature increases discussed in the EPRI report; (2) the relationship of plant performance to intake water temperatures indicated in the 1993 study (Miller et al. 1993); and (3) the existing NPDES permit requirements for BLN, the use of cooling towers in closed-cycle operation in combination with derates would enable BLN Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 213

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site to remain in regulatory and safety compliance during the initial 40-year licensing period.

However, during the licensed period of 40 years, an incremental increase should be anticipated in the frequency of derate events to avoid exceeding thermal limits, slightly more for Alternative B than for Alternative C.

3.17. Radiological Effects of Normal Operations This section discusses the potential radiological dose exposure to the public during normal operation of a BLN B&W unit or an AP1000 unit. The impact of the B&W units was assessed in TVA's 1974 FES and reviewed in the AEC's 1974 FES. In the FES the AEC concluded, "No significant environmental impacts are anticipated from normal operational releases of radioactive materials. The estimated dose to the public within 50 miles from operation of the plant is about 2 man-reins/year, less than the normal fluctuations in the 144,000 man-rems/year background dose this population would receive."

Although the BLN B&W unit FES and AEC's review predated the issuance of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 (NRC 2007b), when compared to the Appendix I guidance, the BLN B&W unit would fully comply. Appendix I provides numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) for radioactive material in light-water cooled nuclear reactor effluents. The new analyses presented in Subsection 3.17.2 regarding the BLN B&W unit are in agreement with the earlier assessments; doses to the public resulting from the discharge of radioactive effluents from a BLN B&W unit would be a small fraction of the NRC guidelines given in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

The impact of the AP1 000 units was assessed in the COLA ER. TVA has determined that the doses to the public resulting from the discharge of radioactive effluents from an AP1000 unit would be a small fraction of the NRC guidelines given in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

3.17.1. Affected Environment Exposure Pathways Evaluation of the potential impacts to the public from normal operational releases is based upon the probable pathways to individuals, populations, and biota near the BLN site. The exposure pathways, described in NRC Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111 (NRC 1977a; 1977b), are illustrated in Figure 3-25. The critical pathways to humans for routine radiation releases from a facility at the BLN site are exposure from radionuclides in the air, inhalation of contaminated air, drinking milk from a cow that feeds on open pasture near the site, eating vegetables from a garden near the site, and eating fish caught in the Tennessee River.

Radiation exposure pathways to biota other than members of the public were assessed to determine if the pathways could result in doses tobiota greater than those predicted for humans. This assessment used surrogate species that provide representative information on the various dose pathways potentially affecting broader classes of living organisms.

Surrogates are used because important attributes are well defined and are accepted as a method for judging doses to biota. Surrogate biota used includes algae (surrogate for aquatic plants), invertebrates (surrogate for fresh water mollusks and crayfish), fish, muskrat, raccoon, duck, and heron.

214 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS OF MAN DUE TO RELEASE8 OF RAOIOACTIVE MATERIAL TO THE ATMODPHERE AND LAKE.

Diluted By Atmosphere Airborne Releases fifl ,ill Plume Exposure

-U Vegetation Uptake From Soil Figure 3-25. Possible Pathways to Man Due to Releases of Radioactive Material The exposure pathways to humans that were used in the B&W unit 1974 FES and the COLA ER analyses for liquid effluents remain valid and include the following:

• External exposure to contaminated water by way of swimming, boating, or walking on the shoreline.

. Ingestion of contaminated water.

• Ingestion of aquatic animals exposed to contaminated water.

Exposure pathways considered include external.doses due to noble gases, internal doses from particulates due to inhalation, and the ingestion of milk, meat, and vegetables (including grains) within a 50-mile radius around the BLN site.

Exclusion Area Boundary As defined in 10 CFR Part 100, the EAB identifies the area surrounding the reactor, in which TVA has the authority to determine all activities including exclusion or removal of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 215

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site personnel and property from the area. The boundary on which limits for the release of radioactive effluents are based is the site EAB as shown in Figure 2-3. The EAB follows the site property boundary on the land-bound side and the Tennessee River side. The EAB also extends across the site property boundary to the opposite shore of Town Creek on the northwest side of the property. There are no residents living in this exclusion area. No unrestricted areas within the site boundary area are accessible to members of the public.

The Town Creek portion of the EAB is controlled by TVA. Access within the site property boundary is controlled. Areas outside the exclusion area are unrestricted areas in the context of 10 CFR Part 20 and open to the public.

3.17.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under the No Action Alternative, completion or construction and operation of a new nuclear plant would not occur; therefore, there would be no radiological impacts.

Alternatives B and C Estimates of doses to the MEI and the general population during routine operations for Alternatives B and C, and for both the liquid and gaseous effluent pathways, are described in the following paragraphs.

Radiation Doses Due to Liquid Effluents The release of small amounts of radioactive liquid effluents is permitted for the new facility at the BLN site, as long as releases comply with the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part

20. The liquid effluent exposure pathways given in Subsection 3.17.1 were considered in the evaluation of radiation doses to the public resulting from radioactive liquid effluent releases. Current analyses of potential doses to members of the public due to releases of radioactivity in liquid effluents are calculated using the models presented in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977a). These models are essentially those used in the 1974 FES, and are based on the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 2 (ICRP 1959). Changes in the model and inputs since the 1974 FES include the following:

• Doses to additional organs (kidney and lung) have been calculated.

• River water use (ingestion, fishing) and recreational use data have been updated (see Tables 3-21 and 3-22).

" Decay time between the source and consumption is as described in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109.

" Only those doses within a 50-mile radius of BLN are considered in the population dose.

• The population data are updated and projected through 2057.

The location of public water suppliers and the estimated 2057 populations are given in Table 3-21 and recreational users are given in Table 3-22.

216 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Table 3-21. Public Water Supplies Within a 50-Mile Radius Downstream of BLN Tennessee Estimated 2057 Location* River Mile Population Fort Payne, Alabama 387 29,412 Scottsboro, Alabama 385.8 24,059 Section and Dutton, Alabama 382 12,941 Albertville, Alabama 361 58,823 Guntersville, Alabama 357 7,647 Arab, Alabama 356 25,294 Table 3-22. Recreational Use of Tennessee River Within 50-Mile Radius Downstream of BLN Tennessee River Estimated 2057 Usage Pathway_______________________ Miles Estimated___57_Usage Sport Fishing (Guntersville Reservoir) 391.5 - 349 73,440 visits/year Shoreline Use (Guntersville Reservoir) 391.5 - 349 22,814,630 person-hour/year Swimming (Guntersville Reservoir) 391.5-349 22,814,630 person-hour/year Boating (Guntersville Reservoir) 391.5-349 22,814,630 person-hour/year Other data used in the calculation of doses to the public such as transfer coefficients, consumption rates, and bioaccumulation factors are obtained from Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977a).

The BLN 1&2 FSAR (TVA 1991) provided estimated liquid effluent releases based on the guidance given in NUREG-0017 (NRC 1976). The estimated liquid radioactive effluent releases used in the updated analyses are given in Table 3-23 for a B&W unit. As described in Subsection 3.18.1.2, these estimates are expected to envelope the effluent releases from the upgraded liquid radwaste system. The liquid radioactive effluent releases for an AP1000 unit given in Table 3-24 were obtained from Table 11.2-7 of the AP1000 DCD (WEC 2008).

Table 3-23. BLN Annual Discharge for a Single B&W Unit via Liquid Pathway Total Total Nuclide Release Nuclide Release (Cily) (Cily)

Br-84 2.295E-1 1 Sr-90 8.865E-09 1-129 3.744E-11 Sr-91 1.294E-07 1-131 2.737E-03 Sr-92 3.115E-09 1-132 1.376E-05 Y-90 3.766E-09 1-133 1.375E-03 Y-91m 5.075E-08 1-134 5.700E-08 Y-91 4.016E-08 1-135 2.966E-04 Zr-95 1.840E-03 Rb-88 5.715E-1 1 Nb-95 2.620E-03 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 217

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Total, Total Nuclide Release Nuclide Release (Ci/y) (Ci/y)

Cs-134 1.743E-02 Mo-99 4.136E-05 Cs-136 3.886E-04 Tc-99m 1.806E-05 Cs-137 3.330E-02 Ru-103 1.840E-04 Cs-138 1.159E-08 Ru-106 3.150E-03 Cr-51 5.240E-07 Rh-1 06 5.590E-09 Mn-54 1.310E-03 Ag-110m 5.750E-04 Mn-56 2.451E-08 Ba-137m 5.925E-04 Fe-59 4.513E-08 Ba-140 2.980E-07 Co-58 5.250E-03 La-140 1.611E-07 Co-60 1.180E-02 Ce-144 6.550E-03 Sr-89 2.552E-07 Pr-144 1.706E-08 H-3 675.5 1 Source: BLN 1&2 FSAR, Table 11.2.3-1 Table 3-24. BLN Annual Discharge for a Single AP1000 Unit via Liquid Pathway Nuclide Total Releases Total Releases (C' y Nuclide (Ci/y)

Na-24 1.630E-03 Rh-106 7.352E-02 Cr-51 1.850E-03 Ag-11Om 1.050E-03 Mn-54 1.300E-03 Ag-110 1.400E-04 Fe-55 1.OOOE-03 Te-129m 1.200E-04 Fe-59 2.OOOE-04 Te-129 1.500E-04 Co-58 3.360E-03 Te-131m 9.OOOE-05 Co-60 4.400E-04 Te-1 31 3.OOOE-05 Zn-65 4.100E-04 1-131 1.413E-02 W-1 87 1.300E-04 Te-1 32 2.400E-04 Np-239 2.400E-04 1-132 1.640E-03 Br-84 2.OOOE-05 1-133 6.700E-03 Rb-88 2.700E-04 1-134 8.100E-04 Sr-89 1.OOOE-04 Cs-1 34 9.930E-03 Sr-90 1.OOOE-05 1-135 4.970E-03 Sr-91 2.OOOE-05 Cs-136 6.300E-04 Y-91 m 1.OOOE-05 Cs-137 1.332E-02 Y-93 9.OOOE-05 Ba-137m 1.245E-02 Zr-95 2.300E-04 Ba-140 5.520E-03 Nb-95 2.1OOE-04 La-140 7.430E-03 Mo-99 5.700E-04 Ce-141 9.OOOE-05 Tc-99m 5.500E-04 Ce-143 1.900E-04 Ru-103 4.930E-03 Pr-143 1.300E-04 Rh-103m 1.830E-03 Ce-144 3.160E-03 Ru-106 7.352E-02 Pr-144 3.160E-03 H-3 1010 Source: AP1000 DCD Table 11.2-7 218 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 The LADTAP II computer program, as described in NUREG/CR-4013 (NRC 1986), was used to calculate the liquid pathway doses. The LADTAP II computer program implements the radiological exposure models described in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977a) for radioactivity releases in liquid effluent.

The resulting calculated doses to an individual due to liquid effluents for a BLN B&W unit are given in Table 3-25, and for an AP1 000 unit in Table 3-26. The dose guidelines given by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, for any individual are 3 millirem (mrem) or less to the total body and 10 mrem or less to any organ, and are designed to assure that doses due to releases of radioactive material from nuclear power reactors to unrestricted areas are kept ALARA during normal conditions. The average annual radiation exposure from natural sources to an individual in the United States is about 300 mrem. Therefore, the Appendix I total body dose limit is about 1/100 of the normal background radiation.

Also shown in Tables 3-25 and 3-26 are the calculated doses to the total population due to liquid effluents for BLN B&W and AP1 000 units.

Table 3-25. BLN Doses From Liquid Effluents for B&W Unit per Year Maximum Annual Dose Maximum TEDE D TotalIBody O Dose Thyroid Dose Dose D Maximum Total Body: 3 Individual Dose 0.27 0.37c 0.02 0.21 Any organ: 10 (mrem/year) Anyorgan:_10 Population Dose 1.55 1.96 0.85 1.58 Not Applicable (person-rem) I I I I Notes:

a. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I

b. An adult was found to receive the maximum individual total body dose.

c. A teenager was found to receive the maximum individual organ dose.

d. A child was found to receive the maximum individual thyroid dose.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement2 219

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Table 3-26. BLN Doses From Liquid Effluents for AP1000 Unit per Year Annual Maximum M Dose Total Organ (Liver) Maximum TEDE Dose Limita Body Dose Thyroid Dose Dose Maximum Total Body: 3 Individual Dose 0.2 0.27c 0.05 0.21 Any organ: 10 (mrem/year)

Population Dose 1.60 1.90 1.41 1.64 Not Applicable (person-rem)

Notes:

a. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

b. An adult was found to receive the maximum individual total body dose.

c. A teenager was found to receive the maximum individual organ dose.

d. A child was found to receive the maximum individual thyroid dose.

Doses to terrestrial vertebrates (other than man) from the consumption of aquatic plants and doses to aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates, and fish due to radioactivity in liquid effluents for either a B&W unit or an AP1 000 unit would be small because doses to these organisms are less than or equal to the doses to humans. The International Council on Radiation Protection states that "...if man is adequately protected then other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected" and uses human protection to infer environmental protection from the effects of ionizing radiation.

Four conclusions can be drawn from the results in Tables 3-25 and 3-26:

• Each unit would meet the dose guidelines given in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

• The dose estimates to the public are a small fraction of the Appendix I guidelines, and the analyses of the radiological impact to humans from liquid releases in the TVA FES and COLA ER continue to be valid.

• The collective population doses are low.

• The impact to members of the public resulting from normal liquid-effluent releases would be minor.

Radiation Doses Due to Gaseous Effluents Gaseous effluents refer to the release of small quantities of gaseous aerosols and particulates associated with the normal operation of a B&W or an AP1 000 unit. Gaseous effluents are normally released through the plant vent or the turbine building vent. The plant vent also provides the release path for containment venting releases, auxiliary building ventilation releases, and gaseous radwaste system discharge. The AP1 000 also routes annex building and radwaste building releases through the plant vent. The turbine building vents provide the release path for the condenser air removal system, gland seal condenser exhaust and the turbine building ventilation releases.

The current analysis of potential doses to members of the public due to releases of radioactivity in gaseous effluents was performed using the GASPAR II (NRC 1987) computer program used by NRC staff to perform environmental dose analyses for releases of radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants into the atmosphere.

220 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 The GASPAR II model implements the radiological exposure models described in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," for radioactive releases in gaseous effluent. The exposure pathway models estimate the radiation dose to selected individuals and population groups. The exposure pathways considered in GASPAR II are external exposure to contaminated ground, external exposure to noble gas radionuclides in the airborne plume, inhalation of air, and ingestion of farm products grown in contaminated soil.

NRC guidance for determining the doses for releases of radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants into the atmosphere is provided in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977a). The gaseous-effluent releases used in the BLN B&W unit analysis are those for the annual average release of airborne radionuclides found in Table 11.3.3-1 of the BLN Units 1&2 FSAR. The gaseous-effluent releases used in the AP1 000 unit analysis are those for the annual average release of airborne radionuclides found in Table 11.3-3. of the BLN COLA FSAR.

Radiation doses due to gaseous effluents are calculated using the maximum exposed individual as identified by the atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) values presented in Subsection 3.16.2.1 for each respective reactor unit. The nearest garden, 1.13 miles southwest of the plant, results in the highest X/Q values of any receptor and the highest D/Q value of a receptor location consisting of an actual ingestion pathway. Therefore, this location was conservatively evaluated for all exposure pathways except for the doses due to noble gases. This is conservative because it maximizes the doses from all pathways.

The purpose of this SEIS section is to revise the inputs and methodology used in the AEC's 1974 FES to use current values representing recent meteorological, population, and agricultural data. The methodology used in the FES is also revised to be consistent with the current regulatory guidance. Furthermore, this section also provides the gaseous-effluent doses for an AP1000, unit. For this SEIS, identical methodologies, in compliance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, were used for both a B&W unit and an AP1000 unit.

The calculated doses provide information for determining compliance with Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 (NRC 2007b) and 10 CFR §20.1301 (NRC 2002). When the calculated doses are compared to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and 10 CFR §20.1301 allowable dose values, the B&W unit and AP1 000 unit demonstrate full compliance.

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, defines design objective limits for radioactive material in gaseous effluents for both a B&W unit and an AP1000 unit. Meeting the limits presented in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I also meets the ALARA criterion for radioactive material in gaseous effluents. A tabulation of the resulting calculated gaseous doses to individuals for a B&W unit and the dose limits presented in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, is given in Table 3-27. A tabulation of the resulting calculated gaseous doses to individuals for an AP1000 unit and the dose limits presented in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, is given in Table 3-28.

For most of the doses, the calculated values are somewhat higher for the Alternative B B&W unit than the Alternative C AP1 000 unit. Based on these results, normal operation of a single unit at BLN under both Alternatives B and C would present minimal risk to the health and safety of the public.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 221

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Table 3-27. BLN Maximum Individual Doses From Gaseous Effluent for the B&W Unit Compared to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Limits Description Limit Calculated Values Noble Gases 1 Gamma Dose (millirad [mrad]2) 10 0.88 Beta Dose (mrad) 20 2.40 Total Body Dose (mrem) 5 0.53 Skin Dose (mrem) 15 1.49 Radioiodines and Particulates Total Body Dose (mrem) - 0.57 Max to Any Organ 3 (mrem) 15 4.38 Notes:

1. Doses due to noble gases in the released plume are calculated at the location of maximum dose at or beyond the site boundary (location of highest dispersion and ground deposition values). This location is 1.77 miles south of the plant for the mixed-mode station vent release and 0.56 mile west-southwest of the plant for the ground-level turbine building vent release.

2. An mrad is a unit of adsorbed ionizing radiation dose equal to an adsorbed dose of 0.1 erg/gm.

3. The maximum dose to any organ is the dose to the thyroid of a child. This dose is calculated from the most conservative receptor locations.

Table 3-28. BLN Maximum Individual Doses From Gaseous Effluent for the AP1000 Unit Compared to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Limits Calculated Descri ption Limit Values Noble Gasesi Gamma Dose (mrad) 10 0.27 Beta Dose (mrad) 20 1.39 Total Body Dose (mrem) 5 0.16 Skin Dose (mrem) 15 0.96 Radioiodines and Particulates Total Body Dose (mrem) I 0.40 Max to Any Organ 2 (mrem) 15 9.11 Notes:

1. Doses due to noble gases in the released plume are calculated at the location of maximum dose at or beyond the site boundary (location of highest dispersion and ground deposition values). This location is 1.74 miles south of.the plant.

2. The maximum dose to any organ is the dose to the thyroid of an infant.

This dose is calculated for the most conservative receptor location.

Dose limits for individual members of the public are given in 10 CFR §20.1301, which states that each licensee shall conduct operations so that the TEDE to individual members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 100 mrem in a year. The maximum individual dose from a B&W unit due to routine gaseous effluents was calculated to be 1.25 mrem TEDE. The maximum individual dose from an AP1 000 unit due to routine gaseous 222 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 effluents was calculated to be 0.75 mrem TEDE. These calculated doses are well within the limits provided by 10 CFR §20.1301; therefore, normal operation of a single nuclear unit at BLN would present minimal risk to the health and safety of the public.

Additional dose limits are also provided in 40 CFR Part 190, which specifies environmental radiation protection standards for nuclear power operations. Table .3-29 summarizes the doses to the maximally exposed individual for the total body, thyroid, and bone (the worst-case organ) for a B&W unit along with the 40 CFR Part 190 limits. Table 3-30 summarizes the doses to the MEI for the total body, thyroid, and bone for an API 000 unit along with the 40 CFR Part 190 limits. Based on comparison to the 40 CFR Part 190 limits, normal operation of either Alternative B or Alternative C would present minimal risk to the health and safety of the public.

Table 3-29. Collective Gaseous Doses for the BLN B&W Unit Compared to 40 CFR Part 190 Limits Description Limit Calculated Values Total body dose equivalent (mrem) 25 1.1 Thyroid dose (mrem) 75 4.9 1

Max to any other organ (mrem) 25 2.93 Note:

1. The maximum dose to any organ other than the thyroid is the dose to the bone of a child.

Table 3-30. Collective Gaseous Doses for the AP1000 Unit Compared to 40 CFR Part 190 Limits Description Limit Calculated Values Total body dose equivalent (mrem) 25 0.56 Thyroid dose (mrem) 75 '9.25 Max to any other organ 1 (mrem) 25 2.18 Note:

1. The maximum dose to any organ other than the thyroid is the dose to the bone of a child.

The individual doses due to normal liquid and gaseous-effluent releases under both Alternatives B and C were found to be insignificant and well below the regulatory guidelines in Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 and the regulatory standards of 10 CFR Part 20. In addition, the potential doses to the public due to the release of liquid and gaseous effluents meet the requirements of 10 CFR §20.1302 and 10 CFR §50.34a. The impact to the public due to operation of a single nuclear unit at the BLN site is minor.

Population Dose Population dose calculations determine the cumulative dose to the population within 50 miles of the site for ALARA considerations. The estimated radiological impact from the normal gaseous releases from BLN B&W and AP1000 units using a 50-mile regional population projection for the year 2027 of 1,565,771 is presented in Table 3-31.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 223

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Table 3-31. Population Dose Summary for the BLN B&W and AP1000 Units B&W Unit Dose AP1000 Unit Dose Organ (person-rem) (person-rem)

Total Body 5.92 3.00 Gastrointestinal 5.92 3.00 Tract Bone 11.1 8.03 Liver 5.93 3.01 Kidney 5.93 3.00 Thyroid 7.26 6.30 Lung 6.22 3.27 Skin 16.8 14.1 TEDE 6.14 3.19 For perspective, the total body dose from normal background radiation to individuals within the United States ranges from approximately 100 mrem to 300 mrem per year. The annual total body dose due to normal background for a population of 1,565,771 persons expected to live within a 50-mile radius of the BLN site in the year 2027 is calculated to be approximately 156,578 man-rem, assuming 100 mrem/year/individual. By comparison, the same general population would receive a total body dose of less than 7 man-rem from gaseous effluents released from either a B&W or an AP1 000 unit.

Based on these results, normal operation of a single nuclear unit at the BLN site would present minimal risk to the health and safety of the public. The annual doses to the public from either Alternative B or Alternative C would be well within all regulatory limits, and there would be no observable health impacts on the public from construction and operation of a nuclear unit at the BLN site. Therefore, the radiation doses and resultant health impacts resulting from operation of the proposed plant at the BLN site are minor.

Radiological Impact on Biota Other Than Man Radiation exposure pathways to biota other than man (i.e., animals) are examined to determine ifthe pathways could result in doses to biota greater than those predicted for man. This assessment uses surrogate species that provide representative information on the various dose pathways potentially affecting broader classes of living organisms.

Surrogates are used because important attributes are well defined and are accepted as a method for judging doses to biota. Surrogate biota used for gaseous-effluent exposure includes muskrat, raccoon, fish, duck, and heron.

Liquid radioactive effluents from BLN are mixed with cooling tower blowdown and subsequently discharged into the Tennessee River. Other nonradioactive discharges may be combined with the cooling tower blowdown, but they are small in comparison and are ignored as a source of dilution. The LADTAP II (NRC 1986) computer program was used to calculate the liquid pathway doses. Release of radioactive materials in liquid effluents results in minimal radiological exposure to biota. Impacts on aquatic life from radiological releases are minor.

Doses from gaseous effluents contribute to terrestrial total body doses. External doses occur due to immersion in a plume of noble gases and deposition of radionuclides on the 224 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 ground. The inhalation of radionuclides followed by the subsequent transfer from the lung to the rest of the body contributes to the internal total body doses.

Immersion and ground deposition doses are largely independent of organism size, and the total body doses calculated for man can be applied. The external ground doses calculated using the GASPAR II computer code are increased to account for the closer proximity to .

ground of terrestrial biota. The inhalation pathway doses for biota are the internal total body doses calculated by the GASPAR II code for infants because breathing rate and body size are more similar to biota. The total body inhalation dose (rather than organ specific doses) is used because the biota doses are assessed on a total body basis.

The calculation of biota doses due to gaseous-effluent releases are based on the locations of the highest atmospheric dispersion (7IQ) values at the EAB for both release types. The total body doses to biota for the B&W and AP1000 units' total liquid and gaseous-effluent releases are given in Table 3-32. These doses presented below incorporate biota doses due to routine liquid effluents from a B&W unit and an AP1000 unit, respectively, for comparison with the limits set forth in 40 CFR Part 190 as indicated by NUREG-1555, Subsection 5.4.4 (NRC 1999).

Table 3-32. Total Doses (Liquid and Gaseous) to Biota for Single Nuclear Unit as Compared to the Regulatory Limit B&W Unit AP1000 Unit 40 CFR Part 190 Biota Total Dose Total Dose- ' imit (mrem) (mrem) (mrem)

Muskrat 5.49 4.10 50 Raccoon 2.76 1.87 50 Fish 2.15 2.15 50 Heron (Little Blue Heron) 25.45 17.70 50 Duck (Mallard) 5.43 3.82 50 Use of exposure guidelines, such as 40 CFR Part 190, which apply to members of the public in unrestricted areas, is considered very conservative when evaluating calculated doses to biota. The calculated biota doses are well below those specified in 40 CFR Part 190 and are well below any dose expected to have any noticeable acute effects. Based on the postulated biota doses presented above, the impact due to operation of a single nuclear unit at the BLN site is considered minor.

3.17.3. RadiologicalMonitoring The Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) will be conducted to provide the preoperational and operational monitoring of either BLN alternative. Preoperational monitoring will be conducted for at least two years prior to the start of operations. The BLN REMP will be designed to provide the monitoring necessary to document compliance with 10 CFR §20.1302, "Compliance with Dose Limits for the Individual Members of the Public,"

and to meet the requirements established by NRC Regulatory Guide 4.1, "Radiological Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plants." The REMP is designed to monitor the pathways between the plant and the general public in the immediate vicinity of the plant.

Sampling locations, sample types, collection frequency, and sample analyses are chosen so that the potential for detection of radioactivity in the environment will be maximized. The BLN REMP will be designed based on the guidance provided in NUREG-1 301, "Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 225

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Pressurized Water Reactors." Quality assurance and, quality control procedures and processes will be implemented in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15, "Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations) -- Effluent Steams and the Environment."

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program for Alternative B or C An operating nuclear plant may release radioactivity into the environment as either'gaseous or liquid effluents. Exposure pathways to the public from plant effluents consist of direct radiation, airborne, waterborne, and ingestion. The types of samples collected in BLN REMP are designed to monitor these pathways. The REMP for either Alternative B or C would include the following types of monitoring.

Direct Radiation Monitoring. Monitoring of direct radiation will be performed utilizing a network of environmental dosimeters. Two or more dosimeters will be placed at monitoring locations near the site boundary in each of the 16 meteorological sectors.. A second outer ring of dosimeters will be located in each sector at the 4- to 5-mile range from the site.

Environmental dosimeter monitoring stations will be placed at a minimum of eight other special interest locations including at least two control stations.

Airborne Pathway Monitoring. Sampling for air particulates and radioiodine will be performed at the following 10 locations: four locations in different sectors near the site boundary, four locations near area population centers, and two control locations greater than 10 miles from the site and in the least prevalent wind direction. The airborne pathway monitoring will be performed with continuous operating air samplers.

Waterborne Pathway Monitoring. Surface water sampling will be performed at a control location upstream of the plant and at one location downstream of the plant discharge beyond, but near the mixing zone. The sampling of surface water will be performed by automatic sequential-type samplers with composite samples analyzed monthly.

Drinking water sampling will be performed at the first potable water supply downstream from the plant using water from the Tennessee River. The sampling method and collection frequency utilized for surface water sampling will also be applied to this first downstream drinking water location. The upstream surface water control location will also serve as the control location for drinking water monitoring. Monthly grab samples will be collected from at least two additional water supply systems downstream of the plant, Groundwater sampling will be conducted at one location on site downgradient from the plant and at a control location upgradient from the plant. If site groundwater hydrology data indicate that leaks or spills at the site might impact off-site groundwater, sampling of private wells will be added to the REMP.

Samples of shoreline sediment will be collected from the first downstream shoreline recreational use area and from a control location upstream of the plant.

Ingestion Pathway. Monitoring for the ingestion pathway will include milk sampling, sampling of fish from the Tennessee River, and sampling of vegetables from local gardens identified in the land use survey. Samples of milk produced for human consumption will be collected in each of three areas within the 5-mile radius of plant identified by the land use survey to have the highest potential doses and from at least one control location at 10 to 20 miles from the site in the least prevalent wind direction. Sampling of pasture vegetation will be performed at milk-producing locations when milk sampling cannot be performed.

226 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Fish sampling will be performed on the plant discharge reservoir, Guntersville Reservoir, and on Nickajack Reservoir as a control location. Sampling will consist of one sample of commercially important species and one sample of recreationally important species.

Sampling of the principal garden vegetables grown in the area will be performed at private gardens identified by the annual land use survey. Sampling will be performed once during the normal growing season.

Land Use Survey. A land use survey will be conducted annually. The purpose of the survey is to identify changes in land use within a 5-mile radius of the plant that would require modifications to the REMP or the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual. The survey will identify the nearest resident, nearest animal milked for human consumption, and nearest garden of greater than 500 square feet with broadleaf vegetation in each of the 16 meteorological sectors. The results of the annual land use survey will be documented in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (AREOR).

Interlaboratory Comparison Program. The laboratory performing the analyses of the BLN REMP samples will participate in an Interlaboratory Comparison Program providing radiological environmental crosschecks representative of the types of samples and analyses in BLN REMP. The results of the analysis of the comparison program cross checks will be included in the AREOR.

3.18. Uranium Fuel Use Effects 3.18.1. Radioactive Waste 3.18.1.1. Affected Environment Radioactive waste (radwaste) sources, treatment systems and potential for effects of operating a B&W plant were described in TVA's 1974 FES and updated in the CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999). Section 2.4 of the FES states that "TVA's policy is to keep the discharge of all wastes from its facilities, including nuclear plants, at the lowest practicable level by using the best and highest degree of waste treatment available under existing technology within reasonable economic limits." While this is still true, current practices for managing radioactive waste have evolved since the B&W units were designed. Subsection 5.2.3.11 of the CLWR FEIS briefly updated TVA's radwaste management practices and potential effects for the BLN B&W unit based on operating experience at SQN and WBN.

The management and effects of radwaste from operation of two B&W units is discussed in Chapter 11 of the BLN 1&2 FSAR. The management and effects of radwaste from operation of two AP1000 units is discussed in Subsections 5.5.2 and 5.7.1 of the BLN COLA ER and in Chapter 11 of the BLN COLA FSAR. Although quantities of radwaste produced by plant operation may differ between the two technologies, and for single unit operation, the method of handling the waste would be consistent with TVA's current practices at its operating plants.

The following information updates and compares the potential for environmental effects from plant operations regarding radwaste for Action Alternatives B and C. Because there has never been an operating nuclear plant on the BLN site, there would be no effect on the environment from radwaste under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative). Additionally, for Alternatives B and C (the Action Alternatives), no radwaste would be generated during construction activities.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 227

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 3.18.1.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under this alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a new nuclear plant would occur; therefore, there would be. no impacts.

Alternatives B and C Liquid Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems For a B&W unit, the liquid waste disposal system is designed to collect, store, process, and dispose of liquid radwaste in such a manner as to keep the exposure to plant personnel and the releases of radioactive materials to the environment ALARA. The liquid radwaste includes tritiated waste, nontritiated waste, chemical waste, and detergent waste. All of the liquid radwaste would be generated as a result of normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences. Figures 3-26 and 3-27 from the TVA 1974 FES show sketches of the proposed Liquid Waste Disposal System for tritiated and nontritiated liquid, respectively.

The disposal systems shown on these figures would likely be replaced by a system similar to upgrades implemented at other TVA nuclear power plants. The following analysis describes the environmental impacts of a future replacement disposal system, which would be designed to comply with all applicable regulations.

The system would be designed and operated to demonstrate continued compliance with requirements to maintain environmental releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents ALARA in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR §20.1302, 10 CFR §50.34a, 40 CFR Part 190, and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50: This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion of the TVA 1974 FES, which states that "the liquid waste disposal system, as it is now being designed, will reduce liquid emissions to a level which is as low as practicable."

For an AP1 000 unit, the liquid radioactive waste management systems include the systems that may be used to process and dispose of liquids containing radioactive material. The liquid radwaste system would be designed to control, collect, process, handle, store, and dispose of liquid radioactive waste generated as the result of normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences. The liquid radwaste system would provide holdup tank capacity as well as permanently installed processing capacity of 75 gpm through the ion exchange/filtration train. This would be an adequate capacity to meet the anticipated processing requirements of the plant. The projected flows of various liquid waste streams to the liquid radwaste system under normal conditions are identified in the BLN COLA FSAR, Table 11.2-1. The site-specific impact is further evaluated in the BLN COLA ER 5.4.

The liquid radwaste system design accommodates equipment malfunctions without affecting the capability of the system to handle both anticipated liquid waste flows and possible surge load due to excessive leakage. Figure 3-28 shows a drawing of the AP1 000 liquid radwaste system.

228 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Equipment Drains To Reactor Coolant Bleed Tank

-n U)

B CD 0 To Solid U)

Waste Disposal Recycle to CD

3 Reactor Coolant System Figure 3-26. B&W Tritiated Liquid Waste Treatment System CO N)

N)

(o

N) 0 z

CD a)

It=m C1.ennate CD CD

'-n To Cooling Toiers CO)

RBlovaan Stream CD) ,(See figuire Z.5-1)

~0 CD 0

TO coolimg Tower CD fllowdowI2 Streas

-M Figure 3-27. B&W Nontritiated Liquid Waste Disposal System

AUAwx fR.*S~ ULN I LX*lE I I ncR

'1 I "0

-o 03EMUIENT DV E cn Figure 3-28.E1~~~ awseSse ~ 1 FP00Lqi CD~I OR T-W-U-o CDA

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The liquid radioactive waste treatment system for the BLN AP1000 unit would be designed and operated to demonstrate continued compliance with requirements to maintain environmental releases of radioactive materials in liquid effluents ALARA in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR §20.1302, 40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR §50.34a, and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. As discussed in Section 3.17, the impact to members of the public resulting from normal liquid effluent releases would be minor.

Gaseous Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems During reactor operation, radioactive isotopes of xenon, krypton, and iodine are created as fission products. A portion of these radionuclides could be released to the reactor coolant due to the potential for a small number of fuel-cladding defects. Potential leakage of reactor coolant could result in a release of the radioactive gases to the containment atmosphere. Airborne releases can be limited both by restricting reactor coolant leakage and by limiting the concentrations of radioactive noble gases and iodine in the reactor coolant system.

For a B&W unit, the gaseous waste disposal system would be designed to collect the radioactive gases, compress the gases into holdup tanks for decay, sample the gases prior to discharge, and monitor the gases during the discharge period. In addition to the gaseous waste disposal system, various gaseous system leaks would be vented to various building ventilation systems. These releases would be processed and released through a monitored location at either the plant vent or the turbine building vent.

The gaseous waste disposal system for a B&W unit would be designed and operated to demonstrate continued compliance with requirements to maintain environmental releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents ALARA in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR §20.1302, 40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR §50.34a, and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion of the TVA 1974 FES, which states that "the gaseous waste disposal system, as it is now being designed, will reduce gaseous emissions to a level which is as low as practicable."

For an AP1 000 unit, the gaseous radwaste system would be designed to collect gaseous wastes that are radioactive or hydrogen bearing along with processing and discharging the waste gas, keeping. off-site releases of radioactivity within acceptable limits.

In addition to the gaseous radwaste system release pathway, release of radioactive material to the environment would occur through the various building Ventilation systems.

The estimated annual release includes contributions from the major building ventilation pathways. The gaseous radwaste system would be designed to receive hydrogen bearing and radioactive gases generated during normal plant operation. The radioactive gas flowing into the gaseous radwaste system enters as trace contamination in a stream of hydrogen and nitrogen.

The gaseous radwaste system for an AP1 000 unit would be designed and operated to demonstrate continued compliance with requirements to maintain environmental releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents ALARA in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR §20.1302, 40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR §50.34a, and Appendix I to,10 CFR Part 50.

As discussed in Section 3.17, the impact to members of the public resulting from normal gaseous-effluent releases would be minor.

232 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Solid Radioactive Wastes Two additional types of radwaste that could be generated at BLN under both Alternatives B and C are dry active waste (DAW) and Wet Active Waste (WAW). A solid radwaste disposal system would process and package the dry and wet solid radioactive waste produced through power generation for on-site packaging, storage, off-site shipment, and disposal. The solid radioactive handling information presented below is based on TVA operating experience with handling solid radioactive waste.

The DAW consists of compactable and noncompactable material. Compactable material includes paper, rags, plastic, mop heads, discarded clothing, and rubber boots.

Noncompactable wastes include tools, pumps, motors, valves, piping, and other large radioactive components. DAW would be collected on site and packaged in appropriate containers to meet processor and/or burial site acceptance criteria. DAW would be placed into a strong, tight container for shipment to an off-site processor, or compacted into 55-gallon drums by a radwaste compactor.

The WAW consists of spent resins and filters. Spent resins would be generated primarily from the makeup and purification, liquid waste processing, and condensate systems. The makeup and purification resins would be sluiced to the spent resin storage tank for radiological decay and then sluiced into high-integrity containers (HICs). Liquid waste processing resins would be sluiced directly from the demineralizer into HICs. Resins would be dewatered prior to shipment for off-site processing or direct disposal.

Tank and sump sludge would be generated during the cleaning of various tanks and sumps located in the auxiliary and reactor buildings. The sludge would be transferred into suitable containers and dewatered. Sludge would be processed into a form suitable for disposal by off-site waste processors utilizing their Process Control Program (PCP) and applicable procedures. The waste processor's procedures and PCP will be approved by BLN prior to the solidification of waste.

Solidification would be performed off site at the waste processor facilities. Spent filters would be removed from service and stored to allow radioactive decay. Filters would be loaded for shipment into appropriate containers (e.g., HICs or 55-gallon drums).

Contaminated oil could be generated during pump oil changes and sump cleaning. This oil would be collected and sent to an off-site processor for disposition.

Throughout the packaging and shipping operations, radiation exposure to personnel would be minimized by the use of various ALARA techniques, as appropriate, including the following:

a. Administrative controls

b. A shielded cask in the truck loading area

c. A shielded drum storage area

d. Use of shielded carts for transporting plant filters Waste containers would be surveyed for radiological conditions and stored in designated storage areas.

Radwaste is classified as either A, B, or C, with Class A being the least hazardous and Class C being the most hazardous. Class A includes both DAW and WAW. Classes B and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 233

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site C are normally WAW. For both the B&W and the AP1000 unit, the majority of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) generated would be Class A waste. Class B and C wastes would constitute a low percent by volume of the total LLRW. The estimated annual volumes of solid radioactive waste generated for the B&W unit and the AP1000 unit are given in Table 3-33 and Table 3-34, respectively.

For the B&W unit, the proposed amount of radwaste generated is taken from Table 11.4.1-1 of the BLN 1&2 FSAR. The amount of radwaste generated for one B&W unit shown below is approximately one-half of that reported in the BLN 1&2 FSAR. However, the sources for these volumes would be replaced by a system similar to upgrades implemented at other TVA nuclear power plants, and the environmental impacts are expected to be similar to those of the AP1000 shown in Table 3-34 below.

For the AP1000, the amount of radwaste generated is as reported for a single unit in the AP1000 DCD (WEC 2008).

Table 3-33. Estimated Volumes of Solid Radwaste for a Single BLN B&W Unit Volume Source (before solidification) feet 3/year 3 3 Spent resin (1.0 feet water/feet resin) 425 Waste evaporator bottoms 480 Miscellaneous solids - filter cartridges,'paper, glassware, rags, 175 equipment (compacted)

Spent high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) and charcoal filters 1,050 Total 2,130 Secondary system - auxiliary evaporator, condensate polishing 6,000 demineralizer regeneration solution, evaporator bottoms (40% solids)

Source: Table 11.4.1-1, BLN 1&2 FSAR Table 3-34. Expected Volumes of Solid Radwaste for a Single AP1000 Unit SouceExpected I Expected Maximum Maximum Source Generation Shipped Solid Generation Shipped Solid Wetaste (feet 3/year). (feety3/ear) (fet 3/year) (feet 3/year)

Wet wastes Primary resins (includes spent resins 400(2) 510 1700(') 2160 and wet activated carbon)

Chemical 350 20 700 40 Mixed liquid 15 17 30 34 Condensate polishing resin(1) 0 0 206"7-- 259 Steam generator blowdown "1" 05 0() 8 Material (Resin and Membrane) II Wet waste subtotals 1 765 547 3176 1 3173 Dry wastes Compactable dry waste 4750 1010 7260 1550 Noncompactable solid waste 234* 373 567 I 910 234 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Expected Expected Maximum Maximum Source Generation Shipped Solid Generation Shipped Solid (feet 3/year) (feet3/year) (feet 3/year) (feet 3/year)

Mixed Solid 5 7.5 10 15 Primary Filters (includes high activity 5.2(3) 26 9.4(3) 69 and low activity cartridges)

Dry Waste Subtotals 4994 1417 7846 2544 Total wet and Dry Wastes 5759 1964 11,020 5717 Source: Table 11.4-1 of AP1000 DCD (WEC 2008)

Notes:

1. Radioactive secondary resins and membranes result from primary to secondary systems leakage (e.g., SG tube leak).

2. Estimated activity basis is American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 18.1 source terms in reactor coolant.

3. Estimated activity basis is breakdown and transfer of 10 percent of resin from upstream ion exchangers.

4. Reactor coolant source terms corresponding to 0.25 percent fuel defects.

5. Estimated activity basis from AP1000 DCD Table 11.1-5, 11.1-7, and 11.1-8 and a typical 30-day process run time, once per refueling cycle

6. Estimated volume and activity used for conservatism. Resin and membrane will be removed with the electrodeionization units and not stored as wet waste. See AP1000 DCD Subsection 10.4.8.

Originally, TVA planned to send low-level radwaste to Barnwell, South Carolina, until a new disposal facility at Wake County, North Carolina, opened in mid-1998. The proposed disposal facility in Wake County was never opened, and the LLRW disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, stopped accepting Class B and C radwaste from states outside the Atlanta Compact on September 29, 2009. Because Alabama is not a member of the Atlanta Compact, alternate LLRW disposal plans were necessary. All DAW is currently shipped to a processor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for compaction and then by the processor to Clive, Utah, for disposal. Since 2008, TVA has also shipped Class A WAW to the facility at Clive. Class B and C waste from SQN and WBN is currently stored at and shipped to SQN. For either Action Alternative, plans are to resume shipments of DAW and WAW as soon as an acceptable location becomes available.

Should there be no disposal facilities available to accept the Class B and C wastes at the time a nuclear Unit begins operation at BLN, TVA has several options available for storage of this LLRW:

" One long-term plan would be to build and license a WAW facility to accept spent resins at the BLN site.

" For either the B&W or the AP1 000 unit, TVA could construct or expand a storage facility at BLN or gain access to a storage facility at another licensed nuclear plant (i.e. SQN or BFN). For this option, BLN would have to be licensed by NRC to receive and store low-level radwaste.

• A new Class B and C disposal facility may be licensed that TVA could use as an alternative to on-site storage for the BLN site.

The impact to members of the public resulting from processing, storage, and transport of solid radwaste would be minor.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 235

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site 3.18.2. Spent Fuel Storage 3.18.2.1. Affected Environment As discussed above, the TVA 1974 FES assumed that spent fuel would be shipped by rail to the reprocessing plant in Barnwell, South Carolina. TVA's 1993 review of the FES noted that reprocessing was no longer likely and that "TVA now expects to store spent fuel on site until the U.S. Department of Energy completes the construction of permanent storage facilities in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982." The revised plan was for TVA to provide additional storage capacity on site, if needed, until a licensed DOE facility became available. Subsection 2.1.1 of the 1974 FES stated that TVA would apply for a special nuclear license to receive, possess, and store fuel elements, and TVA received such a license (TVA 1993a). However, that license is no longer in effect.

The need to expand on-site spent fuel storage at TVA nuclear plants was addressed when DOE prepared the CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999). That FEIS analyzed spent fuel storage needs at WBN Unit 1, SQN 1&2, and BLN 1&2, and included a thorough review of the environmental effects of constructing and operating an on-site independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). This FSEIS incorporates by reference the spent fuel storage impact analysis in the CLWR FEIS and updates the analysis to include operation of either one B&W reactor or one AP1 000 reactor at the BLN site.

Operation of either a single B&W unit or a single AP1 000 unit at the BLN site would result in the generation of spent fuel assemblies beyond the capacity of their respective spent fuel pools. A comparison of spent fuel production for the B&W and AP1 000 is provided in Table 3-35. A comparison based on the number of fuel assemblies discharged over the 40-year lifetime can be misleading because of different fuel assembly length (B&W - 12 feet versus AP1000 - 14 feet) and power level (3,600 MW versus 3,400 MW). Fuel is limited in its burnup on a fuel rod to approximately 62,000 MWD/MTU. Allowing for power peaking factors, the average discharge burnup is expected to be 50,000 MWD/MTU for both the API 000 and the B&W BLN plant designs. Because this fuel characteristic parameter is expected to be the same for both fuel designs, this indicates that the expected amount of fuel to be discharged is proportional to the amount of energy produced.

Table 3-35. Spent Fuel Quantity Determination for BLN Single Unit Operation BLN AP1000 Data Parameter BLN B&W BLN AP1000 Normalized-for Power Core thermal power, MWt 3,600 3,400 3,600 Operating cycle length 18 months 18 months N/A Number of assemblies in the core 205 1572 N/A Number of fresh fuel assemblies per refueling cycle 803 644 N/A Height of active fuel, feet 12 14 14 Number of refueling cycles in 40 yearsb 26 26 N/A Number of fuel assemblies for 40-year operationb 2,285 1,821 N/A Total Spent Fuel (MTU) for 40-year operation 946 894 946

'TVA 1978a 2 TVA 2008a 3T A Keys, TVA, personal communication, September 3, 2009 4 TVA 2008a 5 Forty years of operation covers 26 refueling cycles and 27 operating cycles. Spent fuel is discharged a total of 27 times

'from each unit, which includes the last cycle discharge of the entire core.

6 Number includes assemblies from 26 refueling cycles, plus assemblies in the core.

236 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 For the purpose of this SEIS, it is assumed that all spent nuclear fuel generated by the operation of one BLN unit would be accommodated at the site in a dry cask ISFSl. An ISFSI contains multiple dry casks for storage of spent nuclear fuel. This ISFSI would be designed to store the spent nuclear fuel assemblies (including assemblies in the core) required for 40-year, one-unit operation at the reactor site. To date, no ISFSl has been constructed at the BLN site.

The spent fuel pool capacity for the B&W unit is 1,058 assemblies (TVA 1982c), which accommodates approximately 10 refueling cycles plus the core (i.e., 80 assemblies per cycle x 10 cycles + 205 assemblies in the core). Assuming 18-month refueling cycles, the spent fuel pool for the B&W unit has the capacity for approximately 15 years of storage (i.e.,

18 months per cycle x 10 cycles = 180 months/1 2 months per year = 15 years), plus the core. The AP1000 spent fuel pool capacity is 889 assemblies (TVA 2008a), which accommodates approximately 11 refueling cycles plus the core (i.e., 64 assemblies per cycle x 11 cycles + 157 assemblies in the core). Assuming 18-month refueling cycles, the spent fuel pool for the AP1 000 unit has the capacity for approximately 16 years of storage of spent fuel (i.e., 18 months per cycle x 11 cycles = 198 months/12 months per year = 16.5 years), plus the core. Under the current schedule, assuming that one BLN unit would begin operation in 2018, the ISFSI would be needed by 2033 (B&W) or 2034 (AP1 000).

The CLWR FEIS assessed the number of dry storage casks needed, per reactor, to accommodate tritium production at the BLN site based on the 24 spent fuel assembly design capacity of four of the ISFSl cask designs in the United States at the time. The estimated number of dry cask storage units that would be needed for 40 years of operation if a B&W unit were completed is 96, and for an AP1000 unit, it would be 76: These numbers are based on 24 fuel assembly cask designs. The SQN uses casks that contain 32 spent fuel assemblies, but this evaluation uses the more conservative 24 fuel assembly cask design capacity. Additional details on dry casks and ISFSl construction are provided in Table 3-36.

A number of ISFSI dry storage designs have been licensed by the NRC and are in operation in the United States, including facilities at TVA's SQN and BFN. Licensed designs include the metal casks and concrete casks. The majority of these operating ISFSls use concrete casks. Concrete casks consist of either a vertical or a horizontal concrete structure housing a basket and metal cask that confines the spent nuclear fuel.

Currently, there are three vendors with concrete pressurized water reactor spent nuclear fuel dry cask designs licensed in the United States: Holtec International, NAC International, and Transnuclear Inc. The Holtec International and NAC International designs are vertical concrete cylinders; whereas, the Transnuclear design is a rectangular concrete block.

These designs store varying numbers of spent nuclear fuel assemblies, ranging from 24 to

37. However, because the Holtec design is currently being used at TVA's SQN and is representative of all other designs, the environmental impact of using the Holtec concrete dry storage ISFSl design has been addressed. As stated above, although the multipurpose canister (MPC)-32 is being used at SQN, this update has taken a more conservative approach using the MPC-24, because it would require more casks and correspondingly more concrete and steel. The environmental analysis of spent fuel storage in the CLWR FEIS, which focused on dry storage casks, is still valid. The following sections update information about the equipment vendors and processes that would be used at BLN and provide analysis of the effects of completing one BLN unit (B&W or AP1 000) on construction and operation of a spent fuel storage facility.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 237

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Table 3-36. ISFSI Construction for a Single BLN Unit Environmental Parameter One B&W Unit One AP1000 Unit 96 vertical cylindrical 76 vertical cylindrical storage modules (casks) storage modules (casks) placed on a concrete cask placed on a concrete foundation pad of an cask foundation pad of an External appearance approximate area of approximate area of 29,760 square feet and 2 23,560 square feet and 2 feet thick. Each cask feet thick. Each cask would be a nominal 12 feet would be a nominal 12 in diameter.1 feet in diameter.1 Dose rate: Dose rate:

0.5 mrem per hour 2 0.5 mrem per hour 2 Health and safety (only construction work performed subsequent to the Construction hours: Construction hours:

loading of any storage modules with 1,500 person-hours 1,500 person-hours spent fuel may result in worker per cask/storage per cask/storage exposures from direct and skyshine module 2 module 2 radiation in the vicinity of the loaded horizontal storage modules) Total dose during Total dose during construction: construction:

72 person-rem 57 person-rem ISFSI footprint: ISFSI footprint:

0.70 acre 0.55 acre Size of disturbed area Total disturbed: Total disturbed:

1.20 acres 0.94 acre Materials (approximate) Concrete: 14,760 tons Concrete: 11,685 tons MSteel: 1,680 tons Steel: 1,330 tons Numbers based on HI-STORM ISFS1 dimensions described in TVA 2007 2 DOE 1999 3.18.2.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under.this alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a new nuclear plant would occur; therefore, there would be no impacts.

Alternatives B and C During their 40-year operating lifetimes, the Alternative B B&W unit would produce 946 MTU of spent fuel in 2,285 fuel assemblies (see Table 2-6). The Alternative C AP1 000 unit would produce 894 MTU of spent fuel in 1,821 fuel assemblies. When normalized to account for the difference in power generated by the different design, the lifetime production of spent fuel is comparable. The remainder of this section compares the impacts of the construction and operation of the facilities proposed to store this spent fuel at the BLN site.

Construction of a spent fuel storage facility is addressed in the CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999),

which describes a NUHOMS-24P horizontal spent fuel storage module. Currently, HI-STORM vertical storage modules are used at SQN. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the same type of vertical storage modules would be used at BLN for either Action Alternative. The modules used at SQN consist of cylindrical structures with inner and outer steel shells filled with concrete. The stainless steel MPC that contains the spent fuel assemblies is placed inside the vertical storage module. The MPC is fabricated off site.

238 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Using the SQN ISFS1 as a basis for calculating an appropriately sized pad, an area of approximately 29,760 square feet (0.70 acre) would be needed to store the 96 casks required to support operation of a B&W unit at the BLN site for 40 years. Approximately 23,560 square feet (0.55 acre) would be needed to store the 76 casks required to support operation of an AP1 000 unit at the BLN site for 40 years. Assuming a proportionate ratio (1.71) of area required for construction disturbance, nuisance fencing, and transport activities (DOE 1999), a projected net disturbed area of approximately 1.20 acres would be required for a B&W unit. A projected net disturbed area of approximately 0.94 acre would be required for an AP1 000 unit. The construction and environmental parameters for an ISFSI for one B&W or one AP1 000 unit at the BLN site are provided in Table 3-36. The environmental effects of construction and installation of the HI-STORM modules would be similar to that described in the CLWR FEIS for the NUHOMS-24P. There is ample room at the BLN site to locate a spent nuclear fuel storage facility.

Operational impacts for spent fuel storage would be the same for both Action Alternatives.

The NUHOMS horizontal storage module dry cask system described in the CLWR FEIS was designed and licensed to remove up to 24 kW of decay heat safely from spent fuel by natural air convection. The Holtec HI-STORM dry cask storage system currently in use at SQN is licensed to remove up to 28 kW of decay heat safely. Conservative calculations have shown that, for 24 kW of decay heat, air entering the cask at a temperature of 70'F would be heated to a temperature of 161°F. For a 28-kW maximum heat load, and assuming similar air mass flow rate through the cooling vents, the resulting temperature would be approximately 176 0 F. The environmental impact of the discharge of this amount of heat can be compared to the heat (336 kW) emitted to the atmosphere by an automobile with a 150-brake horsepower engine (DOE 1999). The heat released by an average automobile is the equivalent of as few as 12 ISFSI casks at their design maximum heat load of 28 kW. Therefore, the decay heat released to the atmosphere from the spent nuclear fuel ISFSI for a B&W unit is equivalent to the heat released to the atmosphere from approximately eight average-size cars. The decay heat released to the atmosphere from the spent nuclear fuel ISFSI for an AP1000 unit is equivalent to the heat released to the atmosphere from approximately six average-size cars.

SQN has proposed and the NRC is reviewing the use of storage casks with a licensed maximum heat load of up to 40 kW. The use of this higher allowable maximum heat load cask would result in an increase from the values reported in the paragraph above. For example, for a 40-kW maximum heat load and assuming similar air mass, flow rate through the cooling vents results in a projected temperature of approximately 221 OF. The heat released by an average automobile is the equivalent of as few as nine ISFSI casks at their proposed higher design maximum heat load of 40 kW. The decay heat released to the atmosphere from the spent nuclear fuel ISFSI for a B&W unit would be equivalent to the heat released to the atmosphere from approximately 11 average-size cars. The decay heat released to the atmosphere from the spent nuclear fuel ISFSI for an AP1 000 unit would be equivalent to the heat released to the atmosphere from approximately nine average-size cars. If approved, this type of cask could be used at BLN.

The CLWR FEIS concluded that the heat emitted from the ISFSI would have no effect on the environment or climate because of its small magnitude. The heat emitted by the fully loaded, largest projected ISFSI (ISFSI for one B&W unit), even at the maximum design-licensed decay heat level for each cask of 28 kW, would be approximately 2,700 kW (i.e.,

96 casks x 28 kW = 2,688 kW or 2.69 MW), as compared to 2,000 kW for the system analyzed in 1999. This increase of 700 kW of heat added to the atmosphere is not large Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 239

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site enough to change the conclusion that this amount of heat is about 0.1 percent the heat released to the environment from any of the proposed nuclear power plants-on the order of 2,400,000 kW for an operating nuclear reactor. The actual decay heat from spent nuclear fuel in the ISFSI should be lower than 2,700 kW and would decay with time due to the natural decay of fission products in the spent nuclear fuel. As stated in the CLWR FEIS, the incremental loading of the ISFSI over a 40-year period would not generate the full ISFSI heat until 40 years after the initial operation.

The proposed use of casks with higher allowable maximum heat load (40 kW) would result in an increase from the values reported above. For example, for a 40-kW maximum heat load, a total of 3,840 kW (96 casks x 40 kW) would represent about 0.16 percent of the heat released to the environment from the proposed nuclear power plant (2,400,000 kW).

Therefore, for the proposed 40-kW cask design, no noticeable effects on the environment or climate are expected.

The environmental impact of ISFSI operation for one unit at the BLN site is shown in Table 3-37. TVA has concluded that due to the small magnitude of the total potential dose, the radiation dose to workers from ISFSI operation would be minor. In general, the operational effects of the HI-STORM modules would be similar to that described in the CLWR FEIS for the NUHOMS-24P, as would be the environmental effects.

Table 3-37. Environmental Impact of ISFSI Operation for a Single BLN Unit Environmental Parameter One B&W Unit One AP1000 Unit Equivalent to heat emitted Equivalent to heat emitted into the atmosphere by into the atmosphere by Effects of operation of the heat approximately 8 average- approximately 6 average-dissipation system size cars, or approximately size cars, or approximately 11 cars ifthe higher 9 cars ifthe higher maximum heat load (40- maximum heat load (40-kW) cask at SQN is used. kW) cask at SQN is used.

Transfer cask Transfer cask decontamination water decontamination water consumption of less than consumption of less than 1,521 cubic feet 1,204 cubic feet Worker exposure: As the Worker exposure: As the result of daily inspection of result of daily inspection of casks, during a 40-year life casks, during a 40-year life cycle, workers would be cycle, workers would be exposed to 91.5 person- exposed-to 72.5 person-Radiological impact from routine rem. rem.

operation Public exposure: The Public exposure: The regulatory limit for public regulatory limit for public exposure is 25 mrem per exposure is 25 mrem per year. Doses to members of year. Doses to members of the public would be the public would be negligible, negligible.

Cask loading and Cask loading and decontamination operation decontamination operation generates less than 192 generates less than 152 cubic feet of low-level cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste. ' radioactive waste.

240 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Environmental Parameter One B&W Unit One APIO00 Unit Small (approximately 0.1 Small (approximately 0.1 percent of the nuclear percent of the nuclear power plant's heat emission power plant's heat emission Climatological impact to the atmosphere, to the atmosphere, or approximately 0.16 or approximately 0.13 percent if 40-kW cask are percent if 40-kW cask are used) used)

The storage cask surface is The storage cask surface is not contaminated. No not contaminated. No Impact of runoff from operation contaminated runoff is contaminated runoff is expected. expected.

Postulated Accidents The CLWR FEIS analyzed the postulated accidents that could occur at an ISFSI and concluded that the potential radiological releases would all be well within regulatory limits.

The impact of the calculated doses, which were approximately 50 mrem or less for different scenarios, were compared with the natural radiation dose of about 300 mrem annually received by each person in the United States (DOE 1999). The storage casks proposed for use at BLN for a one-unit operation would be of similar or better design than those analyzed in the mid-I 990s, and any accident doses resulting from such a postulated event would be consistent with doses previously determined.

3.18.3. Transportationof Radioactive Materials 3.18.3.1. Affected Environment Postulated accidents due to transportation of radioactive materials were discussed in Section 2.1, "Transportation or Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Wastes" in the TVA 1974 FES. Transportation accidents were also addressed in Section 7.2, "Transportation Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials" in AEC's 1974 FES. Normal risks associated with transportation of radioactive materials were discussed in Subsection 5.3.2.4.2, "Transportation of Radioactive Material," of the same AEC FES. Information for Transportation of Radioactive Materials for the AP1 000 unit was presented in Sections 3.8 and 7.4 of the COLA ER. This section provides an updated discussion regarding the transportation of radioactive materials associated with a single unit operation.

The NRC evaluated the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste for light water reactors in the "Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Plants" in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and "Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants", Supplement 1 of NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975), and found the impacts to be minor.

The NRC analyses presented in these reports (WASH-1238 and NUREG-75/038) provided the basis for Table S-4 in 10 CFR §51.52 (NRC 2007b), which summarizes the environmental impacts of transportation of.fuel and radioactive wastes to and from a reference reactor. The table addresses two categories of environmental considerations:

(1) normal conditions of transport and (2) accidents in transport. Subparagraphs 10 CFR

§51.52(a)(1) through (5) delineate specific conditions the reactor licensee must meet to use Table S-4 as part of its environmental report, For reactors not meeting all of the conditions in paragraph (a) of 10 CFR §51.52, paragraph (b) of 10 CFR §51.52 requires a further analysis of the transportation effects.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 241

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The conditions in paragraph (a) of 10 CFR §51.52 establishing the applicability of Table S-4 relate to reactor core thermal power, fuel form, fuel enrichment, fuel encapsulation, average fuel irradiation, time after discharge of irradiated fuel before shipment, mode of transport for unirradiated fuel, mode of transport for irradiated fuel, radioactive waste form and packaging, and mode of transport for radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel. The following subsection describes the characteristics of a B&W unit and an AP1000 unit relative to the requirements of 10 CFR §51.52, which are necessary to use Table S-4.

Currently, there is not a repository in the United States where commercial spent fuel can be shipped. If at some point in the future a spent fuel repository is available, the risks associated with transport of radioactive materials are already evaluated in the following subsection. Information for the B&W unit's fuel design is taken from the BLN 1&2 FSAR.

Information for the AP1 000 unit's fuel design is taken from the BLN COLA FSAR.

3.18.3.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under this alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a new nuclear plant would occur; therefore, there would be no impacts.

Alternatives B and C Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel Subparagraph 10 CFR §51.52(a)(5) requires that unirradiated fuel be shipped to the reactor site by truck. Table S-4 includes a condition that the truck shipments not exceed 73,000 pounds as governed by federal or state gross vehicle weight restrictions. New fuel assemblies would be transported to the BLN site by truck, in accordance with Department of Transportation (DOT) and NRC regulations.

The B&W unit's initial fuel load consists of 205 fuel assemblies. Every 18 months, refueling would require an average of 80 new fuel assemblies for one unit. The fuel assemblies would be fabricated at a fuel fabrication plant and shipped by truck to the BLN site before they are required.

For an AP1 000 unit, the initial fuel load consists of 157 fuel assemblies for one unit. Every 18 months, refueling requires an average of 64 new fuel assemblies for one unit.

The details of the new fuel container designs, shipping procedures, and transportation route depends on the requirements of the suppliers providing the fuel fabrication and support services. Truck shipments would not exceed the applicable federal or state gross vehicle weight restrictions.

Transportation of Irradiated Fuel For a B&W unit, spent fuel assemblies would be removed from the reactor and placed into the spent fuel pool during each refueling outage. The spent fuel storage pool has the capacity to store 1,058 fuel assemblies. Each refueling off load would average 80 fuel assemblies. Therefore, the spent fuel storage pool has the capacity for 10 refueling off loads, which represents approximately 15 years of operation, with a full core reserve. The

• spent fuel would remain on site for a minimum of five years between removal from the reactor and shipment off site. Packaging of the fuel for off-site shipment would comply with applicable DOT and NRC regulations for transportation of radioactive material. By law, 242 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 DOE is responsible for spent fuel transportation from reactor sites to a repository as provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Section 302, and DOE makes the decision on transport mode.

For an AP1 000 unit, spent fuel assemblies would be discharged every refueling outage and placed into the spent fuel pool. The spent fuel storage pool has the capacity to store 889 fuel assemblies. Each refueling off load would discharge 64 fuel assemblies. Therefore, the spent fuel storage pool has the capacity for 11 refueling off loads, which represents approximately 16 years, plus a full core reserve. The spent fuel would remain on site for a minimum of five years between removal from the reactor and shipment off site to allow for adequate cooling. Packaging of the fuel for off-site shipment would comply with applicable DOT and NRC regulations for transportation of radioactive material. DOE would determine the transport mode for the AP1 000 unit spent fuel. The following paragraphs compare the BLN site with 10 CFR §51.52(a) requirements.

Reactor Core Thermal Power. Subparagraph 10 CFR §51.52(a)(1) requires that the reactor have a core thermal power level not exceeding 3,800 MW.

A B&W unit has a thermal power rating of 3,600 MWt and would meet this condition. An AP1 000 unit has a thermal power rating of 3,400 MWt and also would meet this condition.

Fuel Form. Subparagraph 10 CFR §51.52(a)(2) requires that the reactor fuel be in the form of sintered uranium dioxide (U0 2) pellets. A B&W unit and an AP1000 unit would use a sintered U0 2 pellet fuel form and would meet this requirement.

Fuel Enrichment. Subparagraph 10 CFR §51.52(a)(2) requires that the reactor fuel have a uranium-235 enrichment not exceed 4 percent by weight. A B&W unit's reactor fuel would meet the 4 percent U-235 requirement.

For an AP1 000 unit, the enrichment of the initial core varies by region from 2.35 to 4.45 percent, and the average for reloads is 4.51 percent. Therefore, the AP1 000 fuel would exceed the 4 percent U-235 requirement. NUREG-1555 states that the NRC has generically considered the environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel with U-235 enrichment levels up to 5 percent and irradiation levels up to 62,000 MWD/MTU. The generic evaluation of high enrichment and high burnup fuel transport presented in NUREG-1555 determined that the environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel transport are bounded by the impacts listed in Table S-4, provided that more than five years has elapsed between removal of the fuel from the reactor and any shipment of the fuel off site.

Five years is the minimum decay time expected before shipment of irradiated fuel assemblies from the BLN site. DOE's contract for acceptance of spent fuel, as set forth in 10 CFR Part 961, Appendix E, requires standard spent fuel to undergo a five-year cooling time. In addition, NRC specifies five years as the minimum cooling period when it issues certificates of compliance for casks used for shipment of power reactor fuel as stated in NUREG-1437, Addendum 1. A B&W unit and an AP1000 unit would have sufficient storage capacity to accommodate a five-year cooling of irradiated fuel prior to any transport off site.

Therefore, both units would meet the requirements of Subparagraph 10 CFR §51.52(a)(2).

Fuel Encapsulation. Subparagraph 10 CFR §51.52(a)(2) requires that the reactor fuel pellets be encapsulated in Zircaloy rods. A B&W unit's reactor fuel would be encapsulated in Zircaloy fuel rods. Therefore, a B&W unit would meet this requirement.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 243

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site An AP1 000 unit's reactor fuel would be encapsulated in ZIRLO TM cladding. License amendments approving the use of ZIRLOTM rather than Zircaloy have not identified a significant increase in the amounts, or significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released off site, or a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, the use of ZIRLOTM cladding for an AP1 000 unit would meet this subsequent evaluation requirement.

Averaqe Fuel Irradiation. Subparagraph 10 CFR §51.52(a)(3) requires that the average fuel assembly burnup not exceed 33,000 MWD/MTU. The average fuel assembly burnup for a B&W unit and an AP1 000 unit would exceed this requirement. As stated in NUREG-1555, the NRC has generically considered the environmental impacts of irradiation levels up to 62,000 MWD/MTU and found that the environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel transport are bounded by the impacts listed in Table S-4, provided that more than five years has elapsed between removal of the fuel from the reactor and any shipment of the fuel off site. The B&W unit and the AP1 000 unit would be bounded by the 62,000 MWD/MTU average burnup limit considered by the NRC and would therefore meet this requirement.

Transportation. Subparagraph 10 CFR §51.52(a)(5) allows for truck, rail, or barge transport of irradiated fuel. This requirement would be met for the BLN units. DOE is responsible for spent fuel transportation from reactor sites to the repository and makes decisions on transport mode as stated in 10 CFR §961.1. Should an off-site repository be established, the heat load of the spent fuel shipping casks and the doses to the general public would be bounded by the conditions of Table S-4.

Summary A B&W unit would meet the conditions for average fuel irradiation as described in NUREG-1555 (NRC 1999) and would meet all other criteria outlined in 10 CFR §51.52(a). An APt 000 unit would meet the conditions for maximum fuel enrichment and average fuel irradiation as described in NUREG-1 555 and would meet all other criteria outlined in 10 CFR §51.52(a). Therefore, no additional analyses of fuel transportation effects for normal conditions or accidents are required, because the risks of transporting radioactive materials would be bounded by Table S-4 of 10 CFR §51.52. Because a B&W unit or an AP1000 unit would be bounded by Table S-4, the environmental impact of any transportation of irradiated fuel would be minor as defined in 10 CFR §51.52.

3.19. Nuclear Plant Safety and Security This section assesses the environmental impacts of postulated accidents involving radioactive materials at the BLN site and plant security including intentional destructive acts. It is divided into three subsections that address design-basis accidents, severe accidents, and plant security.

• Design-Basis Accidents (Subsection 3.19.1)

• Severe Accidents (Subsection 3.19.2)

" Plant Security (Subsection 3.19.3) 3.19.1. Design-BasisAccidents 3.19.1.1. Affected Environment The potential consequences of postulated accidents are evaluated to demonstrate that a new unit could be constructed and. operated at the BLN site without undue risk to the health 244 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 and safety of the public. These evaluations use a set of design-basis accidents (DBAs) that are representative of the reactor designs being considered for the BLN site. DBAs are those for which the risk is great enough that NRC requires plant design features and procedures to prevent unacceptable accident consequences. The set of DBAs considered covers events ranging from a relatively high probability of occurrence with relatively low consequences to relatively low probability events with high consequences.

A high degree of protection against the occurrence of postulated accidents is provided through quality design, manufacture, and construction, which ensures the high integrity of the reactor system and associated safety systems. Deviations from normal operations are handled by protective systems and design features that place and hold the plant in a safe condition. Notwithstanding this, it is conservative to postulate that serious accidents may occur, even though they are extremely unlikely. Engineered safety features are installed to prevent and mitigate the consequences of postulated events that are judged credible. The probability of occurrence of accidents and the spectrum of their consequences to be considered from an environmental impact standpoint have been analyzed using best estimates of probabilities, realistic fission product releases, and realistic transport assumptions.

The purpose of this SEIS section is to update the accident dose consequences given in the BLN 1&2 FSAR (TVA 1991) using updated atmospheric dispersion values based on current meteorological data and to present corresponding results for the AP1 000 unit. This section also presents the calculated dose consequences and methodologies used for both the B&W unit and the AP1 000 unit DBAs. The AP1 000 unit DBA dose methodologies and results are as reported in the COLA ER.

Selection of Accidents The site evaluations presented in the BLN 1&2 FSAR (TVA 1991) for the B&W unit and the BLN COLA FSAR for the AP1 000 unit use conservative assumptions for the purpose of comparing calculated site-specific doses resulting from a hypothetical release of fission products against the 10 CFR §100.11 (NRC 2002) siting guidelines. Realistic computed doses that would be received by the population from the postulated accidents would be significantly less than those presented in the respective FSARs. The DBAs considered in this section come from Appendix A of NUREG-1555 Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) Section 7.1 (NRC 1999) and apply to both the B&W unit and the AP1 000 unit. The DBAs cover a spectrum of events, including those of relatively greater probability of occurrence and those that are less probable but with greater consequences. DBAs are postulated accidents that a nuclear facility must be designed and built to withstand without loss to the systems, structures, and components necessary to ensure public health and safety. The radiological consequences of the accidents listed in Appendix A of ESRP Section 7.1 are assessed to demonstrate that the selected unit can be sited and operated at the BLN site without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

Evaluation Methodology Section 7.1 of the BLN FES demonstrates that the calculated DBA doses for the B&W unit are within the limits of the more recently established 10 CFR §100.11. The analysis presented in this SEIS updates applicable inputs used in the previous dose assessments.

Section 7.1 of the BLN COLA ER demonstrates that the postulated DBA doses for the AP1000 are also within the limits of 10 CFR §100.11 using current inputs consistent with those described in this SEIS.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 245

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site The basic scenario for each accident is that radioactive effluent is released at the accident location inside a building, and this radioactivity is eventually released to the environment.

Chapter 15 of the BLN 1&2 FSAR presents conservative radiological consequences for the accidents identified for the B&W unit. Chapter 15 of the BLN COLA FSAR presents the conservative radiological consequences for the AP1 000 unit.

Among the conservative assumptions in Chapter 15 of the BLN 1&2 FSAR and the BLN COLA FSAR is the use of time-dependent atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) values, which are exceeded only 0.5 percent of the time, meaning that conditions would be more favorable for atmospheric dispersion 99.5 percent of the time. In addition to the use of atmospheric dispersion factors corresponding to adverse conditions, the analyses presented in Chapter 15 of the BLN 1&2 FSAR and the BLN COLA FSAR also used conservative assumptions for the radionuclide activity in the core and coolant, the types of radioactive materials released, and the release paths to the environment in order to calculate conservative dose estimates.

These conservative assumptions are maintained for the dose assessments presented in this section, except that realistic atmospheric dispersion factors are used. The doses in this SEIS section are calculated based on the 5 0 th percentile (average) site-specific atmospheric dispersion (X/Q) values reflecting more realistic meteorologicalconditions consistent with the guidance provided in the ESRP (NRC 1999). The X/Q values are calculated using the guidance in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC 1982a) with site-specific meteorological data. The dose from the B&W unit for a given time interval is calculated by multiplying the BLN 1&2 FSAR accident dose by the ratio of the 50 percent probability-level y/Q value to the BLN 1&2 FSAR %/Q value. For the BLN AP 000 unit, the accident doses are obtained from the BLN COLA ER, which is based on 50 percent probability-level X/Q values as required by the ESRP. All other input parameters and assumptions used for the accident analyses remain unchanged from the BLN 1&2 FSAR and BLN COLA FSAR.

Details on the methodologies and assumptions pertaining to each of the accidents, such as activity release pathways and credited mitigation features, are provided in Chapter 15 of the BLN 1&2 FSAR for the B&W unit and in Chapter 15 of the BLN COLA FSAR for the AP1000 unit. The atmospheric dispersion factors (X/Q values) used to calculate conservative design-basis EAB and LPZ doses for the various postulated accidents for the B&W unit are obtained from Chapter 15 of the BLN 1 &2 FSAR. The X/Q values used to calculate conservative design-basis EAB and LPZ doses for the AP1 000 unit are obtained from Chapter 15 of the BLN COLA FSAR. The 50 percent probability-level X/Q values used to calculate realistic EAB and LPZ doses for the B&W unit are summarized in Table 3-38 and for the AP1000 unit in Table 3-39.

Table 3-38. B&W Unit 50 Percent Probability-Level X/Q Values (sec/m 3)

Location 0-2 Hours 0-8 Hours 8-24 Hours 24-96 Hours96-720 Hours EAB 1.07E-04 - - - -

LPZ - 9.39E-06 8.09E-06 5.84E-06 3.66E-06 246 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Table 3-39. AP1000 Unit 50 Percent Probability-Level X/Q Values (sec/m 3)

Location 0-2 Hours 0-8 Hours 8-24 Hours 24-96 Hours96-720 Hours EAB 1.04E-04 . - -

LPZ - 9.65E-06 8.35E-06 6.09E-06 3.88E-06 Differences between the x/Q values for the B&W unit and the API 000 unit are the result of differences in distances from the plants to the EAB and LPZ boundaries. The X/Q values also differ from the values reported in the BLN 1&2 FSAR due to the usage of more current meteorological data.

3.19.1.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under this alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a new nuclear plant would occur; therefore, there would be no impacts.

Alternatives B and C The BLN site-specific radiological consequences of DBAs using the 50 percent probability-level X/Q values are shown in Table 3-40 for the B&W unit and in Table 3-41 for the AP1000 unit. For each accident, the EAB dose shown is for a two-hour period and the LPZ dose shown is the integrated dose for the duration of the accident as specified in the ESRP.

The B&W unit doses are presented as thyroid and whole-body doses as per the original B&W unit licensing basis and the BLN API 000 unit doses are presented as TEDE.

The results presented in Tables 3-40 and 3-41 provide a realistic estimate of radiological consequences of the postulated accidents for a B&W unit and an AP1 000 unit. In all cases, the doses to an assumed individual at the EAB and LPZ are a small fraction of the dose limits specified within 10 CFR §100.11. The results from this realistic analysis show that the environmental risks due to postulated radiological accidents are exceedingly minor.

These results confirm the conclusion presented in the 1974 BLN FES.

Table 3-40. Summary of Design-Basis Accident Atmospheric Doses for a B&W Unit Accident Dose Accident Description Thyroid (rei) Whole-Body_(rem EAB LPZ Limit4 EAB LPZ Limit4 Steam Line Break 1.14E+401 5 1.28E-01 300 7.64E-03 7.34E-03 25 Feedwater Piping Break Note 1 Note 1 300 Note 1 Note 1 25 Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Seizure (Locked Rotor) Note 2 Note 2 30 Note 2 Note 2 2.5 Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Break Note 3 Note 3 30 Note 3 Note 3 2.5 Failure of Small Lines Carrying 4.62E-01 4.06E-02 300 4.22E-02 371E-03 25 Primary Coolant Outside Containment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 247

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site Accident Dose.

AccidentDescription Thyroid (rem Whole-Body (rem)

EAB LPZ Limit" EAB LPZ Limit4 Steam Generator Tube Failure 1.68E+00 8.26E-02 300 1.95E-02 9.58E-04 25 Loss-of-Coolant Accident 3.09E-01 1.51 E-01 300 1.66E-03 2.18E-02 25 Fuel-Handling Accident 5.09E+00 4.46E-01 75 2.18E-01 1.91 E-02 6 Notes:

1. The radiological consequences of a Feedwater Piping Break are bounded by a Steam Line Break, as indicated in Subsection 15.2.8.5 of the BLN 1&2 FSAR.

2; The radiological consequences of this accident will not exceed normal operating levels as no fuel barrier failures result from this transient, as indicated in Subsection 15.3.3.5 of the BLN 1&2 FSAR.

3. Radiological consequences of a Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Break are bounded by Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Seizure, as indicated in Subsection 15.3.4 of the BLN 1&2 FSAR.

4. Limitsfrom 10 CFR §100.11.

5. 1.14E+01 is the same as 1.14x10+01 , or 11.4.

Table 3-41. Summary of Design-Basis Accident Doses for an AP1000 Unit Accident Dose (rem TEDE) 3 Accident Description EAB LPZ . Limit Steam System Piping Failure Preexisting Iodine Spike 1.00E-01 2.00E-02 25 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike 1.10E-01 5.00E-02 '2.5 Feedwater System Pipe Break Note 1 Note 1 Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Seizure No Feedwater 8.00E-02 1.00E-02 2.5 Feedwater Available 6.OOE-02 2.00E-02 2.5 Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Break Note 2 Note 2 Spectrum of Rod Cluster Control Assembly Ejection Accidents 3.70E-01 1.10E-01 6.3 Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary Coolant Outside Containment 2.20E-01 2.00E-02 2.5 Steam Generator Tube Rupture Preexisting Iodine Spike 2.30E-01 2.00E-02 25 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike 1.10E-01 2.OOE-02 2.5 Loss-of-Coolant Accident Resulting from a Spectrum of Postulated Piping Breaks Within the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary 1.20E+00 0.31EE+00 25 Fuel-Handling Accident 5.40E-01 5.00E-02 6.3 Notes:

1. Radiological consequences of a Feedwater System Pipe Break are bounded by Steam System Piping Failure, as indicated in Section 15.2 of the BLN COLA FSAR.

2. Radiological consequences of a Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Break are bounded by Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Seizure, as indicated in Subsection 15.3.4.2 of the BLN COLA FSAR.

3. NUREG-1555 specifies a dose limit of 25 rem TEDE for all DBAs. The more restrictive limits shown in the table apply to safety analysis doses, but they are shown here to demonstrate that even these more restrictive limits are met.

248 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 3.19.2. Severe Accidents 3.19.2.1. Affected Environment The term "accident" refers to any unintentional event (i.e., outside the normal or expected plant operation envelope) that results in a release or a potential for a release of radioactive material to the environment. The NRC categorizes accidents as either design basis or severe. DBAs, described in Subsection 3.19.1, are those for which the risk is great enough that NRC requires plant design features and procedures to prevent unacceptable accident consequences. Severe accidents are those that NRC considers too unlikely to warrant normal design controls to prevent or mitigate the consequences. Severe accident analyses consider both the risk of a severe accident and the on-site and off-site consequences.

The risk of a severe accident associated with a B&W PWR is determined by a plant-specific probabilistic safety assessment, which provides a systematic and comprehensive methodology of determining the risks associated with the operation of a plant at the BLN site. Because the BLN 1&2 construction permits were deferred before consideration of severe accidents was required by the NRC, no probabilistic safety assessment model was developed for the specific units at the BLN site. However, such models exist for other B&W PWRs.

For this evaluation, the severe accident frequency analysis is based on the Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) model (ANO 2000). Use of the ANO probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) as a surrogate for the BLN B&W plant is acceptable because the important safety-related systems, structures, and components at the ANO B&W plant are the same as in the standard B&W design. Consequently the failure modes and frequencies modeled in the ANO PRA are applicable to the BLN B&W plant.

The ANO PSA calculates the possible frequencies of four main categories of radioactive release types: early containment failure by leakage (CFEL), early containment failure by rupture (CFER), containment bypass (BP), and late containment failure (CFL). For this analysis, the release plume characteristics in the ANO PSA, such as isotope release fractions, plume size, delay, and duration, had to be proportioned for application to BLN due to the different core thermal power rating for ANO.

Westinghouse has developed a PRA for the AP1 000 standard PWR plant design that determines the severe accident frequencies and release characterizations (isotope releases and the plume size and durations) (WEC 2008). The accidents are characterized by six major release types: early containment rupture after core relocation (CFI), early containment rupture before core relocation (CFE), normal leakage from an intact containment (IC), bypass of the containment (BP), containment isolation systems failure (CI), and late containment failure (CFL).

Two severe accident analyses were performed to estimate the human health impacts from potential accidents at BLN. One analysis considering the B&W PWR design, representative of either Units I or 2, was prepared to support this SEIS. A separate analysis, prepared in support of the COLA ER, considered the AP1 000 design. Only severe reactor accident scenarios leading to core damage and significant off-site releases are presented here.

Accident scenarios that do not lead to significant off-site releases are not presented due to significantly reduced risk of adverse public and environmental consequences.

The MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS2) computer code (Version 1.13.1) (NRC 1998) was used to perform probabilistic analyses of radiological impacts. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 249

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site generic input parameters given with the MACCS2 computer code that were used in NRC's 1990 severe accident analysis (NUREG-1 150) formed the basis for the analysis. These generic data values were supplemented with parameters specific to BLN and the surrounding area. Site-specific data included population distribution, economic parameters, and agricultural production. Plant-specific release data included nuclide release, release duration, release energy (thermal content), release frequency, and release category (i.e.,

early release, late release). These data, in combination with site-specific meteorology, were used to simulate the probability distribution of impact risks (exposure and fatalities) to the surrounding 80-kilometer (within 50 miles) population.

3.19.2.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under this alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a new nuclear plant would occur; therefore, there would be no impacts.

Alternatives B and C The consequences of a beyond-design-basis accident to the maximally exposed off-site individual, an average individual, and the population residing within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of the reactor site are summarized in Tables 3-42 through 3-44. These analyses assumed average or mean meteorological'conditions. The analysis also assumed that a site emergency would have been declared early in the accident sequence and that all nonessential site personnel would have evacuated the site in accordance with site emergency procedures before any radiological releases to the environment occurred. In addition, a 95 percent probability was assigned to the assumption that emergency action guidelines would have been implemented to initiate evacuation of the public within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the plant. This is a reasonably conservative assumption, which implies that 5 percent of the population would not evacuate as directed.

Table 3-42. Severe Accident Analysis Results, Total Risks Dose-Risk Affected Early Latent PlantDesign (Person- Dollar Risk Land Fatalities (per Fatalities (per Rem/yr) ($/yr) (hectares accident)per year) year)

B&W PWR 1.06E+00 2.18E+03 6.35E+04 0.OOE+00 5.95E-04 AP1000 2.88E-02 7.68E+01' 1.40E+05 0.OOE+00 1.83E-05 Note: 2.88E-02 is equal to 2.88x10' or 0.0288 250 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Table 3-43. Severe Accident Individual Annual Risks, B&W Unit

! MAverageExposed Off-Maximally Individual Member of Release Category Site Individual Population Within 80 (frequency per reactor year) CKilometers (50 miles)

Dose Risk' Cancer2 Dose Risk1 Cancer2 (rem/year) Fatality (rem/year) Fatality CFER (2.91 E-07) 1.73E-04 3.72E-09 1.32E-07 8.72E-11 CFEL (2.54E-07) 8.69E-06 6.96E-09 1.19E-07 6.01 E-11 BP (3.59E-07) 3.77E-05 4.70E-09 2.09E-07 1.37E-10 CFL (1.42E-06) 3.99E-05 3.26E-09 3.54E-07 1.72E-10 Cumulative Total Individual Risk 1.86E-08 4.55E-1 0 Notes:

1. Includes the likelihood of occurrence of each release category

2. Increased likelihood of cancer fatality per year Table 3-44. Severe Accident Individual Annual Risks, AP1000 Unit Average Individual Member of Maximally Exposed Off- Population Within 80 (frequency per reactor year) Site Individual Kilometers (50 miles)

Dose Riske Cancer Dose Risk1 Cancer (rem/year) Fatality 2 (rem/year) Fatality 2 CFI (1.89E-10) 1.70E-07 2.29E-12 1.07E-10 8.56E-14 CFE (7.47E-09) 2.47E-06 3.34E-11 '5.34E-09 2.97E-12 IC (2.21 E-07) 1.76E-06 3.38E-11 7.54E-10 3.82E-13 BP (1.05E-08) 2.00E-05 2.35E-10 1.69E-08 1.11E-11 Cl (1.33E-09) 7.49E-07 1.21 E-11 7.66E-10 6.27E-13 CFL (3.45E-13) - 2.95E-12 3.08E-16 2.84E-13 3.26E-16 Cumulative Total Individual Risk 3.17E-10 1.52E-11 Notes:

1. Includes the likelihood of occurrence of each release category

2. Increased likelihood of cancer fatality per year The B&W unit results (Table 3-43) show that the highest risk to the maximally exposed off-site individual is one fatality every 54 million years (or 1.86 x 1 0-8 per year) while the risk to an average individual member of the public is one fatality every 2 billion years (or 4.55 x 10-10 per year). The AP1 000 unit results (Table 3-44) show that the highest risk to the maximally exposed off-site individual is one fatality every 3 billion years (or 3.17 x 10-10 per year) while the risk to an average individual member of the public is one fatality every 66 billion years (or 1.52 x 10-11 per year). The risk associated with the API 000 unit is lower due to its advanced design. However, for either a B&W or an AP1 000 unit, the risk to the general population and individual members of the public is insignificant because of adherence to applicable radiological standards, specific plant design features in conjunction with a waste minimization program, and employee safety training programs and work procedures. Overall, the risk results presented above for both the B&W and the AP1 000 unit are minor.

3.19.3. Plant Security 3.19.3.1. Affected Environment Some nongovernmental entities and members of the public have expressed concern about the risks posed by nuclear generating facilities in light of the threat of terrorism. TVA believes that the possibility of a terrorist attack affecting operation of one or more units at Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 251

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site BLN is very remote and that postulating potential health and environmental impacts from a terrorist attack involves substantial speculation.

TVA has in place detailed, sophisticated security measures to prevent physical intrusion into all its nuclear plant sites, including BLN, by hostile forces seeking to gain access to plant nuclear reactors or other sensitive facilities or materials. TVA security personnel are trained and retrained to react to and repel hostile forces threatening TVA nuclear facilities.

TVA's security measures and personnel are inspected and tested by the NRC. It is highly unlikely that a hostile force could successfully overcome these security measures and gain entry into sensitive facilities and even less likely that they could do this quickly enough to prevent operators from putting plant reactors into safe shutdown mode. However, the security threat that is more frequently identified by members of the public or in the media are not hostile forces invading nuclear plant sites but attacks using hijacked jet airliners, the method used on September 11, 2001, against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The likelihood of this now occurring is equally remote in light of today's heightened security awareness at airports, but this threat has been barefully studied.

The NEI commissioned EPRI to conduct an impact analysis of a large jet airliner being purposefully crashed into sensitive nuclear facilities or containers including nuclear reactor containment buildings, used fuel storage ponds, used fuel dry storage facilities, and used fuel transportation containers. (NEI 2002). Using conservative analyses, EPRI concluded that there would be no release of radionuclides from any of these facilities or containers because they are already designed to withstand potentially destructive events. Nuclear reactor containment buildings, for example, have thick concrete walls with heavy reinforcing steel and are designed to withstand large earthquakes, extreme overpressures, and hurricane-force winds. The EPRI analysis used computer models, in which a Boeing 767-400 was crashed into containment structures that were representative of all U.S. nuclear power containment types. The containment structures suffered some crushing and chipping at the maximum impact point but were not breached.

The EPRI analysis is fully consistent with research conducted by NRC. When NRC recently considered such threats, NRC Commissioner McGaffigan observed:

Today the NRC has in place measures to prevent public health and safety impacts of a terrorist attack using aircraftthat go beyond any other area of our criticalinfrastructure. In addition to all the measuresthe Department of Homeland Security and other agencies have put in place to make such attacks extremely improbable (airmarshals,hardenedcockpit doors, passengersearches,etc.), NRC has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with NORAD/NORTHCOM to provide realtime information to potentially impacted sites by any aircraftdiversion.

As NRC has said repeatedly, our research showed that in most (the vast majority of) cases an aircraftattack would not result in anything more than a very expensive industrialaccident in which no radiationrelease would occur. In those few cases where a radiationrelease might occur, there would be no challenge to the emergency planning basis currently in effect to deal with all beyond-design-basisevents, whether generated by mother nature, or equipment failure, or terrorists(NRC 2007c).

252 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 3.19.3.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Under this alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a new nuclear plant would occur, therefore, there would be no impacts.

Alternatives B and C In the very remote likelihood that a terrorist attack did successfully breach the physical and other safeguards at BLN resulting in the release of radionuclides, the consequences of such a release are reasonably captured by the discussion of the impacts of severe accidents discussed above in Subsection 3.19.2.

Notwithstanding the very remote risk of a terrorist attack affecting operations, TVA increased the level of security readiness, improved physical security measures, and increased its security arrangements, with local and federal law enforcement agencies at all of its nuclear generating facilities after the events of September 11, 2001. These additional security measures were taken in response to advisories issued by NRC. TVA continues to enhance security at its plants in response to NRC regulations and guidance. The security measures TVA has taken at its sites are complemented by the measures taken throughout the United States to improve security and reduce the risk of successful terrorist attacks.

This includes measures designed to respond, to and reduce the threats posed by hijacking large jet airliners.

3.20. Decommissioning 3.20.1. Affected Environment Decommissioning is not addressed in TVA's 1974 FES. However, the AEC 1974 FES includes a brief discussion of both the process and the cost. The CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999, Subsection 5.2.5) includes discussion of decontamination and decommissioning, but does not mention costs. As these documents explain, at the end of the operating life of a nuclear unit, TVA would seek the termination of its operating license from NRC. Termination requires that the unit be decommissioned, a process that ensures the unit is safely removed from service and the site made safe for unrestricted use. A decommissioning plan would be developed for approval by NRC, with appropriate environmental reviews when TVA prepares to decommission the unit in the future.

For the purpose of this environmental review, the decommissioning process and requirements are essentially the same insofar as both alternative units are concerned. The partially completed B&W unit and the advanced design AP1000 unit are PWRs, which are treated similarly when factors such as minimum estimated decommissioning cost and planning are taken into account.

Methods The three NRC-approved methods of decommissioning nuclear power facilities described in the CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999) are still viable alternatives:

1. DECON. The DECON option calls for the prompt removal of radioactive material at the end of the plant life. Under DECON, all fuel assemblies, nuclear source material, radioactive fission and corrosion products, and all other radioactive and contaminated materials above NRC-restricted release levels are removed from the plant. The reactor pressure vessel and internal components would be removed along with removal and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 253

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte Site demolition of the remaining systems, structures, and components with contamination control employed as required. This is the most expensive of the three options.

2. SAFSTOR. SAFSTOR is a deferred decontamination strategy that takes advantage of the natural dissipation of almost all of the radiation. After all fuel assemblies, nuclear source material, radioactive liquid, and solid wastes are removed fromrthe plant, the remaining physical structure would then be secured and mothballed. Monitoring systems would be used throughout the dormancy period and a full-time security force would be maintained. The facility would be decontaminated to NRC-unrestricted release levels after a period of up to 60 years, and the site would be released for unrestricted use. Although this option makes the site unavailable for alternate uses for an extended period, worker and public doses would be much smaller than under DECON, as would the need for radioactive waste disposal.

3. ENTOMB. As the name implies, this method involves encasing all radioactive materials on site rather than removing them. Under ENTOMB, radioactive structures, systems, and components are encased in a structurally long-lived substance, such as concrete.

The entombed structure is appropriately maintained and monitored until radioactivity decays to a level that permits termination of the license. This option reduces worker and public doses, but because most power reactors will have radionuclides in concentrations exceeding the limits for unrestricted use even after 100 years, this option may not be feasible under current regulation.

It is expected that by the time the BLN unit is decommissioned, new, improved technologies and efficiencies will have been developed and approved by NRC.

Cost In AEC's FES the estimated cost of decommissioning was $25 million. NRC currently estimates that decommissioning a PWR would cost a minimum of $404 million per unit in today's dollars. TVA presently maintains a nuclear decommissioning trust to provide money for the ultimate decommissioning of its entire fleet of nuclear power plants. The fund is invested in securities generally designed to achieve a return in line with overall equity market performance. The estimated assets of the decommissioning trust fund as of March 31, 2010, totaled $908 million. This balance is above the present value of the estimated future nuclear decommissioning costs for TVA's operating nuclear units. TVA recently provided the NRC with a plan to ensure decommissioning funding assurance when eventual decommissioning activities take place. The plan describes an external sinking fund approach that provides funding assurance for each nuclear unit at the end of its respective term of licensed operation. A fund balance is projected for each remaining year of unit operation. In accordance with NRC regulations, TVA will annually review the minimum amount to be provided for decommissioning funding assurance and, as necessary, will make contributions to the funds for each unit, or apply another method or combination of methods of funding assurance consistent with NRC regulations and guidance. TVA monitors the assets of its nuclear decommissioning trust versus the present value of its liabilities in order to ensure that, over the long term and before cessation of nuclear plant operations and commencement of decommissioning activities, adequate funds from investments will be available to support decommissioning.

Prior to the time the BLN unit commences operation, TVA would create a separate trust account for the unit within the decommissioning trust fund. It also has the option of 254 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

Chapter 3 applying another method or combination of methods of funding assurance to cover the costs of future decommissioning.

3.20.2. EnvironmentalConsequences Alternative A Under this alternative, no completion or construction and operation of a new nuclear plant would occur; therefore, there would be no impacts.

Alternatives B and C Environmental issues associated with decommissioning were analyzed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1 437 (NRC 1996; 1999). The generic environmental impact statement included a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were sorted into two categories. For those issues meeting Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required by NRCI unless new and significant information is identified. Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1 and therefore require additional plant-specific review. Environmental analysis of the future decommissioning plan for either alternative BLN unit would tier from this or the appropriate NRC document in effect at the time.

TVA has not identified any significant new information during this environmental review that would indicate the potential for decommissioning impacts not previously reviewed.

Therefore, TVA does not at this time anticipate any adverse effects from the decommissioning process. As stated earlier, further environmental reviews would be conducted at the time a decommissioning plan for the BLN unit is proposed.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 255

Page intentionally blank