ML24312A321

Final Environmental Assessment for the Clinch River Nuclear Site Exemption Request

ML24312A321
Person / Time
Site:	99902056
Issue date:	11/07/2024
From:	Nagel M NRC/NMSS/DREFS/EPMB3
To:
References
Download: ML24312A321 (23)

Text

Environmental Center of Expertise Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Exemption Request to Allow Excavation at the Clinch River Nuclear Site Prior to Construction Permit Issuance Final Environmental Assessment Docket Number: 99902056 Issued: November 2024

Environmental Center of Expertise Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By a letter dated November 30, 2023 (TVA 2023-TN10326), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a request for an exemption from the Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.10 (TN249), License required; limited work authorization requirement. Hereafter, TVAs request is referred to as the exemption request. This exemption would authorize certain excavation support activities, which are otherwise prohibited by 10 CFR 50.10(c), to proceed at the Clinch River Nuclear (CRN) Site prior to potential receipt of a construction permit (CP) for a GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy BWRX-300 small modular reactor (SMR) installation. Granting this exemption request would not constitute a commitment by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue a CP for the CRN Site, and TVA would perform the excavation support activities assuming the risk that its CP application may later be denied. The NRC has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) for the exemption request in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21. Based on the analyses in this EA, the NRC has reached a Finding of No Significant Impact. The details of the NRC staffs safety review of the exemption request will be provided in the corresponding safety evaluation document.

In April 2019, NRC issued an Early Site Permit (ESP) to TVA for two or more SMRs at the CRN Site (NRC 2019-TN10325). An ESP constitutes Commission approval of a site for one or more nuclear power facilities. An ESP does not, however, authorize construction and operation of a nuclear power plant. To construct and operate a nuclear power facility, an ESP holder must obtain a CP and an operating license, or a combined operating license. The ESP for the CRN Site (ESP-006) resolved many safety and environmental issues and allows TVA to bank the CRN Site for up to 20 years. The CRN ESP was supported by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review documented in NUREG-2226, Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit at the Clinch River Nuclear Site (NRC 2019-TN6136), hereafter referred to as the ESP Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The ESP EIS evaluated impacts from potential construction, operation, and decommissioning of two or more SMRs at the CRN Site.

While the ESP EIS included an evaluation of construction impacts from all activities associated with building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site, the activities related to the exemption request include only excavation support activities for the CRN-1 reactor building (RB). Where an existing EIS is relevant to a later proposed action, agencies may employ tiering (40 CFR Part 1501-TN4876). Tiering is appropriate when an EIS or EA for a narrower scope action follows an EIS or EA from a larger scope project. Because the activities related to the exemption request are narrower in scope than activities evaluated for the CRN ESP, the staff implemented tiering from the ESP EIS into this EA.

In 2022, TVA published the Clinch River Nuclear Site Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology Park Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (TVA 2022-TN10323). TVAs programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) addresses the environmental impacts of site preparation, construction, operation, and decommissioning of advanced nuclear reactors at the CRN Site. The NRC staff relied on information contained in the exemption request, pertinent analyses in the ESP EIS and TVAs PEIS, and an evaluation of new and potentially significant information as the bases for preparing this EA.

The EA preparation included the NRC staffs National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), Section 106 review as described in the sections below.

3 2.0 THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION The proposed Federal action is NRC approval of TVAs request for an exemption (TVA 2023-TN10326) from the NRCs regulations at 10 CFR 50.10(c) (TN249), which would allow TVA to install and leave in place components of the initial ground support system for the RB excavation, such as rock bolts to secure unstable rock blocks, wire mesh, and non-structural sprayed concrete linings to stabilize exposed rock walls, horizontal gravity drains to manage groundwater, and pressurized grout to seal water entry. The initial ground support system could also include steel soldier beams with timber lagging, rock bolts to secure soldier beams, and reinforced concrete compression rings to support the soldier beams (TVA 2023-TN10326). The initial ground support system serves no function related to the completed RB but would remain in place after construction (TVA 2023-TN10326).

3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION Issuance of the exemption affects the timing of initial ground support system installation, which serves no function with respect to structural RB support or radiological health or safety but is needed for construction worker safety during RB excavation (TVA 2023-TN10326). If excavation for the RB is delayed until after the issuance of the CP, the construction schedule and commercial operation could undergo a delay of 12-24 months.

TVA anticipates that the cost of any delay of the commercial operation of CRN-1 would be substantial (TVA 2023-TN10326).

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4.1 NEPA Review of the Exemption Request The NRC notified TVA of the results of NRC staffs acceptance review of the exemption request on January 31, 2024 (NRC 2024-TN10328). In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12 (TN249), Specific exemptions, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant an exemption from the requirements of the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 if: (1) the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances are present. The NRC staff performed the acceptance review using the criteria specified in NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Instructions LIC-103 and LIC-109 (NRC 2020-TN10329, NRC 2017-TN10330) to determine whether there is sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to initiate its detailed technical safety and environmental reviews. The NRC staff determined that the application provided technical safety and environmental information in sufficient detail to enable the staff to initiate its detailed safety review and to meet the agencys NEPA obligations.

From February 28 to August 2, 2024, the NRC staff conducted a virtual audit of the exemption request to more fully define and understand the scope of activities associated with the proposed action and to identify whether there was new and significant information since the publication of the ESP EIS that staff would need to consider in this EA. As discussed in the Introduction section of NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2007-TN10341), in order to use information and conclusions from a previous environmental review without modifications, the NRC staff must determine that there is no significant new information regarding the subject evaluation and impacts. If the NRC staff finds that there is new and significant information regarding the previous

4 evaluation of the impacts to a resource, then the evaluation of this information must be integrated with the conclusions from the larger scope previous review (or in the case of the excavation exemption, the conclusions regarding the narrower scope exemption request-related activities). The NRC staffs process for identifying any potentially significant new information are described in the staffs audit report (NRC 2024-TN10338).

Section 5.6 of this EA includes the NRC staffs NHPA Section 106 review. The NRC staff received multiple comments from the TSHPO and Indian Tribes, which are described in Section 5.6.1. The NRC staff solicited public comments for a 30-day period on the NRC staffs Section 106 review and did not receive any comments.

4.2 Proposed Activities To accomplish the proposed action, TVA has identified the following major activities (TVA 2023-TN10326, TVA 2024-TN10331):

• Excavating an approximate 132 ft (40.2 m) diameter, 115 ft (35.1 m) deep shaft, with an outer 8 ft (2.4 m) wide reinforced concrete ring.

• Constructing temporary crane pads.

• Removing spoils from the excavation and transporting to an onsite spoils disposal area.

• Temporary dewatering of the excavation.

• Sealing or grouting of water ingress locations.

• Creating a settlement basin and discharge pathway to surrounding areas.

TVA will utilize certain facilities such as lay down areas, parking lots, utility lines, and crane pads while conducting exemption request-related activities at the CRN Site; however, these facilities are not exclusive to the activities proposed under the exemption. It is expected that some of these facilities would already be in place and would support other CRN-1 building-related activities. This EA does not evaluate the environmental impacts of such facilities. Further, the NRC staff notes that the exemption request-related activities listed above involve no radiological human health effects or radiological waste generation.

4.3 Description of the Proposed Work Area The area associated with exemption request-related activities is the area that encompasses the RB excavation itself, the settlement basin, the settlement basin discharge area, and the area within a perimeter necessary for the activities mentioned in Section 4.2 of this EA (Figure 1). The excavation area is a small portion of the larger area evaluated in the NRC ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136) and TVAs PEIS (TVA 2022-TN10323). As discussed in Section 2.2.1 of the ESP EIS, the site was previously selected and partially developed for the abandoned Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project (CRBRP). CRBRP site preparation activities began in 1982 and were terminated in 1983. The site has been characterized extensively through environmental reports which include the NRCs Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction and Operation of Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (NRC 1977-TN5083).

5 Figure 1.

The Clinch River Nuclear Site and the Exemption Request-Related Activities Area (Labeled Estimated Primary Disturbance Area and Basin Discharge Location) 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The NRC staff has addressed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as well as the no-action alternative to the proposed action and has documented the results of the assessment in this EA. The NRC staff performed this review in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250). The NRC staff considered the context and intensity of the effects in the impact significance determinations for each review area as informed by Council of Environmental Quality regulations specified in 40 CFR 1501.3 (TN4876) and NRC guidance (NRC 2019-TN6448).

In Chapter 4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136), the NRC staff provided an analysis of the environmental impacts of building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site. As previously discussed, the scope of this EA is limited to actions associated with the exemption to allow

6 TVA to conduct certain excavation support activities for RB excavation prior to TVA receiving NRC approval for the CP. The excavation support activities have a narrower scope than all the activities associated with building two or more SMRs and support facilities that were evaluated in Chapter 4 of the ESP EIS. The evaluation described in this EA is based on TVAs exemption request dated November 30, 2023 (TVA 2023-TN10326), the NRC ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136), the TVA PEIS (TVA 2022-TN10323), TVAs response to audit information needs (TVA 2024-TN10331), and other information obtained during the audit, including the NRC staffs new and significant review for resource areas which were considered resolved from the ESP review (NRC 2024-TN10338).

5.1 Land Use Impacts The NRC staffs assessment of the land use impacts related to building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site was provided in Section 4.1 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136).

Based on the NRC staffs analysis in the ESP EIS, the staff concluded that the land use impacts of construction would be MODERATE, because the scope of the ESP review included site preparation activities, land use changes in the Barge Traffic Area (BTA),

improvement of the highway access ramps for State Route 58 and Bear Creek Road, and transmission lines rebuilding, upgrades, and reconductoring activities to make the ESP EIS impact determination (NRC 2019-TN6136). These activities are not part of the more narrow scope of activities evaluated as part of the exemption request.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff identified activities associated with the installation of initial ground support system (NRC 2024-TN10338). These activities and the affected area are a reduction in scope from the building activities and affected area described in the NRC ESP EIS (which was for construction of the full CRN project consisting of two or more SMRs at the site). Excavation for the RB to house the SMR would permanently disturb a circular area with a diameter of approximately 148 ft (45.1 m),

which is approximately 17,203 square feet (ft2) (0.395 acre [ac] or 1,598.2 square meter [m2])

in area (TVA 2023-TN10326, TVA 2024-TN10331). Spoils from excavation will be removed from the excavation area to a nearby, designated onsite spoils disposal area within the previously disturbed footprint (TVA 2023-TN10326, NRC 2024-TN10338, TVA 2024-TN10331). In addition, a settlement basin will be created for dewatering water discharge. The RB excavation, spoils disposal area, and the settlement basin will be confined to a previously disturbed area associated with the former CRBRP and bounded by the plant parameter envelope as discussed in Section 3.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136; TVA 2023-TN10326, TVA 2024-TN10331). Based on the NRC staffs evaluation of the exemption request-related activities described above, land use impacts from the activities associated with the exemption request would not be significant due to the limited activities within the previously disturbed area.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff requested updated information regarding exemption request-related activities and discussed that information with TVA. The NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information related to land use from the exemption request-related activities that would affect the above determination that the land use impacts would not be significant (NRC 2024-TN10338).

5.2 Surface and Groundwater Impacts The NRC staffs assessment of the water related impacts associated with building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site was provided in Section 4.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). Based on the NRC staffs analysis, construction-related impacts of water use and

7 water quality for both surface and groundwater resources were considered to be SMALL for the ESP.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the NRC staff identified exemption request-related activities associated with the installation of the initial ground support system. The exemption request-related activities interfacing with water resources are activities of a narrower scope than the activities associated with building two or more SMRs and support facilities that were evaluated in the ESP EIS. These exemption request-related activities would not use any groundwater. Small amounts of surface water may be used for dust suppression on a footprint smaller than that evaluated in the ESP EIS. Water from dewatering activities would be held in a settlement pond and eventually discharged to adjoining areas. TVA is expected to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification or an equivalent certification from the State of Tennessee. Industrial activities that may impact surface water resources would need coverage under Tennessees National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permitting Program. Pertinent best management practices (BMPs) similar to those described in the ESP EIS will be in use.

Based on the above, the NRC staff determined that the surface and groundwater impacts from this narrow portion of the larger set of activities previously evaluated in the ESP EIS would not be significant.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff requested updated information regarding exemption request-related activities and discussed that information with TVA. The NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information related to water use and discharge associated with the exemption request-related activities that would affect the above determination that the impact on water resources would not be significant (NRC 2024-TN10338).

5.3 Terrestrial Resources Impacts The NRC staffs assessment of the terrestrial resource-related impacts associated with building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site is provided in Section 4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). Based on the NRC staffs analysis, construction-related impacts to terrestrial resources were MODERATE, as the staff considered site preparation activities in context of fragmentation and isolation, habitat loss, noise, and traffic-related impacts within the CRN Site as well as the BTA and transmission line corridor.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the NRC staff identified those activities associated with the installation of initial ground support system and, specifically, information regarding the extent of the affected area and the wetlands that could be affected (NRC 2024-TN10338). The area affected by the exemption request-related activities is only a portion of the area affected by the full set of building activities at the CRN Site evaluated in the ESP EIS for land disturbance and indirect impacts for terrestrial species through noise and collision potential. Land disturbance associated with the exemption request-related activities will occur within previously disturbed and cleared areas, so forest fragmentation and isolation would be de minimis (TVA 2023-TN10326). The noise generating equipment used for the exemption request-related activities would be consistent with that evaluated for the ESP EIS; however, noise generating activities encompass a smaller scope in terms of the number of activities and period of time and the extent of the area over which those activities will occur (see Section 5.8.2 of the ESP EIS). The tallest piece of equipment would be a crane with a height up to 638 ft (194 m), consistent with the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136; TVA 2023-TN10326, TVA 2017-TN4922). The ESP EIS analyzed the collision

8 impacts on avian species and concluded collision risks for similar construction equipment and structures are unlikely (NRC 2019-TN6136). For these reasons, the NRC staff determined that the impacts to terrestrial species from the more narrow scope of exemption request-related activities would not be significant.

During the audit, the NRC staff identified new and potentially significant information for terrestrial resources. TVA completed a wetlands delineation in 2021, which identified new wetlands (TVA 2023-TN10326). There are five wetlands (W010, W011, W012, W013, and W014) and one ephemeral stream (EPH09) in the vicinity of the RB at the CRN Site (TVA 2024-TN10331). Two isolated palustrine emergent wetlands, W012 and W013, are within the primary disturbance area and total approximately 0.2 ac (0.08 hectares [ha]). These are not natural wetlands but instead are the result of land disturbance for the CRBRP project that resulted in human-made surface depressions with compacted silts capable of detaining surface runoff. The Tennessee Rapid Assessment Method determined these wetlands have a low resource value, likely due to the isolated nature of the wetlands and low biodiversity due to previous disturbance. The other wetlands and ephemeral stream (W010, W011, W014, and EPH 09) are located within the proposed settlement basin discharge area and total approximately 0.99 ac (0.4 ha). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has completed a jurisdictional determination for these surface water features at the CRN Site.

TVA would manage construction-related discharges that could affect the previously listed water features in accordance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan and a NPDES construction general permit. In addition, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and USACE (if applicable) would regulate mitigation for the wetland impacts.

Therefore, the land disturbance impacts are expected to be minimal.

TVA conducted multiple terrestrial wildlife and habitat surveys between January and May 2021 and November 2023. During these surveys, two active osprey nests were spotted on transmission line structures close to the action area where the exemption request-related activities could occur within the nest disturbance buffer (TVA 2024-TN10331). TVA proposes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation practices such as removal and/or relocation of nests, creation of alternative nesting platforms, or installation of deterrents (TVA 2024-TN10331). In addition, BMPs will follow the TVAs 2022 BMP Manual (TVA 2022-TN10340). Impacts for migratory birds are expected to be minimal.

For the reasons stated above, the NRC staff determined that the terrestrial impacts from the activities associated with the exemption request, including consideration of new information related to wetlands and osprey nests, would not be significant.

5.4 Aquatic Resources Impacts The NRC staffs assessment of the aquatic resource-related impacts associated with building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site is provided in Section 4.3 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). Based on the NRC staffs analysis, building-related impacts to aquatic resources were found to be SMALL for the ESP.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the NRC staff identified those activities associated with the installation of initial ground support system. The streams and ponds affected by activities on the CRN Site are small in size and contain only limited habitat and biota. As stated in the ESP, TVA will minimize the footprint of disturbance and implement appropriate BMPs to minimize sedimentation, erosion, and other disturbances to the reservoir, ponds, and streams. The exemption request-related activities interfacing with the aquatic environment consist of only a portion of the activities associated with building two or

9 more SMRs and support facilities that were evaluated in the ESP EIS. Given that the ESP impacts to aquatic resources were SMALL, the NRC staff determined that the impacts to aquatic resources from the more narrow scope of the exemption request-related activities would not be significant.

During the audit of the exemption request, the staff also requested updated information regarding exemption request-related activities and discussed that information with TVA. The NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information related to aquatic resources from the exemption request-related activities that would potentially change the above determination that the impact on aquatic resources would not be significant.

5.5 Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts In order to identify any threatened and endangered species within the area of the exemption request-related activities per the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. [TN1010]), the NRC staff ran the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool1 for the area on July 6, 2024 (FWS 2024-TN10339) followed by an updated run on October 7, 2024 (FWS 2024-TN10610), which did not identify any new information. The IPaC reports listed seven aquatic species, two plants, and six terrestrial animals as federally-listed threatened and endangered species. As discussed in the Section 5.4 of this EA, the aquatic species in the Clinch River, including any protected species, would not be affected by the exemption request-related activities. As discussed in the Sections 5.1 and 5.3, land disturbance is expected to be minimal and confined to areas previously graded and compacted by the CRBRP. None of the areas subject to disturbance from the exemption request-related activities contain the specialized riparian or natural wetland habitats required by the two plant species listed in the IPaC reports. The NRC staff therefore concludes that the exemption request-related activities would have No Effect on these aquatic and plant species.

The IPaC reports for the exemption request-related activities area identified three endangered and one proposed endangered bat species that may be present in the surrounding area: gray bat (Myotis grisescens, endangered), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis, endangered), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis, endangered), and tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus, proposed endangered). The area for the exemption activities consists only of ruderal herbaceous and scrub vegetation on soils previously graded and compacted for the CRBRP. None of this vegetation provides suitable roosting or foraging habitat for the subject bat species.

Although NRC staff had concluded in the ESP EIS that increased nighttime noise, human activity, and lighting, and presence of tall structures, during building two or more SMRs may adversely affect listed bat species, the limited activities that are part of the proposed exemption are not expected to affect the subject bat species. The nearest potential hibernaculum for any of the subject bat species is located more than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from the exemption request-related work and therefore unlikely to be affected by associated indirect effects. The NRC ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136) analyzed the effect of noise on the bat species and concluded that the construction noise may be experienced up to 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from the action area. The tallest piece of construction-based equipment would be a crane up to 638 ft (194 m), consistent with the ESP EIS (TVA 2023-TN10326, TVA 2017-TN4922; NRC 2019-TN6136). The NRC ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136) states that the risk of 1 The IPaC is a project planning tool for effectively managing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) environmental review process (FWS 2024-TN10339).

10 collision for stationary construction equipment would be low since bats infrequently collide with tall, stationary structures and the cranes would only be a temporary structure onsite. Dense forest and topography would effectively prevent lighting from affecting the cave entrances.

The activities are not expected to disturb hibernacula or enhance the spread of white nose syndrome (NRC 2019-TN6136), the principal reason for the species declines. The NRC staff therefore concludes that the proposed exemption would have No Effect on the subject bat species.

The whooping crane (Grus americana) is an endangered wading bird for which the FWS has established experimental populations outside of its present natural range.

Tennessee lies completely east of the species natural range. The exemption activities would not affect any habitat potentially conducive to a wading bird such as the whooping crane. The NRC staff therefore concludes that the exemption would have No Effect on the whooping crane.

The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a candidate species that is associated with prairie, meadow, and grassland habitats due to the abundance of milkweeds within those habitats. During the breeding season, females lay eggs on milkweed (primarily Asclepias spp). While whorled milkweed (Asclepias verticillata) and green comet milkweed (Asclepias viridiflora) were observed within cedar glade habitats onsite, no records of milkweeds are within the disturbance area of the CRN Site. Furthermore, due to previous disturbances such as soil grading and compaction, the vegetation within the excavation area consists mostly of non-native species tolerant of disturbance (NRC 2019-TN6136). The stripped and compacted soils in the excavation area are not conducive to the establishment of milkweeds. The NRC staff therefore concludes that the proposed exemption would have No Effect on the monarch butterfly.

To summarize, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed exemption would have No Effect on any of the federally-listed threatened or endangered species potentially occurring in the surrounding area.

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts The CRN Site is located in an area of eastern North America that has experienced human habitation and use for over 10,000 years, including during the pre-contact Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian periods, and during the post-contact Spanish, European, and American periods (NRC 2019-TN6136: Section 2.7.1).

The NRC staffs assessment of the historic and cultural resources impacts related to the construction of two or more SMRs at the CRN Site was provided in Section 4.6 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). Evaluation of impacts within the ESP EIS Area of Potential Effects (APE) included the CRN Site as a whole, Barge Traffic Area, Melton Hill Dam, and areas throughout the CRN Site that had the potential for deeply buried cultural deposits present at depths exceeding 80 cm (TVA and TSHPO 2016-TN5298). Based on the NRC staffs analysis in the ESP EIS, staff concluded that the construction impacts to historic and cultural resources would be MODERATE to LARGE, because the direct and indirect APE for the ESP EIS includes eligible and potentially eligible historic properties, and, since the ESP EIS evaluated the site irrespective of the exact location of building activities (i.e., ground disturbance), all eligible and potentially eligible properties could be theoretically impacted by future building activities. The staff concluded that there was the potential for an adverse effect under NHPA Section 106, and thus led to a MODERATE to LARGE NEPA impact determination in the ESP EIS.

11 Figure 2.

Direct and Indirect Effects Area of Potential Effect (APE) in Relation to the Exemption Request-Related Activities Area However, during the current review and audit of the exemption request, the staff confirmed that Melton Hill Dam has been removed from the proposed project. The APE for the current exemption request undertaking will therefore be the remainder of the previously evaluated direct and indirect effects APE from the NRC ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). For consistency, the same APE is being utilized for this undertaking (Figure 2), since the exemption request-related activities are a small discrete part of the overall project. Activities associated with the installation of the initial ground support system involve a small area within the ESP EIS APE in which potential impacts to historic and cultural resources could occur (TVA 2023-TN10326 and TVA 2024-TN10331). This area defined in Figure 2 as the Exemption Request-related Activities Area, is confined to the portion of the CRN Site that was previously disturbed through excavation activities associated with the CRBRP in the early 1980s (TVA 2023-TN10326). Historic, archaeological, and cultural resources surveys dating between the 1940s-2010s confirm that there are no National Register of Historic

12 Places eligible or potentially eligible historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, within this exemption request-related activities portion of the APE (NRC 2019-TN6136; TVA 2022-TN10323; TVA 2023-TN10326; TVA 2024-TN10331). Furthermore, this location within the CRN Site does not have the potentialdue to previous disturbancefor deeply buried deposits based on archaeological evidence and consultation between the NRC, TVA, the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office (TSHPO), and Indian Tribes (NRC 2019-TN6136; TVA 2022-TN10323; TVA 2023-TN10326; TVA 2024-TN10331).

The NRC staff determined that the historic and cultural resources impacts related to the exemption request-related activities within this reduced area of the larger ESP APE and suite of activities evaluated in the ESP EIS would not be significant due to: (1) the previously disturbed context of the location where installation of the initial ground support system would occur, (2) the lack of cultural resources (including historic properties) identified in this specific exemption request-related activities location, based on numerous previous surveys (see NRC 2019-TN6136; TVA 2022-TN10323), and (3) the lack of a potential for deeply buried cultural resources (including historic properties) in this location (NRC 2019-TN6136; TVA 2022-TN10323; TVA 2023-TN10326; TVA 2024-TN10331).

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff requested updated information regarding exemption related activities and discussed that information with TVA.

The staff did not identify any new and significant information related to cultural and historic resources associated with the exemption request-related activities that would affect the above determination that the impacts from the exemption request-related activities would not be significant (TVA 2024-TN10331).

While there are no cultural resources that have the potential to be affected by exemption-related activities, TVA has executed a Programmatic Agreement with the TSHPO and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (as a concurring party),

which stipulates the process by which TVA will comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for the CRN Site (TVA and TSHPO 2016-TN5298).

The NRC staff has made a determination of No Adverse Effect for this undertaking.

The NRC staff solicited public comments for 30 days on this finding and did not receive any comments. Details of the consultation with the TSHPO and Indian Tribes are summarized in Section 5.6.1 of this EA.

5.6.1. Agencies Consulted For the ESP EIS, the staff consulted with multiple Federal, State, Tribal and local organizations under NHPA. A complete list of organizations contacted is included in Appendix B of the ESP EIS. Comments from these agencies regarding the ESP are included in Appendix E of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136).

The NRC staff initiated consultation for the exemption request on July 26, 2024, with the TSHPO (NRC 2024-TN10336), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (NRC 2024-TN10336), and 20 federally recognized Tribes (NRC 2024-TN10342), including the (1)

Absentee Shawnee Tribe; (2) Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; (3) Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; (4) Cherokee Nation; (5) Chickasaw Nation; (6) Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; (7) Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; (8) Delaware Nation; (9) Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; (10) Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; (11) Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; (12)

Kialegee Tribal Town; (13) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; (14) Muscogee Nation; (15)

13 Poarch Band of Creek Indians; (16) Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; (17) Seminole Tribe of Florida; (18) Shawnee Tribe; (19) Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; and (20) United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. Initiation also included notifying all parties that the NRC staff was utilizing the process described in 36 CFR 800.8(c) to use the NEPA process to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA in lieu of the procedures set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 through 36 CFR 800.6.

The NRC sent a second letter, dated October 1, 2024, to the TN SHPO (NRC 2024-TN10811) and Indian Tribes (NRC 2024-TN10812) to announce the availability of the EA and FONSI, and a preliminary determination of no adverse effect to historic properties.

Information regarding the direct and indirect APEs, historic and cultural resources, and historic properties contained in Section 5.6 of this EA were made publicly available.

In response to Section 106 initiation letters from the NRC staff dated July 26, 2024 (1) two Indian Tribes stated that the project was outside their area of interest and deferred to other Tribes, (2) one Indian Tribe stated that the project was within their area of interest and they would await receipt of NRC staffs environmental review documents, (3) the ACHP confirmed receipt of consultation and reviewed the applicable regulations (ACHP 2024-TN10813), and (4) the TN SHPO stated that they would await receipt of NRC staffs environmental review documents (NRC 2024-TN10811).

In response to consultation letters from the NRC staff dated October 1, 2024, providing the EA and FONSI for review, the TN SHPO concurred with the NRC staffs determination of no adverse effect (THC 2024-TN10814), one Indian Tribe concurred with the NRC staffs determination of no adverse effect and requested consultation upon a discovery situation, and one Indian Tribe had no concerns and requested consultation upon a discovery situation.2 5.7 Air Quality Impacts The NRC staffs assessment of the air quality impacts associated with building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site was provided in Section 4.7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). The CRN Site is located in Roane County, which is currently in attainment for PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 micrometers [µm] or less in diameter) and other criteria pollutants. In the ESP EIS, the air quality impacts were determined to be limited to the area within 6 mi (9.7 km) of the CRN Site. Based on the NRC staffs analysis, building-related impacts on air quality were considered to be SMALL for the ESP.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff identified that the activities associated with the installation of initial ground support system are part of the activities that were evaluated in the ESP EIS related to building two or more SMRs and their support facilities. Emissions could be periodically emitted from various fossil-fuel fired equipment during these activities, although the quantity of emissions would be smaller due to the more narrow scope and duration of activities as compared to those evaluated in the ESP EIS. BMPs would be implemented to control fugitive dust. A general construction permit from the State of Tennessee for air emissions and controls will be in use. Given that the ESP impacts to air quality were SMALL and given that the exemption request-related activities will result in a smaller quantity of air emissions, the NRC staff determined that the air quality 2 As part of its ESP, TVA has a programmatic agreement that outlines procedures for Tribal consultation in the event of an inadvertent discovery (TVA and TSHPO 2016-TN5298).

14 impacts from this portion of the larger set of activities previously evaluated in the ESP EIS would not be significant.

The NRC staffs assessment of the greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions related to building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site was also provided in Section 4.7 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136), where the NRC staff determined that the atmospheric impacts of GHGs would not be noticeable. Because the exemption-related activities are only a portion of the full set of CRN construction activities discussed in Appendix K of ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136), the GHG emissions from use of fossil-fuel fired equipment are expected to be smaller than the larger set of activities previously evaluated in the ESP EIS. Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the impact on air resources from GHG emissions from the exemption-related activities would not be significant.

During the audit of the exemption request, the NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information related to air quality and GHG emissions associated with the exemption activities that would affect the staffs determination that these impacts would not be significant.

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts A summary of the NRC staffs assessment of the nonradiological impacts associated with installing two or more SMRs at the CRN Site was provided in Section 4.8.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). Based on the NRC staffs analysis, the nonradiological health impacts from building activities associated with the CRN Site, which included dust emission, occupational injuries, and traffic accidents, was SMALL for all categories with the exception of noise, which was MODERATE (NRC 2019-TN6136).

5.8.1 Public and Occupational Health and Traffic Impacts During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, staff identified activities associated with nonradiological impacts. Dust suppression on a footprint that is smaller than that evaluated in the ESP EIS would be expected. The construction workforce is expected to be much smaller than that evaluated in the ESP EIS and therefore traffic impacts would be expected to be smaller. Adherence to Federal and State regulations regarding air quality and BMPs would limit impacts to the public and occupational worker. Occupational health and safety, including from noise exposure to the occupational worker, would be managed in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1910, Occupational Health and Safety Standards, 29 CFR Part 1926, Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, and 40 CFR Part 204 (TN653),

Noise Emission Standards from Construction Equipment. BMPs would also be in use, similar to those described in the ESP EIS. Given that these impacts were determined to be SMALL for construction activities evaluated in the ESP EIS for two or more SMRs, and that the exemption-related activities are only a portion of the greater construction activities evaluated in the ESP EIS, the NRC staff determined that the nonradiological health impacts from this portion of the larger set of activities evaluated in the ESP EIS would not be significant.

5.8.2 Noise to Members of the Public The NRC staffs assessment of the noise impacts associated with the CRN construction activities were provided in Section 4.8.2 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136).

Noise impacts from construction activities were categorized as MODERATE for the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). The scope of the ESP review for building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site also included activities associated with building support facilities, work in the BTA,

15 improvement of the highway access ramps for State Route 58 and Bear Creek Road, and rebuilding, upgrades, or reconductoring of transmission lines and other activities not considered part of the exemption request-related activities.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff identified noise related activities associated with the installation of the initial ground support system. The exemption-related activities associated with noise impacts encompass a smaller scope in terms of the number of activities and in terms of the period of time and the extent of the area over which noise generating activities will occur. The same types of noise causing equipment will be in use for the exemption request-related activities as described in Section 4.8.2 of the ESP EIS (TVA 2024-TN10331). Mitigation measures and BMPs described in ESP EIS Section 4.8.2, TVAs PEIS Section 2.9.2, and TVAs July 10, 2024 response to audit information needs will reduce the potential impacts of noise (NRC 2019-TN6136; TVA 2022-TN10323, TVA 2024-TN10331). For the full scope of the activities covered for the ESP, the ESP EIS stated that TVA would adhere to city ordinances for noise during building activities, and, therefore, the noise impacts from building would be minor and mitigation beyond what TVA had described would not be warranted. For these reasons, the NRC staff determined that the noise impacts from the activities associated with the exemption request would not be significant.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff requested updated information regarding nonradiological health impacts from exemption-related activities. TVA noted that three additional residences have been constructed along Backburn Lane; however, these locations are not closer to the exemption request activities than the distance for noise attenuation evaluated in the ESP EIS (TVA 2024-TN10331). The NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information that would call into question the above determination that the nonradiological health impacts, including those from noise, would not be significant.

5.9 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts The NRC staffs assessment of impacts from nonradiological wastes from building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site was provided in Section 4.10 of the ESP EIS and was determined to be SMALL (NRC 2019-TN6136). The conclusion included impacts from solid, sanitary, and gaseous effluents.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff identified the waste generating activities associated with the installation of initial ground support system (NRC 2024-TN10338). The waste generated from the exemption request-related activities are expected to be a smaller amount than that generated from all the building activities that were evaluated in the ESP EIS. The activities associated with the exemption request would also be conducted to comply with applicable regulations and managed with BMPs (TVA 2024-TN10331). Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the nonradioactive waste impacts from this portion of the larger set of activities previously evaluated in the ESP EIS would not be significant.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff requested updated information regarding exemption-related activities and discussed that information with TVA.

The staff has identified no new and significant information that would affect the above determination that the nonradioactive waste impacts from exemption request-related activities would not be significant.

16 5.10 Socioeconomic Impacts The NRC staffs assessment of the socioeconomic impacts associated with building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site was provided in Section 4.4 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). Based on the NRC staffs 2019 analysis in the ESP EIS, most of the socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL, including demographic impacts, economic impacts, tax impacts, and most of the infrastructure and community services impacts (i.e.,

housing, public services, and education). Most physical impacts from building at the CRN Site would be SMALL, with the exception of MODERATE impacts from noise, roadway degradation, and changes to visual aesthetics. Further, the building-related impacts on traffic, with mitigation, were identified as MODERATE to LARGE.

The scope of the ESP review included site preparation activities in addition to land use changes in the BTA; improvement of the highway access ramps for State Route 58 and Bear Creek Road; and transmission lines rebuilding, upgrades, or reconductoring activities (NRC 2019-TN6136). These activities are not part of the more narrow scope of activities evaluated as part of the exemption request.

For the ESP review, TVA estimated that 3,300 construction workers would be required during the peak 6-month employment period for the proposed construction activities, and the average monthly workforce size over the 72-month construction period would be 1,764 workers (NRC 2019-TN6136). As indicated in the ESP review, during shift changes at peak employment, up to 2,412 worker vehicles would be expected to use local roads to access or exit the CRN Site (AECOM 2015-TN5000). Additionally, TVA expected, on average, 90 vehicles per day to deliver construction materials, equipment, and supplies to the site (NRC 2019-TN6136). This is expected to result in a significant increase in traffic volume and heavy haul loads, particularly affecting Bear Creek Road as evaluated in the ESP review.

During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff identified activities associated with the CRN-1 RB excavation and installation of the initial ground support system (TVA 2024-TN10331). These activities and the affected area are a reduction in scope from the building activities and affected area described in the NRC ESP EIS (which was for building the full CRN project comprising two or more SMRs at the site) (NRC 2019-TN6136).

The majority of building activities for the entire site would not be visible from local residences and businesses close to the CRN Site. Because the building activities corresponding to the entire CRN Site would not be visible, the activities associated with this narrower scope would also not be visible. Thus, the NRC staff determined that the physical impacts on visual aesthetics associated with the exemption request would not be significant.

The workforce for the exemption request-related activities is estimated to be 25 to 30 personnel per shift with 2 shifts on a 5 day, 10-hour work schedule. The duration of excavation request-related activities is estimated to be 16-18 months (TVA 2024-TN10331).

Both the workforce size and the construction duration of the activities associated with the exemption request are significantly less than the proposed activities reviewed in the ESP EIS, resulting in much smaller traffic load on the road network close to the CRN Site. Thus, the NRC staff determined that both the physical impacts on the road conditions and the traffic impacts due to volume changes from the activities associated with the exemption request would not be significant. Noise impacts are discussed separately in Section 5.8 of this EA and were determined to be not significant.

17 Given the much smaller disturbance area and workforce size of the exemption request-related activities, the NRC staff concluded that the overall socioeconomic impacts from the proposed activities would not be significant. During the NRC staffs audit of the exemption request, the staff requested updated information regarding exemption request-related activities and discussed that information with TVA. The NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information related to socioeconomic impacts from the exemption request-related activities that would potentially change the above determination that the socioeconomic impacts would not be significant.

5.11 Environmental Justice The NRC staffs assessment of the socioeconomic and environmental justice (EJ) impacts associated with building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site was provided in Section 4.5 of the ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136). Because no low-income or minority communities were identified in close proximity to the CRN Site for the proposed action investigated in the NRC ESP EIS (NRC 2019-TN6136), no pathways for EJ impacts exist, and the NRC staff concludes that the exemption request-related activities would not have disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects to minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of the site.

5.12 Summary The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts from the proposed action which would allow TVA to install and leave in place components of the initial ground support system for the RB excavation. The 2019 ESP EIS evaluated construction impacts from all activities associated with building two or more SMRs at the CRN Site and which encompassed the activities associated with the exemption request. Because the exemption related activities make up a narrow portion of the activities already evaluated in the ESP EIS, this EA is therefore tiered to the broader EIS, which fully analyzed the significant effects of construction, operation, and decommissioning two or more SMRs at the CRN site. Therefore, this EA tiers from the ESP EIS. In addition, the NRC staff relied on information in the TVAs exemption request (TVA 2023-TN10326), the TVA PEIS (TVA 2022-TN10323), and information obtained from an audit of the exemption request, including the identification and evaluation of any new and potentially significant information related to exemption request activities (NRC 2024-TN10338; TVA 2024-TN10331). The environmental impacts evaluated in the ESP EIS included the impacts from building and operating two or more SMRs (along with support facilities, road improvements, work in the BTA and transmission line upgrades) and was determined to be MODERATE or LARGE for some resource areas. However, in this EA, the NRC staff determined that the impacts from the smaller affected area and smaller scope of exemption related activities would not be significant. TVA stated in its November 2023 submittal (TVA 2023-TN10326) that if redress should be necessary per 10 CFR 50.12(b)(2), the initial ground support system would be left in place and covered as part of the excavation backfill.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, the NRC staff determined that the proposed action will result in no adverse effect to historic properties. No objections were received.

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC considered denial of the exemption request (i.e., the no-action alternative). If NRC were to deny the exemption request, TVA would not be allowed to install components of the initial ground support system for the RB excavation before the CP is issued and would need to wait until a decision is made on its CP

18 application, if submitted. Denial of the exemption request would avoid the environmental impacts discussed in this EA, unless TVA applies for and NRC grants a CP, in which case the impacts would then be delayed and incurred when CRN-1 facilities are built. A denial and subsequent delay of the excavation-related activities and subsequent operation of the CRN Site facility would potentially jeopardize the economic viability of the project and the subsequent development of a carbon-free electricity generation source (TVA 2023-TN10326).

7.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The NRC has prepared this EA for the proposed action. Based on this EA, the NRC staff has determined that there would be no significant environmental impact associated with granting the requested exemption, and an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

8.0 REFERENCES

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities. TN249.

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. TN250.

40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204, Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment. TN653.

40 CFR Part 1501. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1501, NEPA and Agency Planning. TN4876.

ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). 2024. Letter from Rachel Mangum, Assistant Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, Federal Permitting, Licensing, and Assistance Section, to NRC, dated August 15, 2024, regarding Clinch River Nuclear (CRN) Site Project Exemption, Roane County, Tennessee, ACHP Project Number: 021296. Washington, D.C.

ADAMS Accession No. ML24235A008. TN10813.

AECOM. 2015. Clinch River Site Traffic Assessment. Final Technical Report, Greenville, South Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML17334A043. TN5000.

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. TN1010.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024. Letter from the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, to NRC, dated July 7, 2024, regarding List of Threatened and Endangered Species That May Occur in Your Proposed Project Location or May Be Affected by Your Proposed Project.. Cookeville, TN. ADAMS Accession No. ML24220A287. TN10339.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024. Letter from the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, to NRC, dated October 7, 2024, regarding List of Threatened and Endangered Species That May Occur in Your Proposed Project Location or May Be Affected by Your Proposed Project. Cookeville, TN. ADAMS Accession No. ML24281A203. TN10610.

19 National Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. TN4157.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Construction and Operation of Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant.

NUREG-0139, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML082610503. TN5083.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. Memorandum from B. Clayton, Chief, Environmental Technical Support Branch, to J.E. Lyons, Director, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, regarding Transmittal of Proposed Revision to Environmental Standard Review Plan NUREG-1555 Front Matter and Introduction, Rev 1. Washington, D.C.

ADAMS Accession No. ML071860383. TN10341.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017. LIC-109, Revision 2, Acceptance Review Procedures. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16144A521. TN10330.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018. Letter from A. Muniz to the Tennessee Historical Commission, dated April 20, 2018, regarding Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the Issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Early Site Permit Application for the Clinch River Nuclear Site in Roane County, Tennessee. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18092B609. TN5789.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019. Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Clinch River Nuclear Site. NUREG-2226, Washington, D.C.

ADAMS Package Accession No. ML19087A266. TN6136.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019. Memorandum from S. Imboden, to C.I. Román, dated July 25, 2019, regarding Clarification of Terms Used for Determining Significance of Environmental Impacts in Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19071A033. TN6448.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019. Tennessee Valley Authority, Clinch River Nuclear Site, Early Site Permit, Docket No.52-047. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19352D868. TN10325.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020. LIC-103, Revision 2, Exemptions from NRC Regulations. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19155A121. TN10329.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Letter from A.H. Fetter, Senior Project Manager, to B. McDermott, Licensing and Planning, Tennessee Valley Authority, dated January 31, 2024, regarding Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Request for Exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.10© to Allow Excavation at the Clinch River Nuclear Site Prior to Construction Permit Issuance (EPID L-2024-LLE-002).

Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML24009A168. TN10328.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Summary Report on the Environmental Audit of the Request for Exemption to Allow Excavation at the Clinch River Nuclear Site Prior to Construction Permit Issuance. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML24228A193.

TN10338.

20 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Letter from J.M. Moses, Deputy Director Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to Honorable John Raymond Johnson, Governor, Absentee Shawnee Tribe; Honorable Bill Anoatubby, Governor, Chickasaw Nation; Honorable Chuck Hostin, Jr., Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation; Honorable Rick Sylestine, Chairman, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Honorable Wilson Yargee, Chief, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Honorable Joe Bunch, Chief, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians; Honorable Ryan K. Morrow, Town King, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Honorable Ben Barnes, Chief, Shawnee Tribe; Honorable Marcellus W. Osceola, Jr., Seminole Tribe of Florida; Honorable Lewis J. Johnson, Chief, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Honorable Stephanie A. Bryan, Chairwoman, Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Honorable David Hill, Principal Chief, Muscogee Nation; Honorable Cyrus Ben, Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Honorable Stephanie Yahola, Mekko Kialegee Tribal Town; Libby Rogers, Principal Chief, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Honorable Glenna J.

Wallace, Chief, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Honorable Mitchell Hicks, Principle Chief, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Honorable Deborah Dotson, President, Delaware Nation; Honorable Jonathan Cernek, Chairwoman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana; Honorable Gary Batton, Chief, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, dated July 26, 2024, regarding Request to Initiate Section 106 Consultation for the Clinch River Nuclear Site Project Exemption Request Review in Roane County, Tennessee (Docket Number 99902056). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Package No. ML24172A248. TN10342.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Letter from M. Rome, Chief, Environmental Technical Review Branch 1, Division of Rulemaking, Environment, and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to E. P. McIntyre, JR., Executive Director and State Historic Preservation Officer, Tennessee Historical Commission, State Historic Preservation Office, dated July 26, 2024, regarding Request to Initiate Section 106 Consultation for the Clinch River Nuclear Site Project Exemption Request Review in Roane County, Tennessee (Docket Number: 99902056). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Package No.

ML24172A196. TN10336.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Letter from M. Rome, Chief of Environmental Technical Review Branch 1, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to E. Patrick McIntyre, Jr.,

Executive Director and State Historic Preservation Officer, dated October 1, 2024, regarding Notice of Availability and Request for Comment Regarding the Environmental Assessment for the Clinch River Nuclear Stie Project Exemption Request Review in Roane County, Tennessee (Docket Number: 99902056). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML24253A196.

TN10811.

21 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Letter from J.M. Moses, Deputy Director Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, to Honorable John Raymond Johnson, Governor, Absentee Shawnee Tribe; Honorable Chuck Hostin, Jr., Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation; Honorable Rick Sylestine, Chairman, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas; Honorable Wilson Yargee, Chief, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town; Honorable Joe Bunch, Chief, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians; Honorable Ryan K. Morrow, Town King, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town; Honorable Ben Barnes, Chief, Shawnee Tribe; Honorable Marcellus W. Osceola, Jr., Seminole Tribe of Florida; Honorable Lewis J. Johnson, Chief, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; Honorable Stephanie A.

Bryan, Chairwoman, Poarch Band of Creek Indians; Honorable David Hill, Principal Chief, Muscogee Nation; Honorable Cyrus Ben, Chief, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; Honorable Stephanie Yahola, Mekko Kialegee Tribal Town; Libby Rogers, Principal Chief, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Honorable Glenna J. Wallace, Chief, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Honorable Mitchell Hicks, Principle Chief, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Honorable Deborah Dotson, President, Delaware Nation; Honorable Jonathan Cernek, Chairwoman, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, dated July 26, 2024, regarding Notice of the Historical and Cultural Resources Analysis of the initial EA for the Clinch River Nuclear Site Project Exemption Request Review in Roane County, Tennessee (Docket Number 99902056).

Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Package No. ML24253A101. TN10812.

THC (Tennessee Historical Commission). 2018. Letter from E.P. McIntyre, Jr., to NRC, dated May 16, 2018, regarding NRC/Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit, Roane County, TN. Nashville, Tennessee. ADAMS Accession No. ML18194A388.

TN5769.

THC (Tennessee Historical Commission). 2024. Letter from E. Patrick McIntyre, Jr., Executive Director and State Historic Preservation Officer, to NRC, dated October 9, 2024, regarding Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Clinch River Nuclear Project Exemption Request Support Activities, Project#: SHPO0005399, Oak Ridge, Roane County, TN. Washington, D.C.

ADAMS Accession Package No. ML24285A212. TN10814.

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2017. Letter from J.W. Shea to NRC, dated August 1, 2017, regarding Submittal of Supplemental Information Related to the Environmental Audit in Support of Early Site Permit Application for Clinch River Nuclear Site. CNL-17-097, Chattanooga, Tennessee. ADAMS Accession No. ML17234A003. TN4922.

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2022. A Guide for Environmental Protection and Best Management Practices for Tennessee Valley Authority Construction and Maintenance Activities, Revision 4. S.T. Benefield, R.L. Brannon, J.C. Buttram, B.V. Dalton, G.D. Dalton, C.A. Henley, W.G. Martin, A.E. Masters, C.L. Phillips, C.A. Suttles, and R.C Wilson, eds. Chattanooga, Tennessee. Accessed August 21, 2024 at https://tva-azr-eastus-cdn-ep-tvawcm-prd.azureedge.net/cdn-tvawcma/docs/default-source/energy/transmission/a-guide-for-environmental-protection-and-best-management-practices-for-tva-construction-and-maintenance-activities-august-2022ea9924e6-329f-4d3a-a0ac-d66bb9aa0894.pdf?sfvrsn=b9e08843_3. TN10340.

22 TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2022. Clinch River Nuclear Site Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology Park Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Roane County, Tennessee. Chattanooga, Tennessee. TN10323.

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2023. Letter from S.W. Hunnewell, Vice President, New Nuclear Program, to NRC Document Control Desk, dated November 30, 2023, regarding Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50.10(c) to Allow Excavation at the Clinch River Nuclear Site Prior to Construction Permit Issuance. NNP-23-004, Chattanooga, Tennessee. ADAMS Accession No. ML23335A100. TN10326.

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2024. Letter from S.W. Hunnewell, Vice President, New Nuclear Program, to NRC Document Control Desk, dated July 10, 2024, regarding Response to Excavation Exemption Request Audit and Information Needs. NNP-24-003, Chattanooga, Tennessee. ADAMS Accession No. ML24193A301. TN10331.

TVA and TSHPO (Tennessee Valley Authority and Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office). 2016. Programmatic Agreement Between the Tennessee Valley Authority and Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office Regarding the Management of Historic Properties Affected by the Clinch River SMR Project. TVA, Knoxville Tennessee and TSHPO, Nashville, Tennessee. ADAMS Accession No. ML17296A399. TN5298.