ML12171A245

TVA, Watts Bar, NPDES Permit No. TN0020168 - Permit Modification Request - Addition of Unit 2 Operation

ML12171A245
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	08/17/2010
From:	Johnson L Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Urban R Watts Bar Special Projects Branch, State of TN, Dept of Environment & Conservation, Div of Water Pollution Control
Poole J
References
NPDES TN0020168
Download: ML12171A245 (245)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:0Sr: q!/O

                                                                                                  \L8t (Alt~T)

Tennessee Valley Aut hority. 11 01 Market Street. Chattanooga. Tennessee 37402 -2801 August 17, 2010 Dr. Richard Urban, PhD RECEIVED Division of Water Pollution Control A G1 8 2010 Chattanooga Field Office Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation PerIfit Section State Office Building, Suite 550 540 McCallie Avenue Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402

Dear Dr. Urban:

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) - WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLAN I (WBN)- NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0020168 - PERMIT MODIFICATION REQUEST - AIDDITION OF UNIT 2 OPERATION . I Enclosed are a signed original and a two-sided copy of a NPDES application packet to revise the NPDES permit to allow for WBN Unit 2 operations. This packet consists of EPA Form 1, site map, Form 2C, Form 2C addendum , flow schematic, and a permi~ address form. Als.o enclosed is a reasonable potential evaluation for whole effluent toxicity. The revisions , which address the planned startup and operation of Unit 2, are discussed below. Sampling for the analytical data provided in this application occurred in May 2010 and historical data were compiled from th e period of June 'I, 2009, th rough May 31, 2010. With respect to wastewater discharges and water intake effects, the changes ,hat will occur are:

1. Insignificant hydrothermal effects on near-field and far field temperatu[es and on th e operation of the Supplemental Condenser Cooling W ater (SCCW) sY1tem are expected. .1

2. Towerbrom treatments for condenser cooling water (CCW) will increflse 100 percent; however, TVA anticipates being able to comply with the eXistl'ng , approved Biocide/Corrosion Treatment Plan (B/CTP).

3. The intake pumping station rate will increase from approximately 52 ~ G D to approximately 75 MGD, and

4. A corresponding increase of essential raw cooling water (ERCW) and raw cooling water (RCW) chemical additives wiil occur.

These changes are discussed in more deta il below:

Dr. Richard u rbbn Page 2 ) August 17, 201@ RECEiVED AUG 1 8 2010 Outfalls 101 an1d 113 .. . Permit Section t:Jear-field hydrorhermal .effect~ from ~BN .c?~sist of the impact of the heated effluent on the n~e: water te':lPrrature In the Immediate VICinity of the plant as defined by the assigned mixing zones In I~he NPDES permit. Even with the previous changes that have been made (e.g., the supple1me.ntal con~enser cooling water system and new steam generators for Unit

1) and the ReservOir Operations Study crlanges to the operation of the Tennessee River, updated ~ydroth: ermal.anaIYSeS (discussed in more detail below) confirm that the operation of two Units at WBN will not have a significant impact on near-field hydrothermal conditions in the Tennesse~ River. Because the second cooling tower at WBN will be operational w ith the startup of U ~ it 2, effects on water temperatures in the river for two-un it operations can be effectively maint~ined within the current NPDES Permit limitations for all outfalls without significant adve~re impacts on plant operations. Additionally, data from recent field studies support the metllods used by TVA to model the dissipation of waste heat in the river, and demonstrate that the patterns of mixing from the outfalls provide ample space for fish passage and the protection of bottom habitat. By virtue of the fact that near~field thermal impacts are insignificant, far-field impacts on Ch ickamauga Reservoir are also expected to be insignificant. )Ongoing activities under th e TVA Reservoir Releases Improvement Program and the TVA Vital Signs Monitoring Program would continue to provide close scrutiny of any potential far-field impacts from the WBN effluents.

The dimensions 10 f the Outfall 101 thermal mixing zone (240 feet wide by 240 feet dO'v'Jnstream) are based on a physical hydrothermal model test of the diffusers ,,",:hich indicated that sufficient mixing would be achieved at a distance equivalent to rough ly the length of the outflow sections of the diffusers (80 feet long for the upstream leg and 160 feet long for the dOW?stream leg). The width of the river at Outfall 101 is approximately 1100 feet; therefore, about 80 percent of the river is available for fish refuge and passage. The designs of the diffusers and mixing zone were based on the operation of both units; therefore, no chcfnges are anticipated for accommodating the operation of Unit 2. However, TVA will perform studies Similar to those performed for Unit 1 to confirm the performance of l the diffusers witi the operation of two units at WBN. . For Outfall 11 3, two mix ing zones have been established in th e existing reissued permit to better align monitorin g for this outfall with the behavior of the effluent in the receiving stream. Computations and measurements show that spreading of the effluent varies substantially between co nditidns with and without flow in the river from W atts Bar Dam. For conditions w ith dam flow, the effluent tends to reside on the right descending bank and is monitored by an active mixing zone via in-stream temperature monitors. For conditions without dam flow , the effluent can spread across the river and is monitored by the passive mixing zone. Because the pa~sive mixing zone encompasses areas 'Nhich must remain clear for navigation, it is checked biannualiy by TVA (in the winter and summer) by special water tem peratu re surJeys rath er than in-stream monitors. Outfall 113 is a near-surface discharge, and cbmputations and measurements confirm that the effluent disperses in the surface region of the water coiumn providing ample room for fish passage. TVA does not propose any changes to the dimensions of the Outfall 113 mixing zones with the completion and startup of Unit 2. TVA has perfOr~ed an updated hydroth ermal analysis of the WBN heat dissipation system for the operation ofWBN Unit 2. Two operating cases were considered: (1) Unit 1 only (i. e., current, base ca e conditions) and (2) the combined operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2, with the

RECEIVED Dr. Richard Urban Page 3 AUG 1 8 20iO August 17, 20 10 Permit Section SCCW system serving only Unit 2. The analysis indicates that, for Outfall 101, maximum

• hourly downstream temperatures at the edge of the mixing zone do not vary by more than 0.1 of between the base case and Unit 2 operations. These slight changes are well within the bounds of the current NPDES permit. Also, the maximum hourly temperature rise at the edge of the mixing zone does not vary by more than O.4°F in the spring and winter and 0.1of in the summer and fall between the two cases. In addition, maximum hourly temperature changes at the edge of the Outfall 101 mixing zone do not vary by more than 0.5 of in the winter and spring or more than 0.1 of in the summer and fall between the two cases. For Outfall 113, a similar comparison indicates that the differences are 0.1 of or less for all months with the exception of a predicted increase in the hourly rate of change from 2.4°F to 2.6°F in April. A more complete discussion of the hydrothermal analysis, including assumptions regarding the flow and temperature of releases from Watts Bar Dam, can be found in Chapter 3 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plan Unit 2 (June 2007). A copy is enclosed for your convenience. .

For Outfall 113, the NPDES permit includes a limitation on the maximum temperature of the receiving stream bottom for the protection of a mussel relocation zone (MRZ) . This temperature is not estimated by the WBN hydrothermal model. However, the maximum historical temperature for the MRZ is approximately 84°F, which is well below the permit limit of 92.3°F. Modeling indicates that the Outfall 113 maximum summer dischargetemperature will not increase with two-unit operations. Furthermore, the NRC license temperature limit for the essential rav"'! cooling 'vvater (ERCW) intake (downstream apPiOximately 1.3 miles) is expected to be 88°F. Therefore, in terms of protecting bottom-dwelling organisms, the operation of WBN would be suspended and the heat load from Outfall 113 would be dramatically reduced if the ERCW intake temperature approached 88°F. TVA requests that the existing permit limitation for Total Residual Chlorine be retained in the modified permit. Although the expected flow rate for Outfall 101 (diffuser discharge) for two unit operation is 57.76 MGD, which is a 23.73 MGD increase over the rate for Un it 1 alone, this is still within the bounds of the condition evaluated for the existing NPDES permit. The discussion of total residual chlorine limitations on page R-10 of R-67 of the current permit indicates that the existingconcentration limit of 0.1 mg/L for TRC is considered to be protective of water quality in the Tennessee River at a flow from Outfall 10'1 of 67.43 MGD which exceeds th e expected flow rate for 2-unit operations by a considerable margin . Similarly , the expected flow rate for Outfall 113 (Supplemental Condenser Cooling W ater) for two unit operations is 148.895 MGD compared to the maximum of 178.38 MGD evaluated in the current rationale. Outfall 102 Th ere have been no discharges from this outfall since March 2005. Therefore, the EPA Form 2C data for this Outfall are for historical data. Antidegradation Considerations The withdrawal rate for the intake pumping station located in Chickamauga Reservoir will increase from approximately 52 MGD to approximately 75 MGD and the SCCW intake withdrawal rate will remain approximately 174 MGD. Of the total withdrawal of approximately 249 MGD, approximately 42 MGD is consumptive (primarily cooling tower

Dr. Richard Urban RECEIVED Page 4 A ugust17, 20 10 AUG 1 8 2010 Permit Section evaporation) with the remainder returning to the stream via permitted outfalls. The consumption amoun!s to only 1.3% of the 7Q1 Q stream flow (3173.3 MGD). Therefore, - water withdrawals will continue to be de minimis as described in Rule 1200-4-3.04. No thermal degradation is proposed or anticipated. As discussed above, TVA has perfor~e.d ~n extensive hydrothermal analysis of the WBN heat dissipation system. Th is analYSIS Ind l cat~s that near-field (and thus fa r-field) thermal impacts are inSignificant and can be managed within the limitations of the cu rrent NPDES permit. The quantities of chem ica ls used for treatments of intake or process waters must be cond ucted *in accordance with a TDEC-approved Biocide/Corrosion Treatment Plan (B/CTP) . WBN's current B/CTP was approved in 2009. TVA anticipates that this provision w ill continue in the modified permit and plans to su bmit a revised B/CTP which addresses the changes in chemical treatments of ERCW and RCW and Towerbrom treatments of CCW for two unit operations at WBN. Approved loadings as described in the current B/CTP are expected to be adeq uate. Proposed Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Requirements TVA requests that the W ET limitations for Outfalls 101, 102, and 113 be revised as discussed in th e enclosed reasonable potential evaluation . CWA Section 316(b) As you are aware, WBN is subject to EPA's Phase II 316(b) reg ulations wh ich are currently suspended. TVA understands that EPA will issue a draft of the revised Phase II regulation sometime later this year or earl y next year and has directed the states to base NPDES permit requirements on best professional judgment as has been done in the past. T he WB N intake pumping station w ithd rawal rate from Chickamauga ReseNoi r for 2-unit operations *is commensu rate with the original plant design for closed cycle cooling. Therefore, Best Available Technology (BAT) requirements for 316(b) are clearly met for this intake. As refl ected on th e enclosed Form 2C flow schematic, the maximum expected intake pumping station withd rawal rate for normal 2-unit operations (i.e., for other than accident situatio ns) is 75.024 MG D (52,1 00 GPM). The ca lculated throu gh-screen velocity for this flow arid a normai summer pool elevation of 683 is 0.464 fps. Please note th at this calculation does account for screen guides and supports as well as the w ire comprising the mesh of the screens. TVA submitted biological monitoring data for the WBN SCCW intake that was collected in accordance with the Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) plan as deVeloped under the 31 6(b) Phase II requirements prior to their suspension by EPA on March 20, 2007. The content of this biological data, due no later than January 7, 2008, was agreed upon during the Novem ber 1, 2007, meeting with TDEC. Based on those data, TVA concluded that the

• WBN SCCW intake was not adversely impacting the fish community in the vicinity of WBN and, in accordance w ith Part III, H of the previous WBN NPDES permit, 316(b) limitations for this facility were determined to be in compliance based on best professio nal judg ment in accordance with CFR 401.43 and 122.43. There have been no changeS in the design or operation of the SCCW intake since that time, and the SCCW intake flow rate will not increase as a result of the startup and operation of WBN Unit 2. Therefore, TVA requests a

Dr. Richard Urba n PageS Aug ust 17, 2010 continuation of the current 316(b) BPJ determination pending reissuance of the final Phase II rule. Water Quality Certification for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) License TVA requests that the foJlowing sentence be inserted in the first paragraph of Part I A.

         "This TN-NPOES permit also constitutes the State's certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for the purpose of obtaining any federal license for activities resulting in the discharges covered under tile TN-NPOES permit."

TVA believes this would alleviate the need for preparing a separate water quality certification for the NRC. In order to support the planned startup and operation of WBN Unit 2 in the fall of 2011 , TVA requests an expeditious determination of completeness and will be in contact to schedule a meeting in the near future to review the application and to facil itate the development of planning limits, if applicable. in addition, we request concurrent public notices for the draft NPOES permit and the associated public hearing, and that the draft permit be issued by November 30,2010 if possible. TVA appreciates your consideration of the information provided herein in the development of the reissued permit. If you have any questions regarding this NPOES permit renewal application , please contact Mike Stiefel at (423) 751-6844 in Chattanooga, or you may contact him by email at mbstiefel@tva.gov. Sincerely, Lindy Johnson, Manager Water Permits and Compliance 50 Lookout Place cc: See Page 6 RECEIVED

                                                                               .i\UG 1 8 2010 Permit Section

Dr. Richard Urban Page 6 August 17, 2010 Enclosures cc: Mr. Vojin Janjic, Manager Permit Section Division of Water Pollution Control Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 6th Floor, L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243 REC~IVED AUG 1 8 20lO Perm" Sect'on

      ~                                                                                                                                                                                                                     sccw     QSN 113
      ,,,"-,.III,n,,l o rtowPal1i CCW - C o"d." ** , CooNnn w.,~,                                                                                                                                                                                     Discharge   148.89S CT-ConlilliJ To ...... '

E- Eva pllfaHon ERC.W - EI1lOI '!J/lncy R"wCoohnll Wollo. HPFP_lIlgh !'.unlle FII. P.oloct/o" Sy"tu'n M\i\'S-MunltlpulWil lor Uul'lply P-Protjl'!l~'lOn RCW-lIl1wCO<Ih"'JW"t" R~W-R"w S.r~rtll Wall! SCCW - SUI'I'lolNlntal CCW SGBO- St~.111 G,nortl lo. 010....;10;'" TOSS- TurbuIII BL/l!dlno Slo!lonSU/l1P

       'C -Irrnl\/ng~nt" IAvrp - VOlldfU W"lor T.o"lmIl111 Pbnt W TP - Walnl Tr llQ tmll rll Plaut KEY                                                                                            45.40B                                                                                                                           Noles:
          -+
                                                                                                                                                                                     ------r----

Illtonnillellt Flow 1. Both units are operallng in nonnal power generation mode.

          -'7       Chcmir.a l Addi ti ve J                                         2. Raw water additives will be used In the Intake Pumping Station and Ihe

[><) Normrt lly open va lvo Cooling Tower Basins .

         ~           Nonnll lly closed valve                                                                                                                                                                                                               3. For dual unit operAtion. two essenllal raw cooling water (ERCVV) pumps and si)( raw cooling water (RClN) pumps are operntlno wilh a n       Negligible fl ow                                                                                                                                                                                                                            tolal maximum flow rate of 52.100 GPM (75.024 MGO).

4. The flows through Ice Condenser chiller packages and various air coolers arc doubled from Unit 1 Only Operation . The ERCW. and RCWdlscharge rates were rationed up by 21% to balance Ihe now diagram.

References:

1. N3-67-4002, R25, ERCW System Description.

2. Calculalion No. MDN00002720100373 RO.

OSN 102 YHP OVefnOW Weir Discharge

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~o                     jJ

(!) J'> c:: m E RCW Tr"lIclin!l S crer! n Uil ck W(lsh 0.001 8 E RCW SI' lIinc fll Bac k Wa.h 0. 109

3 GJ ()

ERCWStl"i'l lnelli Leakage n f""'--f.* S t"l km Omrna!)\! S lnnl'. 0 .012 Yard Holding Pond (f) I-! 00 m CD Me tal Clunlng Wulu (0.0003) SW Ruroo ff (0.000 1 I Drum Rins ing {O.OOOI J Dwm Dew"t~"9 (0.00011 ("") 0 r-.J

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            =
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            =>

ITl Liquid RAdwdsle Syslem Diuel Cleaning Coolant (O.oool) 0.105

l Pnm ary Laboratory Wasle (0.000 1 )

nad/oa t tillo AoQr & Equiprr\lInt 0<<1101, Tanks, nndSu,,,,,,,jOOOJ9 ) 0.057 0 0.O"ft6 "A" TBSS wI Melal Cleaning Wasles

                                                                                                                               -------*--*0]j(i3-----*-*---*------

11.0 606 Mtll[ll Cleanlnn Wi.lslos Non-Rod Demin Water (0.011) Service Building Sump (0.020)

                                                       ~rI~                                                           TU/bine Building Diesel Geo (DIG ) Building Sump (0.0001)

Emergency DIG Building Sump (0.0001) Ne utral Wast e Tmlk Stalion CCW Pump StaUon Sump (0.0001) TVA Walls Bar Nuclear Plant NaOCI8uilding Sum p & Dike (0.00 1) P otabl e Wale! lIll e l eaks 0.0002 Sump HPFP System Flushes (0.003) 0.7373 NPDES Permit No" TN0020128 Potable Wate r Line l eaks (0.001) System Leakugo & Maintenance 0.0399 Storm Water Runolf (0.699) Flow Schematic for Dual Unit Operation Doce Th.ollOh Cooling Woller 0.001 Chemical Storage Rainwater Release (0.001) All Flows in MGD (ERCW & RCIN !iyGlcm) Malll HPFP System Groundwater Sump (0.001) Feell wa tef I!. Cnnden""tc SY51em& "A" July 2010 JUiW S yetc/II '-...l

TENN ESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) - WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT (WBN) - NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0020168 - APPLICATION FOR PERMIT MODIFICATION Current Whole Effluent (WET) Toxicity Limits (permit effective 7/1/10): Outfall 101 - 7-day or 3-brood IC 25 2! 3.3% effluent (30.3 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year Outfall 102 - 7-day or 3-brood IC 25 2! 3.3% effluent (30.3 TUc) Monitoring Frequency 2/year= (on ly if discharge operated 2! 30 days from Jan. - Jun., or Jul. - Dec. if all toxicity testing has not been completed fo r Outfall 101) Outfa ll 113 - 7-day or 3-brood IC 25 2! 8% effluent (12.5 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year Proposed Whole Effluent (WET) Toxicity Requirements: Outfall 101 - 7-day or 3-brood IC 25 2! 2.8% effluent (35.7 TUc)

                                                                           =

Monitoring Frequency 2/year, one during oxid izing biocide treatment and one during non-oxidizing biocide treatment Outfall 102 - 7 -day or 3-brood IC25 2! 2.8% effluent (35.7 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year (only if discharge operated 2! 30 days from Jan. - Jun ., or Jul. - Dec. if ali toxicity testing has not been completed for Outfall 101) Outfall 113 - 7-day or 3-brood IC 25 2! 6.7% effluent (14.9 TUc) Monitoring Freq uency = 2/yea r, one during oxidizing biocide treatment and one during non-oxidizing biocide treatment

Outfalls 101 and 113: In accordance with EPA's recommendation (Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPN505/2-90-001), and incorporating new flow rates associated with the operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2, WBN Outfall OSN101 and Outfall OSN113 would not be required to have chronic WET limits based on a demonstration of no Reasonable Potential (RP) for excursions above the ambient water quality chronic (CCC) criterion using effluent data for current operating conditions. Following guidance in the Technical Support Document (TSD) , when no RP exists, biomonitoring would be conducted at a frequency of only once every 5 years as part of the permit renewal process to document acceptable effluent toxicity and toxicity at the instream wastewater concentration (IWC) would serve only as a hard trigger for accelerated toxicity biomonitoring. However, raw water used at the facility is treated with corrosion inhibitors and biocide products. These products, which can become concentrated in the cooling tower system, are discharged through Outfalls 101 and 113. The chemical makeup of the products used can change during the permit period and the combined toxicity effect of the chemicals is not known . Thus it is not feasible to control toxicity only by the application of chemical specific effluent limits to the discharge. Toxicity testing is a reasonable method to evaluate the toxicity impacts of the products in the effluent. Therefore, TVA believes it is appropriate to incorporate the proposed WET requirements stated above for WBN Outfalls OSN 101 and OSN 113 that are specified in the Biocide Corrosion Treatment Plan (BCTP), approved by letter on dated July 30, 2004, with one test per outfall during oxidizing biocide treatment and one test per outfall during non-oxidizing biocide treatment. TVA is requesting permit language consistent with the BCTP. The following RP determination utilizes sixteen years (33 studies) and eleven years (22 studies) of WET biomonitoring data collected for Outfalls 101 and 113, respectively. Table 1 summarizes Outfall 101 biomonitoring results while Table 2 summarizes Outfall 113 biomonitoring results. Outfall 102: Sampling and analysis of Outfall OSN1 02 has not been required under the current permit or previous perm it since the conditions for biomonitoring were not met. No RP determination was made fo r this Outfall.

Table 1. Summary of WBN Outfall OSN101 WET Biomonitoring Results: Acute Results ~96-h Survival! Chronic Results

                                                       % Survival in Study                  Study Test Date             Test Species         Highest Toxicity     IC25      Toxicity Concentration Units (TUa)            Units (TUc)

Tested

1. Feb. 2-9, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 10.2 t 100%

                                                                           <1.0 Pimephales promelas       100%                                (IC 2s :<1 .0)

2. Aug . 26 - Sept. 22, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100%

                                                                           <1.0                    <1 .0 Pimephales promelas       100%

3. Feb. 1-8, 1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100%

                                                                           <1 .0                   <1 .0 Pimephales promelas       98%                       >100%

4. Aug . 9-16, 1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100%

                                                                           <1 .0                   <1.0 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >100%

5. Feb. 23 - Mar. 1, 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100%

                                                                            <1 .0                  <1 .0 Pimephales promelas        98%

6. Aug . 22-29, 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 89% >100%

                                                                            <1 .0                  <1 .0 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >100%

7. Feb. 19-26, ;997 Ceriodaphnia dubia 80% 58 .0%

                                                                            <1.0                    1.7 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >100%

8. Aug. 12-20, 1997 Ceriodaphnia dubia 0% 30.9%

3. 1 3.2 Pimephales promelas 100% >100%

9. Feb. 24 - Mar. 3, 1998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100%

                                                                            <1.0                   <1.0 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >100%

10. Sept. 16, 1998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 0% 32.4%

3.2 3. 1 Pimephales promelas 98% >100%

11. Mar. 2-9, 1999 Ceribdaphnia dubia 100% >100%

                                                                            <1.0                    2.5 Pimephales promelas       90%                        40%

12. Sept. 9 - Oct. 6, 1999 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2%

                                                                           <7. 58                 <7.58 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >13.2%

13. Apr. 4-11 , 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2%

                                                                           <7.58                  <7. 58 Mar. 22-29, 2000         Pim ep hales promelas     98%                       >13.2%

14. Oct. 25 - Nov. 1,2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2%

                                                                           <7.58                  <7.58 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >13.2%

Summary of WBN Outfall OSN101 WET Biomonitoring Results (continued): \\:)

Acute Results ~96-h Survivall Chronic Results

                                              % Survival in Study                    Study Test Date           Test Species       Highest Toxicity      IC 25      Toxicity Concentration Units (TUa)               Units (TUc)

Tested

15. Apr. 18-25, 2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 89% <7.58 >13.2% . <7.58 Apr. 17-24, 2001 Pimephales promelas 95% >13.2%

16. Oct. 15-22, 2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% <7.58 >13.2% <7.58 Pimephales promelas 100% >13.2%

17. Apr. 14-19, 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% <7.58 >13.2% <7.58 Apr. 28 - May 3, 2002 Pimephales promelas 100% >13.2%

18 Oct. 22-29, 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2%

                                                                  <7.58                    <7.58 Oct. 21-28, 2002      Pimephales promelas     100%                      >13.2%

19. Apr. 14-21,2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2%

                                                                  <7.58                    <7.58 Pimephales promelas     100%                      >13.2%

20. Nov. 3-10 , 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90% 12.1%

                                                                  <7.58                     8.3 Pimephales promelas     100%                      >13.2%

21 . Apr. 20-27, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2%

                                                                  <7:58                    <7.58 Pimephales promelas      98%                      >13.2%

I,

Summary of WBN Outfall OSN101 WET Biomonitoring Results (continued): Acute Results (96-h Survival) Chronic Results

                                                        % Survival in          St d                      Study Test Date                     Test Species         Highest.           TOX~C~y         IC25      Toxicity Concentration U*t (TU )                        Units (TUc)

Tested ms a n 66 33 33 Maximum 100% 7.6 8 .3 Minimum 0% 1.0 1.00 Mean 95 .8% 4.66 4 .75 %CV 18.2 55.63 53.47 fStatistical endpoint biased by selection of the dilution series. IC 25 derived from original data. Current permit was effective July 1, 2010. Shaded area designates data collected during previous permit (Effective Date: November 5, 2004). Applicable permit lim it: IC 25 ;:: 2.4% , 42.3 TUc. Applicable permit dilution series: Control, 1. 2%, 2.4%, 4.8%, 9.6%,19.2% .

Table 2. Summary ofWBN Outfall OSN113 WET Biomonitoring Results:

                                                 . Acute Results (96-h         Chronic Results Survival)

Test Date

                                              % Survival in                             Study Test Species                           Study Highest                                Toxicity Toxicity   IC 25 Concentration                           Units (TUc)

Units (TUa) Tested

1. October 19-26, 1999 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

                                                                   <2.43                 <2.43 Pimephales promelas        98%                    >41.2%

2. Apr. 4-11,2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90% 19.5%

                                                                   <2.43                  5.0 Pimephales promelas       100%                    >41.2%

3. Oct. 25 - Nov. 1, 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

                                                                   <2.43                 <2.43 Pimephales promelas        98%                    >41.2%

4. Apr. 18-25, 2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41 .2%

                                                                   <2.43                  4.0 Pimephales promelas       100%                     25.1%

5. Oct. 15-23,2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

                                                                   <2.43                 <2.43 Pimephales promelas       100%                    >41.2%

6. Apr. 14-19,2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

                                                                   <2.43                  5.0 Apr. 28 - May 3, 2002  Pimephales promelas        93%                     20.0%

7. Oct. 21-28, 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41 .2%

                                                                   <2.43                 <2.43 Pimephales promelas        98%                    >41.2%

8. Apr. 15-22, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

                                                                   <2.43                 <2.43 Pimephales promelas        93%                    >41.2%

9. Nov. 3-10, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

                                                                   <2.43                 <2.43 Pimephales promelas       100%                    >41 .2%

10. Apr. 20-27, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41. 2%

                                                                   <2.43                 <2.43 Pimephales prornelas      100%

I Summary of WBN Outfall OSN113 WET Biomonitoring Results (continued ): I Acute Results (96-h Survival) Chronic Results

                                                     % Survival in       St d                      Study Test Date                Test Species            Highest"        TO~C~           IC 25     Toxicity Concentration    U"t (TU )                  Units (TUc)

Tested nI s a N 44 22 22 Maximum 100% 3.29 5 Minimum 90% 2.43 2.43 Mean 99.3% 2.90 3.20 %CV 2. 12 15.12 22.96 Current permit was effective July 1, 2010. Shaded area designates data collected du ring previous permit (Effective Date: November 5, 2004). Applicable permit limits: IC25 ~ 7.6%, 13.2 TUc. Applicable permit dilution series: Control, 1.9%, 3.8%, 7.6%, 15.2%, 30.4%.

OSN 101 Reasonable Potential (RP) Determination Based on OSN101 Effluer t Data Only Technical Support Document, Text Box 3-2 and Section 3.3 (EPN505/:2-90-001) DILUTION OSN101 Discharge Flow = 57.76 MGD (based on revised flow schematic) Stream 1010 = 2062 MGD Dilution Factor (DF): DF= Qs= 2062 = 35.71 Qw 57.76 Instream Wastewater Concentration (lWC): IWe = OF-I x 100 = 2.80% Chronic TOXICITY Step 1 33 WET Biomonitoring Studies, Maximum Observed Toxicity is 8.3 TUc. [Average toxicity = 4.75 TUc; compl iance limit = 42.3 TUc (lC 25 ~ 2.37% effluent).] I Step 2-3 Coefficient of variation (CV) = 0.53. For ~ 20 samples arid a CV of 0.5, the multiplying factor (99% confidence level and 99% PTbability) is 2.0. Step 4 = Low river flow 2062 MGD and WBN Outfall OSN101 discharge =57.76

                =

MGD 2.80% Instream Waste Concentration (IWC) after mixing. At a 0.028 IWC: 8.3 TUc x 2.0 x 0.028 =0.46 TUc Step 5 0.46 TUc is less than the ambient CCC criterion of 1.0 TUc. This outcome demonstrates that no Reasonable Potential for excurs io ns above the CCC exists, based on effluent data obtain d from testing con ducted under cu rrent operating conditions. OSN 113 Reasonable Potential (RP) Determination Based o n OSN 11 3 Efflue ~t Data On ly Technical Support Document, Text Box 3-2 and Section 3.3 (EPN505/2 001 ) DI LUTION OSN113 Discharge Flow =148.895 MGD (based on revised flow schematic) Stream 10 10 =2062 MGD Dilution Factor (DF): DF = Os + Qw = 2062 + 148.895 = 148 -

                                                         . )

Qw 148.895

Instream Wastewater Concentration (IWC): IWC = DF- 1 X 100 = 6.73% Chronic TOXld lTY Step 1 22 WET Biomonitoring Studies, Maximum Observed Toxicity"is 5.0 TUc. [Average toxicity = 3.20 TUc; compliance limit = 13.2 TUc (IC 25 ;;:: 7.58% effluent).] Step 2-3 = Coefficient of variation (CV) 0.23. For ~ 20 samples and a CV of 0.2, the multiplying factor (99% confidence level and 99% probability) is 1.3. Step 4 = Low lstream flow plus WBN Outfall OSN113 discharge 2210.895 MGD and ~BN Outfall OSN113 discharge = 148.895 MGD = 6.73% Instream wasj e Concentration (IWe) after mixing. At a 1.0673 IWC: 5.0 TUc x 1.3 x 0.0673 = 0.44 TUc Step 5 0.44 TUc is less than the ambient CCC criterion of 1.0 TUc. This outcome demonstrates that no Reasonable Potential for excursions above the CCC exists, based on effluent data obtained from testing conducted under current operating conditions. \~

Pl ease print or type in the unshaded areas only (fiJI-in areas are spaced for eme type, Ie

                                            .. , 12 ciJaracterslinch)                                                                                                                   Form Approved O J 6 No 2040-0086 Approval expires 5-31-92
                                                                                                                                                                                                 . r:.t>AI.D.                                         ~~~ .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ,.           ,'~~~

FORM U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 EPA GENERAL INFORMATION ~TI 1\1 261410101 3 101 a 35 ~ r£- GEN ERAL Consolidated Permits Program Fl. l . .. D (Read the "General Instructions" before starting.) 1 I 2 I 13 14 15 LABEL ITEMS IGtoN to RAL IN::; I HU<.; I IUN::; If a preprinted label has been provided, affix in the

  ~~~~~                                                                                                                                                                                                  designated Is pace. Review the information care-fully; if any ?f it is incorrect, cross through it and enter the correct data in the appropriate fill-in area
  ~~,,~                                                                         L         E                         L             S        C below. . Als~,     I if any of the preprinted data is absent (the area ta the left of the label space lists the information lthat should appear), please provide it
  ~

in the proper lilt-in area(s) below. II the label is

                                      ~

complete ahd correct, you need not complete Items 1, 1II,lv, and VI (except VI-B which must be completed l egardleSS). Complete alt items il no

  ~

label has been provided. Refer to the instructions for detailed litem descriptions and for the legal authorizatiqns under which this data is collected. II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS 1V,4~@:ilr~'iiii!ii;}iIJl~~f!f-lli\'~~l~!~\Jlr ;:;..:... ~~~~\\l>!$,:!l1!;!.~j~~.~~4t~_~~@.j~~i""~1l<'t'J~~"!,ii INSTRUCTIONS: Complete A through J to detemnine whether you nee a to suomlt any pemnit application l orms to tne t::t"'A. if you answer yes to any questions, you must submit this form and the supplemental form listed in the parenthesis following the question. Mark "X" in the box in the third cd1lumn if the supplemental form is attached. If you answer "no" to each question, you need not submit any of these forms. You may answer "no" if your activity is excluded from permit requirements; see Section C of the instructions. See also, Section D of the instructions for definitions of bold-faced terms. I MARK 'X' MARK 'X' SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YES NO FORM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I YES NO FORM AITACHED AITACHED A. s Ir IS aCllilY a PUDJlCIY owneo nearmem worKS B. uoes or WIll tnlS raclilty (elmer eX/Slmg O fproposeo) wh ich results in a discharge to waters of the U.S.? include a concentrated animal feeding operation or X (FORM2A) X aquatic animal production facility whi9h results in 16 17 18 a discharge to waters of the U.S.? (FORM 26) 19 20 21 II.;* S Ie IS a raci Iry wnlcn currentlY results In olscnarges O. IS rms a proposea laciliry (omer man mose oeSCf/oeo to waters of the U.S. other than those described in X X in A or B above) which will result in a di~charge to X A or 6 above? (FORM 2C) 22 23 24 waters of t he U.S.? (FORM 20) I 25 26 27 IE. uoes or WIll tnis racllity treat, store, or dispose ot r. Do you or will you inject at this facility inqustrial or h azardous wastes? (FORM 3) municipal effluent below the lowermost dtratum con-X taining, within one quarter mile of the W~II bore, X 28 29 30 underground sources of drinking water? (FORM 4) I 31 32 33 IG. Do you or will you inject at tnis racility any proaucea IH. Do you or will you Inject at this lacility IIU\OS tor special water or other fluids which are brought to the sur- processes such as mining of sulfur by thb Frasch face in connection with conventional oil or natural process, solution mining of minerals, in Jitu combus-gas production. inject fluids used for enhanced tion of fossil fuel , or recovery of geotherrhal energy? re covery of oil or natural gas, or inject fluids for storage of liquid hydrocarbons? (FORM 4) X (FORM 4) .I X 34 35 36 37 38 39 IS InIS raclillY a proposea stationary source wnlcn IS IJ* IS InIS racllry a proposea srarlonary so~rce wnlcn IS one of the 28 industrial categories listed in the in- NOT one of the 28 industrial categories Ili sted in the structions and which will potentially emit 100 tons instructions and which will potentially emit 250 tons per year of any air pollutant regulated under the per year of any air pollutant regulated un~er the Clean Clean Air Act and may affect or be located in an X Air Act and may affect or be located in ah attainment X attainment area? (FORM 5) 40 41 42 area? (FORM 5) I 43 44 45 1 ~iil.~;7~.£il:~";'\~':;* ~~~~~";sS~~-'~~*::r~~~-**",~r:l;;- :~~&"'3ar~~~lt:2"3:: !.~~~[fu:.:..:~~.{~~i{~;i~~t~~~k'.F)~*~~~~**d~~~~:'~~;*~;~1~~~!,t'!i}' ..'.' m III. NAME OF FACILITY I I I I I I I I I I I SKIPITIVIAI- 'W'A' TITISI ' SIA I RI INIUICILIE I AIRI ' p'L 'A 'N'T '  ! Ll!il 16-29 130 I Rql IV. FACILITY CONTACT I '~fue,> . z;:::. !!.m'=.:1':3'. '-£:"**--:'!'---I:"".; ..;5i<'" , ..,' ",,~. , .**. c*.*,;tl;**.'*<'*'o'-';'.,,,-,>*'. * ""c!:"';.*",*c*)"'~ ,r. 1"c" ,<:'0" '. *"f""_.2IlO~ . ~.. ,  ?),~j'".,:,";;\~~;""'".';" .~[ ,..-Vi":.;;. ~ A . NAME & TITLE (f"'.~t fir~t ~ titfp l I B. PH DNE area code & no.) ICIHIEIMI / I E IN1V I IMIN1 G 1R 1 1 8 1 0 1 11 5 r<1H ' U ' T ' C ' H'1 ' S I OIN' ' DIA'RIR'I IN' 4 :2 3 1 3 6 5 ' , I 151 16 49' - ' 511 V. FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS I' , .*.... ,,~~, .'

                                                                                                           '.        -., .                * ,< _., -.'.          .    ; ..         '~;;; . ~' '-. ':"

45 46 - 481

                                                                                                                                                                                                         . ~ 2\8::-,;~J*.:*"'~i.';;:"Y'               ..   ;g .

52 55

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 .... _.;;"'~~~C:..'!*"7
'3Ip.IO~                        X 2 Q q 01
                                                             ,     I A !,;TRFFT OR I      I      ,     I       ,

I> 0. 8 1IX I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISO , , , , , , , ,

1;:; 1R 4;:;

~S'p~R'1                                 : CII'T'Y' B. CI -y OR roWN I      I      I     I       I      I    I      I    ,    I         I     ,         I
                                                                                                                                                                                    ~TAT T I N

o. 711> C~ ODE 1

3 7'3 8 ~

N: G : ,

15116 41 ~ 147 - I '51 VI. FACILITY LOCATION I ,~, '?::':i:i' .:::!:: :'l<'",., .

                                                                                               ":,~,,  .          ".,-
                                                                                                                 .. -.. '- .            j;,'
                                                                                                                                                             'ii'"             *,0" :",'       .~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .. _._2: .~ .. ,;~:-:-: :'F:,'
                                                                                                                                                                                                       ., '"~';,.,.:;,<.".:., ;. ;;.: .. : ."......._                                                    ..

t R <) A d , , A. !':TRFFT. ROIITF NO OR.OTHER SPECIFIC IDEN*nFIER 'f mH~w.Y' 15lJF 1 6 s ' NV¢~ ~AR Ip IL A~ I I I

                                                                                                                                                                                            .I         I 45 I
       ~R'H' E 'A' I  I   I     ,     I       ,

B. COllNTY NAMF I I I I I I I I I I I I I

                                                                                          ,                    I lAa                                                                                                                                                      7n C. CITY OR TOWN                                                                                                     D.STATE                          E.ZIPCPOE                                F. COUNTY CODe (nKnOWn) i61s Ip 'R II NIG I b) t                                   t '              I      I       I     I      I           I       I   I I        I      I        I                                                                                                 I    I
                                                                                                                                                                              ~                          3 7 3 ~ ~

I 1 1 15 161 I I I I I I I 4 <11 4 47 - 51 '52 54! I EPA Form 3510-1 (8-90) CON IINUE ON PAGE 2 17

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 VII. SIC CODES (4-diait. in order of orioritv) P*~~h~..;'+~~~~~~~;...t~~~~*t.:~Zf:~~~ ~~.. ¥::.;}:'\.~~~:-:>:~~.:::.i..~-. ., .. @:1:-";~" ;{ ~t,j, ~~~~r;t;'!(2*r.~.:'4/ -*:~~1<',;~ '!;~:.~;..¥. :~ A. FIRST B. SECOND

..£                            I (specify)                                                                                                                           ,.£.

7 4 9 1 1 IELECTRICAL POWE, GENERATION 7 , 15 16 191 15 16 19 C. THIRD D. FOURTH I I (specify) (specify) ~ ~ 7 I 7 15 16 19 15 16 19 VIII . OPERATOR INFORMATION I~~..,'; f:'_~ II.!,

                                                                                                         ~.
                                                                                                          ' , 0'             '~:~~~~~j~ ~~W";.*,                                                h'; '*~l'.l'i      .    - t .-           .':" '~~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .~,-'                      ~r~

I A. NAME B. Is the name listed as I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Item VI II-A also the ,.£. T E NN E S SE E VA L L E Y A U T H OR I T Y owner? 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~YES DNO 15 16 I 55 66 I I8 C. STATUS OF OPERATOR (Enter the appropriate letter into the answer box: if 'Other' specifv.) D. PHONE (area code & no.) I4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ~

F = FEDERAL M = PUBLIC (olher than federal or state) M(SpeCifY) I I I I I I I S = STATE 0 = OTHER (S1 eCifY) 2 3 3 6 5 71617 P - PRIVATE 56 116 - 181 119 - 211 122 25 E. STREET OR P.O. BOX I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P.,O. S bX, 2 Q Q 0, , , : 1 : , 1 , , , , , , , , , , , , , 26 I 55 F. CITY OR TOWN G . STATE H. ZIP CODE IX. INDIAN LAND ~ ~!',r~*,ll!'<w,;;~' ",.;*~S;" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Is the facility located on Indian lands? ~ B S,P,R, I ,N,G, C I T, Y, , : I : , 1 , , , , , , , , , 15 16 40 IT: NI 3,7 ,3 ,8 ,1 41 42 47 51 DVES 52 0 NO c" X. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS I I~-il-"~"'. *.";~V+":~~~i"';:;l";~;t;oT;;t;-~'i~~.z ~-. ill";:i'c.,:~.,...'ty:; ;o.ii\?~'**""*.r:;"!-;i-;:*;* -:*1.~ ~ ..*... . ""'~';"~ 'J... *;.;*,. ...... 1 ....r .; .. ,.,,,- *,t.~_ A. NPDES (Discharqes to Surface Water) D. PSD (Air Emissions from Proposed Sources) c T I I I I I I I I I I I C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 N T, NOlO 12 10 1116181 I I I 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 16 17 18 I 30 15 16 17 18 30 B. UIC (Underoround Iniection of Fluids) c T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I X T I I I I I I I I I I I I I (specify) 9 U I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 T,N,R,O,S, 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 I I I TMSP (STORM WATER) 15 16 17 18 I 30 15 16 17 18 30 C. RCRAjHazardous Wastes) I E. OTHER (specify) c T I I I I I I I I I I I. I I C T X I I I I I I I I I I I I (specify) 9 R I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 4A 18 1 5 12 1 9 1 I I I I I I TITLE V AIR PERMIT 15 16 17 18 I 30 15 16 17 18 30 XI. MAP ~h~::~~1"~~',~;"::'S~f-: ' ~~*';':::h {*.,;fs, **:~vJif;~r i'{~~;~":~~;-~**~~*f::,,~:t.?J.,.~i{*~~¥.:~~'~- ~~i'.f;)~p~~;~.::-...;~""'J)~;:~';*-2;'~:I:?~:if~~;;* ':" '~!: o:ii. -..-{t:\:;,,~~~.';'~*.~< * :~:. ::*,j":;:-(.; *.~:*::.;~:i~~ 0~~~~*.i:£;).:d.!*~~~~:~*:" l::~' S~ oJ, Attach to this application a topographic map of tre area extending to at least one mile beyond property boundaries. The map must show the outline of the facility, the location of each of its existing and prloposed intake and discharge structures, each of its hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, and each well where it injects fluids underground. Inell X for precise requirements. I XII. NATURE OF BUSINESS (provide a brief description) 1 ~;~* ""*;;;: 'i~;L*.;:~~i*;;;*~f:' ;,,-;:,~, * ~* * ;1:4>.*:C,t~':$'ii ;' f~~""""'~1ii':"? '*':'~"f;;.':~1'. f~~*i*E'::..:f.S'{!f77 Production of electrical power via therr onuclear fission and associated operations. Watts Bar Nuclear is located at approximate Tennessee River Mile 528. Units 1 and 2 are each rated to produce 1,270 MW of electricity at tuilioad . . XIII. CERTIFICATION (see instructions) I ,; '. 3" , . ' ",J. .!'. I certify under penalty ~f la w that I have perSf nallY examined and am familiar with the. information submitted in this application and all attachments and

                                                                                                                                                                       <-~                J>         ,:.                     _.l ::-"  i,.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -'    c.;"  .. ~

that, based on my inqUIry of those persons I mediately responsible for obtamlng the mformatlOn contained In the application, I believe that the B:z:£d . - '/ fin e and imp risonment. A. NAME & Urr lL; IAL I II L t:: (type or pont) C. DATE SIGNED Don E. Grissette Site Vice President W atts Bar Nuclear Plant .

                                                                                                                                                                                       ~                                                                         B/I"?/IO COMMENTS FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLV                                          I

..£ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I* 1"-"-1 1111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 16 55 EPA Form 3510-1 (8-90)

I _ J"' I<3 "J ; l

                                                                                                      .,                  ~
                                                                                                         >i
                                                                                                       " 'I,~.
                                                                                                                              ....' '~ ...--'"
                                                                                                                              ... .1 TVA Watts B1r Nuclea r Pla nt NPDES perr it TN0020168 Decatu r pu adrang le o Internal Monitoring Point o~tfa"
                                            . .:.'-- ---=--.---::-...,---r.------:'-~                    --;;,-----:.,...-;!            --
                                                                                         ,..... _ / /             .. "~ ~ 1"",,,
              ~""":t.-~~:.                 ~~ - -'--    ...... ,-.,-. ~;~--:-..... : ;~~ ~    oJ              rS:; ' r                  !:Ole 0   r).4 (i. e           1.2  1. 6   2  r~i 0  0.6 1.2            1.:3 2.4   3 krll
                                                                                                                ~*1 =- 4.171

(]= 1.2:33

Please print or type in the unshaded areas onlv I

                                                                ! EPA I.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1)

TN2640030035 form Approved

                                                                                                                                          ~MB No. 2040*0086 Aooroval expires 5/31/92 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.AGFNCY FORM                                                            APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATE~                                                      "

2C EPA EXISTING,MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL, MINING AND SILVj'CULTURALOPERATIONS

                                                                           .                    Consolidated Permits Proaram NPDES I. OUTFALL LOCATION                  1i3!~~~~~&/'ii~*. """:;.                         ..~~."m_~~~J~~ "",' ,. ~ ,. . . :~ ..                  .-. '"   ."" ' ':  .:. ';,,~t    - '--   -

For each*outfall *list the latitude and lonaitude of its location to the nearest 15 seconds and the name of the receivina water. A. OUTFALL : B. LATITUDE C. LONGITUDE D. RECET NG WATEB (name) .

    .. NUMBER (list)             1. DEG.        2. MIN     3. SEC.         1. DEG.      2. MIN.        3. SEC.

101 35 35 30 84 47 15 TENNESSEE RIVER @- TR~ 527.9 102 35 35 45 84 47 30 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY OFj TEN NESSEE RIVER @-TRM 527.2 IMP 103 35 36 0 84 47 30 TENNESSEE RIVER @- TR~ 527.9 via OSN 101 IMP 107 35 36 0 84 47 30 TENNESSEE RIVER @- TR~ 527.9 via OSN 101 113 35 35 45 84 46 45 TENNESSEE RIVER @-TR:M 529.2 114 35 37 15 84 47 o TENNESSEE RIVER @-TR:M 529.8 I I I II. FLOWS SOURCES OF POLLUTION AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES .;~G'~:#!I.#~~0~-t;f~~,~~~'§f~-j:\:;,7~bWi?',t,.~~~~" A. Attach. ~ line drawing showing the water flow through the fp.cility. Indicate sources of intake water, operations contributing wastewater to the effluent, and treatment units labeled to correspond to the more detailed descriptions in Item B. Construct a water balance on the line drawing by - showing average flows between intakes, operations, treatment units, and outfalls. If a water balance cannot be det~rmined (e.g., for cettain minina activities) , orovide a oictorial descriotion of the nature and amount of any sources of water and anv collection or treatment measures. B. For each outfall, provide a description of: (1) All operations contri buting wastewater to the effluent, including process wastewater, sanitary wastewater, cooling water, and storm water runoff; (2) The average flow contributed by each operation; and (3) The Itreatment received by the wastewater. Continue on additional sheets if necessarY.

1. OUT- 2. OPERATIONfSTCONTRIBUTING FLOW 3. ITREATMENT FALL NO mst) ... a . .OPERATION (Jist) b. AVERAGE FLOW (include units)

a. DESCRIPTI9N b. LIST CeDES FROM TABLE2C-1 OSN 101 Diffuser Discharge (receives the following) 57.76 MGD I I

(1) Yard Holding Pond 1.371MGD Wastes are treated in a 22-~cre pond, 1 U a) Turbine Bldg Station Sump (TBSS) alternate path [OMGD] (acreage for 101 and 102 combined) 2 K b) Cooling Tower Blowdown (CTBD) alternate Path [O MGD] providing sedimentation/neutralization . 4 A c) Emerg. Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) alternate path [OMGD] Discharge through multiport ~iffuser d) Raw Cooling Water (RCW) alternate path [O MGD] to surface water I e) Ice condenser chiller/air coolers alternate path [OMGD] I f) Miscellaneous discharges, includes: [0,7373 MGD] I Non-rad Demin Water discharges to Yard Drains {0.011 MGD} I Service building sump {0.020 MGD} I Diesel Generator (D/G) Building Sump {O.0001 MGD} leak collection with oil skim~i ng X X Emergency D/G Building Sump {O.0001 MGDJ I CCW Pump Station Sump {O.0001 MGDJ I NaOCl Building Sump and Dike {O.001 MGD} Sedimentation I 1 U High Pressure Fire Protection (HPFP) Flushes {0.003 MGD} I Potable water line leaks {0.001 MGD} I Storm Water Runoff {0.699 MGD} I Rainwater releases from secondary {0.001 MGDJ I containment for bulk chemica! storage I G roundwater sump {0.001 MGD} g) Condenser cleaning , cooiing tower cleaning, & [nJ Filtration to 5 mic rons for as~estos X X worker deeon [nJ Filtration to 5 microns for as~estos X v h) T raini ng Center Cooling Tower Blowdown [0.001 MGDJ I i) Trash sluice water, receives: [0.1878 MGD] I Station drainage sumps {O.072 MGD} Eme rgency raw cooling water strainer leakage {nJ I ERCW Strainer backwash {0.1 08 MGD} I ERCW T raveling Screen backwash {O.0078 MGDJ OFFICIAL USE ONLY (effluent .Guidelines sub-catef]ories) ~notes an altemate flow path n - negligible flow EPA Form 351G-2C (8-90) Page 1a of 4 Continue on Page 2

EPA 1.0. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved TN2640030035 OMB No. 2040-0086 Please print 'type in the unshaded areas only Approval expires 5/3 1[~~

u. S. ENVIt1vl~IVIt: I~ I I-\L I-'HL ' I cv IIUN AGENCY FORM APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER 2C EPA EXISTING MANUFACTU RING, COMMERCIAL, MINING ~ND SILVICULTURAL OPERATIONS I (,:, ,PerrTl@..Proaram .. - .

NPDES I. OUTFA.L. LC CATION IFor each outfall. ist the latitude and 10nQitude of its loc ation to the nearest 15 seconds and the name of the receiviOQ..water. A. OUTFALL _B. LATITU,DE C. LONGITUDE D. NCI,;CIVINU WATER (name) NUMBER I . (list) 1 DEG. 2. Mil 3. SEC 1 , DEG. 2. MIN. 3. SEC I JI .. FLOWS. ~OIIRCFR OFPOLLUTICIN, AND TRE, I I I :1,,1 OGlES . " 'M'!?'1-~"" IA. Attach a line drawing shoViing the .water flow through the facility. Indicate sources of intake water, VfJ'" 'UM I'; contributing . to the . effluent, and treatment , labeilld correspond to the more detailed descriptions in Item B. Construct a water balance on the line drawing by showing average flows I intakes, operations, treatment units, and outfalls. If a water balance cannot be determined (e.g., for certain minina activities) . provide a pictorial I of the nature and amount of anv sources of water and anv I I or . mo",,,, "'0" lB. For each outfall, .provide a "".,~' ,~ ' IV' j of: (1) All ~!",':~C:"'U"" WIIlIIUU,II Iy wastewater to the effluent, including process wastewater, sanitary

          .~.       .~.                            st6rm                            average flow contributed by each operation; and (3) The treatment received by the Continue on additionlal sheets if necessary.

1, OUT* 2. vr :.1I-\IIVN\' I"VN t1IDUTING FL ,:)W 3. TREATMEN

    .mll0                              a. UI"CNiM ION (list)                              I b.  ~~~~!Gu~;~OW                              a. DESCRIPTION                      b. LI~~I~~;;~ROM IOSN      101 j) Low Volume Waste Holdir:,g Pond (IMP 103) receives:                             [0.3619 MGD]         I Unlined       3.7-acre pond with .,,,di;,,,,,                 1          U i     , Less              I                                         {0.0053 MGD}         Itation and nel            -". i                            2          K Alum sludge supernate             I                                          {0.025_MGD}         I pH adjustment                                              ...><..       X Vendor water                 . Rb reject                                      {O.26 MGD}
                   .lul'bine building stati0 rl SLimp, receives :                                {0.07l6 MGD}         .Floor drain collection w/oil skimming                          X          x Metal cleaning wastc1s                                                0.0303 MGo Labore,v, 'waste           I                                          0.0002 MGo Neutral Waste Tank l                                                         n Potable Water Line !,eaks                                             0.0002 MGo System Leakage & ~~ aintenance                                         0.0399 MGo High Pressure Fire Flrotection discharge.,                              0.001 MGo k) ERCW Header flushes               I                                                [n]

[0.048 MGD] 1m) Cooling tower desilting b;:isin [0,002 MGD] ISedil" " ,nc:tLlul 1 U in) Discharge irom I.MP 107 hetal cleaning waste ponds [0.033 MGD] ILined pond 1 MG (0.26 acre); unlined U receives: I !pond 5 MG (1 .3 acre) provides 2 C,K Precipitation, Less ,....,~..., :~.,~ {0.002 MGD} i ~"dir l l "' C1Ju ", precip. ner -". i Metal Cleaning wastes I {O. 0003 MGD} Storm water runoff ~ {0.0001 MGD}

                   . Drum rinsing                                                               {0.0001 !v1C;D}

Drum dewatering {O.OOOl MGD} Floor drain collection w/oil skimming x X Diesel cleaning coolant {0.0001 MGD} T urbi ne station sump w/mEital cleaning wastes {O.0303 Iv1 GD} OI"I"ICIAL USE ONLY (effluent auidelint, sub-cateaories) ~notes an alternate flow path n - negligible flow EPA Form 351G-2C (8-90) Page 1b of 4 Continue on Page 2

EPA I.D, NUMBER (copy from Item 1'ot Form 1) Form Approved TN2640030035 OMB No, 2040-0086 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only t:.nn",,,,,1 expires.5!31 !92

                                                               ""                            :      ' U. S. ENVI ,~ **. _. I rAL l"'HU I c lJ ~ II,.iN. ~G EN~~.                 .    .'..     .       ."".  ,.

FORM '*

• APPLICATION F:OR PERMIT TO, DISCHARGE V\ tAS~EWATER -< ". i 2C' '.  :' ~~A .*_ ,,:-.EXISTING MANU.~ACTUt:l,ING, C~~~.ERCIAL? ~I~ING ~~ S.I~~V.ICU~:t:U.RAL, C?~~RA!I9.~~~ ~~'::,

NPDES ~, .' ,- . ~ " " . r;' ~PfJttn~Proa;;im * **', .' -. ,'.',' .;; :-. J. OUTFALL LOCATION ' . ' .' . ' ' . . '. . . " IFor each outfall,- Iistttle Ip.titude and lonoitude of its 101 nearest 15 seconds and th, i name of the wafer: ' ' . ., ': A OUTFALl: : i"'- B. LATITUDE . . C. LONGITUDE >.. D. ,._ .* _. , .. ,,_ WAT~R {nai(leJ:, . '.. IIII1MRI=R -- ,. .". . , . " " ." ~"

        -. (list)        '.'      1 DEG.         2. MIN     3. SEC.              t DEG.          2. MIN. 3. SEC.

II. FLOWS. ~nI ",r.I=~, OF PI )LLUTION AND TREA' I MCN I nr.11 A. Attach a line drawing showing the water flow through the facility. Indicate sources of intake water, UfI"'C1UUII;:i cor!tributing wastewater to the effluent, and treatment units labeled to correl!Pond to the more detailed descriptions in Item B. Construct a wateli balance on the line drawing by showing average flows between intakes, operations, treatment units, and outfalls. If a water balance cannot ' '1"'' '"~ ,,,u (e.g., for certain minina ::lr.fivitip.!~l , orovide a oictorial I of the nature and amount of anv sources of water and anv ' or  : measurp.",. B, For each outfall, provide a description of: (f) All operations contributing . to the effluent, including procl ~ss wastewater, sanitary wastewater, c-Ooling water, and storm runoff; (2) The average flow cqntributed by each operation; and (3) Tre treatment receiv~d by the Continue on additional sheets if ' .

1. OUT- 2. VI' r-tA. UN\i:>J"vNlnIBUTINGFl 'JW 13, InCAIMCN FALL NO a. OPERATION (list) lb. "'YC~UC FLOW a. __ IIVN (list) . "' (include units) - ""

OSN101 ~1(2~)I~COO~ling~TOW~er~o,~~,,~.'(~CTB~D),~,~~v~,~.,~=-~.__ -+__~45.n~3M~GiID~4- __________ -+______-4____~~____~ (continued) 'a) Liquid 'au"C1"' system which receives flow [0.0040 MGD] lion ::"''''':1 and Filtratipn System 2 J

                  ~~--------~--~----------------r---------~~------~------~~-----+------~------~

from the IV"UVVIII\j . Primary L~hnr8.torv Wastes {0.0001 MGD} Radioactiv"e,; Floor and Equipment Drains, Tanks, {0.0039 MGD} and Sumps b) Steam Generator B,uvvuuvv, [0.36 MGD] c) lJOnu",,::.ctl" Denim Cleanup [0.0010 MGD] Neutralization 2 K Id) Cooling Towe r 8:~ ,~~ Weir [45A08 MGD] 1(3) Misc. Cooling Water, ,~v~. '~y 10.62 MGD ia) Eill"' yt::II"Y Raw Cooling Water [5.31 MGD]

                   'b) Raw Cooling Water                                                             [4.91 MGD]

c) Ice Co, .v", '( ChillerN arious Air coolers [OAOO MGD] OSN 102 Yard holding Pond Ovemow Weir (Er '"':I '. O.OOOMGD ISee Outfall 001 Outfall) provides an alternate u, ,,,,, oo c, '\j " path for th e ldiffuser dis::harge point (OSN 101) IMP 103 ISee description above in OSN 101 0.3619 MGD ,See Outfall 001 !OI=I=ICIA~ USE ONLY (effluent f" ,inQlinoc sub-cateaories) ~notes an alternate flow path EPA Form 351D-2C (8-90) Page 1c of 4 Continue on Page 2

IEPA I.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved I TN2640030035 OMB No 2040-0086 Please print ortype in the un shaded areas oniv I Approval expires 5/31 /92

u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FORM APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER I

2C EPA EXISTING MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL, MINING AND SILVICULTURAL OPERATIONS NPDES I. OUTFALL LOCATION I *

,~~~ ;~; .'f ,;,~~ .~~~~~~~~~~~~_~'r

                                                                             ..          Consolidated Permits 'Program            .. .
                                                                                                                                            ,; ''~ ',. ~,'

For each outfall list the latitude and lonaitude of its location to the nearest 15 seconds and the name of the receivina water. A. OUTFALL B. LATITU9E C. LONGITUDE D. RECEIVING WATER (name) NUMBER , - (list) 1. DEG. 2. MIN I 3. SEC. 1. DEG. 2. MIN. 3. SEC. II. FLOWS SOURCES OF POLLUTION AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES i:i'.5*:r~~i!1:§.~',r;~~&1~';ij'k;J~:~1?;t-'%.'i'~W.'C~.,f.l'~f"~~~ A Attach a line drawing showing the water flow through the facility. Indicate sources of intake water, operations contributing wastewater to the effluent, and treatment units labele~ to correspond to the more detailed descriptions in Item B. Construct a water balance on the line drawing by showing average flows between infu.kes, operations, treatment units, and outfalls. If a water balance cannot be determined (e.g., for certain minina activities) orovide a Dictori~1 descriotion of the nature and amount of anv sources of water and anv collection or treatment measures. B. For each outfall, provide a descriptibn of: (1) All operations contributing wastewater to the effluent, including process wastewater, sanitary wastewater, cooling water, and sto~ water runoff; (2) The average flow contributed by each operation; and (3) The treatment received by the wastewater. Continue on additional sheets if necessarv.

1. OUT- 2. OPERATION'S) CONTRIBUTING FLOW 3. TREATMENT FALL NO a. OPERATION (list) b. AVERAGE FLOW a. DESCRIPTION b. LIST CODES FROM (list) " I (inClude units) TABLE 2C-1 IMP 107 Metal Cleaning Waste Pondsl(LP and ULP) 0.031 MGD See OSN 101 See description above in OS~ 101 I

OSN 113 Supplemental Condenser Co~ling Water 148.895 MGD Discharge to surface water 4 A OSN 114 SCCW Intake screen backwa~h 0.019 MGD Discharge to surface water 4 A OFFICIAL USE ONLY (effluent Quidelines sub-cate.aories) ~notes an alternate flow path y"'\ EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page 1d of 4 Continue on Page 2

b.MONTHS

1. 0UlFALL 2. OPERATION(s)

PERYEAR * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NUMBER

• CONTRIBUTING FLOW 1.04 365 Are you now required by any Federal, State or local authority to meet any implementation schedule for the , upgrading or operation of wastewater treatment equipment or practices or any other environmental programs which may affect the no<:r.n::.rru:,,,, described in this application? This includes, but is not limited to, permit conditions, administrative or enforcement orders, compliance schedule letters, stipulations, cou*rt orders, and grant or loan conditions. .

D YES (complete the following table)

4. FINAL COM*

1. IDENTIFICATION OF CONDITION, 2. AFFECTED OUlFALLS AGREEMENT, ETC. b. SOURCE OF DISCHARGE OPTIONAL: You may attach additional sheets describing any additional water pollution control programs (or environmental projects which may affect your discharges) you now have underway or which you plan. Indicate whether each program is now InnArvV::lV or planned, and indicate your actual or planned schedules for construction.

MARK 'X" IF DESCRIPTION OF ADDITiONAL CONTROL EPA Form 351G-2C (Rev. 2-85) Page20f4 Continue on Page 3

1.0. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) TN2640030035 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~j~~~~~~~;Fo~~~~~~I;j~~-~c~9;mplete one set of tables for each outfall - Annotate the outfall number in the space pLOvided. I, V-C

                                              ,- are includ~d
                                                         .       on separate sheets numbered V-1 tbrough V"9.
  'D.

For every p~lIutant you 'list,' brieflydescribe the reasons you believe it to be present'" I Prnrl\l!<.n" oxide (as ethlyene-oxide-additive used as cooling ine (as Ethylenediamine additive in Training Center I tptr"",,,tlr. acid) Is any pollutant listed in Item V-C a or a component of a substance which you currently use or manufacture as an intermediate or final product or byproduct? D (list al/ such pollutants below) [i] NO (go to Item VI-B) EPA Form 3S10-2C (8-90) Page30f4 Continue on Page 4

Do you have any knowledge or reason to believe that any biological test for acute or chronic toxicitY has been any of your discharges or

• on a receiving water in relation to your discharge wit'lin the last 3 years?

[XJ YES (identify the testes) and describe their purposes below) .t D NO (go to Section VIII) biotoxicity tests (3-Brood Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival and Reproduction Tests and 7-Day Fathead (Pimephales larval Survival and Growth Tests are conducted on samples of final effluent from Outfall 101, 102, and 11 as required by the DES permit. Environmenta! Science Corp (ESC) 12065 Lebanon Rd Mt Juliet, Tn 37122 (880)767-5859 One, LTD 1 Pinnacle Parkway 330-963-0843 nsburg, OH 44087 accordance with a system of the person or persons SUI"Jmmf;'U is, to the best of my information, including the

c. SIGNATURE D. DATE EPA Form 351G-2C (8-90) Page4of4

~ may report some or sheets (use Ille same forma l) instead of completinq Ihese paqes,

d. NO. OF AVERAGE VALUE b. NO. OF ANALYSES a. CONCEN- Ii. MASS (1) (2) MASS ANALYSES

             ;ONCENTRATION                                    CONCENTRATION      CONCENTRATIOI~             I                   TRATION                CONCENTRATioN
             <5                                                                                                     1           mglL                        <5 I                                                            . .    .

45.0 I 1 mg/L <10 1.8 1 mg/L 2.0 11 .0 ' 8.2 13 mg/L 5.1 mg/L 365 MGD 60.48 2 VALUE 16.6 II 182 "C VALUE N/A N/A 183 "C 19.9 2 (2) MASS (2) MASS (2) MASS CONCEN'

                                                                                                                                                                  <1 .0 X                      I           0.09        I                    I  I                 I   <0.05 I                 I 275 Img/L                          <0.05                            2 x                      I            5.0                                                                                   1   PCU                            5 I              I X

I NA N/A NA I I NA x I 0.1 2 1 mg/L

• 0.12 x I 0.11 I I I I I I 1 Img/L 0.11 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page V-l CONTINUE ON PAGE V-2

ITI'M 11_,\ CONT NIIF n FROM PAGF V_1

2. MARK

a. BE-

3. EFFLUEr. .. 4. IITS ... ,,,

c;.-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ..      .. '!i ' INT4KF

1. POLL UT- b. BE- a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE

• C. LONG TERM AVRG.-VALUE BJ LONG TERM b. NO. OF ANT A ND UEVED UEVED III available) (If available) d. NO. OF B: CONCEN- ,b.MASi3' - AVERAGE VAI:UE ANAL-CAS NO. PRE- AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- TRAnON ,(1) 1/; (2) MASS YSES flf available )

II. N itroQBn, SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRAnON CONCENTRATION YSES .. "'j' > CONCENTRAnON ...:. Total Organic X 0.36 1 mg/L 0.29 1

       '(as NJ

11. Oil and Grease X <5.6 <5.4 13 mg/L <5.2 1 L Pilosphorus (as P), Total X <0.1 1 mg/L <0.10 1 li77;>~-14-m llladioactivitv (1) Alpha, Total X <3.25 1 pC ilL <2.93 1 (2) Beta.

Total X 2.1 1 1 pCi/L 2.06 1 (3) Radium. Total X NA NA NA NA NA (4) Radium 226. T otal X NA NA NA NA NA

k. SulfatB (as 804 ) X 11 1 mg/L 9.6 1

        !.1iflQfl-79-Rl I. Sulfide (as S)                   X                  <0. 05                                                                                                             1        mg/L                                <0.050                              1 mSuifite (as 803)                 X                   0.02                                                                       0.02                                  2         mg/L                                 <0.02                              2 14?fi!i-4!i-::\\

n. Surfactants X <0. 10 1 mg/L <0.10 1

o. Alum inum.

Total X 0.68 1 mg/L 0.36 1 1,7429-90-'" P. Barium , Total X 0.028 1 mg/L 0.024 1 1/7A.drl_3Q-'H Q. Boron , X <0.20 (f.) a .JJ 1 mg/L <0.20 1 Total 7440 m ..... 'r---

r. Cobalt.

Tota' 1ti440..1R-4 \ v ____-::.Q.OQl.O --

                                                                                 ;;;j F.

C~ LJJ 1_. I E3

                                                                                                                   ~

1_ . _ mg/L <.Q.D.O_t~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .                    1

s. Iron,Total (7439-09-6)

t. Maqnesium.

X 0.40 0

                                                                               ~JJ m

00

                                                                                            ~,J i ll 1         mg/L                                 0.20                              1 Total 7il~~q-QC; -il\

X 5.3  :>

s = m 1 mg/L 4.7 1

u. Molvbdenum .

Total X <0.005 0 1 mg/L <0.0050 1 17439-9El-71

v. Manqanese, Total X 0.037 1 mg/L 0.028 1 17439-9fi*51

w. Tin. Total (7440 5) X <0 .0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1

x. Titanium .

 ,... Total                    X                   0.011                                                                                                             1         mg/L                                <0.010                              1

--...0 174.<1n_<\9_A\ EPA Form 3510-2C (6-901 PanEl V*2 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-3

vJ a I EPA,l.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1. of Form 1) OUTFALL NUMBER  ! TN2640030035 101 __ * * * *

• _ _ _ _ **
• _ _ . _ * *
• __ _ 0.1 .... . * "" * * , ** _ ..,

PARTC - If you are a primary industry and this outfall contains process wastewater, refer to Table 2c*2 in the Instructions to determine which of the GC/MS fractions you must test for. Mark 'X' In column 2*a for all such GC/MS fractions that apply to your industry and for ALL toxic metals, cyanides, and total phenols.* If you are not required to mark column 208 (secondary Industries, nonprcx;ess wastewater oulfalls, and nonrequired GCIMS fracllons) , mark 'X' in column 2*b for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe Is present. Mark 'X' in column 2*c for each pollutant you believe Is absent. "you mark column 2a for any pollutant, you must provide the resuns of at least one analysis for that pollutant. "you mal'k column2b for any pollutant, you must provide the results of at least c;me analysis for that pollutant If you dr III10w or have reason to believe It will be discharged in concentrations of 10 ppb or gieater: "you mark column 2b ior acrolelrii' aciylOnHrile, 2,4 dlnltrophenoi, 2*metilyl-4, 6 diriiiroPhenoll you m~t 'provlde ihe ' re sults of at least one analysis for each of these pollutants which you know or have reason to believe that you discharge In concentrations of 100 ppb or greater. 01l\6rwlse fat pollutants for which you mark column 2b, you must either submit at least one analysis or briefly describe the reasons the pollutant l3 expected to be discharged. Note that there are 7 pages to this part; please review each carefully, Complete one table (all 7 pa,aes) for each outlall. See instructions for additional detailS and requirements.

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS 5. INTAKE (optional)

AND CAS n. TEST* b. BE- C. BE- a.LONGTE~~ ~ b . NO. OF

      - -NUMBER                            ING~               U EVEO ' UEVED

a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE

                                                                                                        ~---               ..
                                                                                                                    ~'~.~'.,     -   ----...,....-----

b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE (If available)

                                                                                                                                                                 , , c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE
                                                                                                                                                              ~~......,...

(II aVBIIBbla)

                                                                                                                                                                                                       ,....,. ....... -;..,..;-

d. NO. OF a. CONCEN-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -~-.-.-

b. MASS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ~~-

AVERAGE VALUE ANAL' (if available) RE- PRE* AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- TRATION (l)CONCEN- (2) MASS YSES aUIRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION . CONCENTRATION

• YSES TRATION METALS, CYANIDE AND TOTAL PHENOLS 1M. Antimony, Total (7440-36-0) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 2M. Arsenic, Total (7440*38-2) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 3M. Beryllium, Total, (7440-41 *7) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 4M. Cadmium, Total (7440*43*9) X <0.00050 1 mg/L <0.00050 1 5M. Chromium, Total (7440-47-3) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 6M. Copper, Total (7440-50-8) X 0.0011 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 7M. Lead, Total (74$9-92*1 ) X <0. 0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 OM. Mercury, Total (7439-97-6) X <0.0000008 1 mg/L 1.3E-06 1 9M. Nicllel, Total (7440*02-0) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 10M. Selenium, Total (7762-49*2) X <0.001 0 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 11 M. Silver, Total (7440-22-4) X <0.00050 1 mg/L <0.00050 1 12M. Thallium, Total (7440-26-0) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 13M. Zinc, Total (7440*66-6) X 0.200 <0.051 25 mg/L <0.010 1 14M. Cyanide, Total (57-12-5) X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 1 15M. Phenols, Total X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.040 1 DIOXIN 2,3,7,O*Telra* rESCRIB E RESU LTS chlorodibenzo-P DlnX'n 117R4-nj -61 I I X EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Pagl! V*3 CONTINUE ON PAGE V*4

r.ONTI NIII=n FROM ~AGE V-3

1. PO[CUfANf 2. MARK' 3. EFF UEN' 4. rs 5. INTAKF (oolior ,,/I AND CAS a. TEST* b. BE-' c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG: VALUE a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED (if ava ilable) RE* PRE* AB* - (1) (2) MASS (1) lif available (2) MASS (1) lif available (2) MASS

d. NO. OF ANAL*

B. CONCEN* TRATION

b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE (l)CONCEN* (2) MASS ANAL*

YSES au IRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION GC/MS FRACTION - VOLATILE COMPOUNDS 1V. Acrolein (107-02-8) X <0.050 1 mg/L <0.050 '1 2V. Acrvlonitrlle (107-13-1) X <0.01 0 1 mg/L <0.010 1 3V. Benzene (71 2) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 4V. 81s (Chforo* methyl) Ether X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 . 1 rfid?:nR.1\ SV. Bromoform (75-2S-2) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 6V. Carbon Tetrachloride X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 155-23-5\ 7V. Chlorobenzene (108-90-7) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 8V. Chlorodi* bromomethane X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 11124.4B.1\ 9V. Chloroethane (7S-00-3) X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 1 10V.2-Chloro-ethylvlnyl Ether X <0.050 1 mg/L <0.050 11110.75~R\ 11 V. Chloroform (67-66-3) X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 12V. Dichloro. bromomethane X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 Im;_?7.d\ 13V.Dichloro- --., difluoromethane X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 117fi-71-R\ 14V.1.1-Dichlor.o* ethane (75-34-3) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 15V. 1.2-Dlcl1loro-ethane (107-06-2) X <0. 0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 '1 16V. 1.1-Dicl1loro* ethylene (75-35-4) X <0.001 0 1 mg/L <0.0010 '1 17V. 1.2-0Ichloro-propane (78-87-5) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 18V. 1.3-Dichlora- -- propylene (542-75-6) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 19V. Elhvlbenzene (100-41-4) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 20V. Methvl Bromide (74-83-9) X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 21V. Methvl "V Chloride (74-07-3) X <0.005 1 mg/L <0.005 '1 --- EPA Form 3510-2C (0-90) Page V-4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-5

EPA 1.0. NUMBER (CODV from Item I of Fonn II OUTFAL L NUMBER TN2640030035 101 ~ CONTINIIFn FROM PA :F y -4 r 1. POLLUTANT AND CAS NUMBER (if available)

a. TEST-ING RE-

2. MAAK'IjlI"'"

b. BE-PRE-

c. BE*

LlEVED LlEVED AB-

a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE (1) (2) MASS 3.

b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE

({fa vallable (1) (2) MASS

c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE

                                                                                                                                                  .{If available (1)               (2) MASS d..NO. OF ANAL-4.

a. CONCEN*

TRATIO~ rs

b. MASS

a. LONGTERM AVERAGE VALUE (1)CONCEN- (2) MASS

b. NO. OF ANAL-YSES QUIRED SENT S EI ~T CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION r.(, / M'" _ IIr A'I11 '" n"Dnl .. n .'

22V. Melhylene Chloride (75-09-2) X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 '1 2SV.l. l .2.2-Tetra-chloroethane X <0.001 0 1 mg/L <0.0010 '1

    " 7Q_~I\.';'

24V. Tetrachloro-ethylene (127-18-4) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 '1 25V Toluene (1 00-88-S) _ X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 '1 26V. 1,2-Trans-Dlchloroethylene X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1

    ;,1 <;R_,;n_<;,

27V . 1.1 .1-Trl-Chloro~~~ane X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 1' 7 1 _1<1<_ 28V. 1,1,2-Trl-chloroethane X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 Iml-nn-;,\ 29V. Trichloro-ethylene (79-01 -6) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 SOV. Trlchloro-fluoromethane X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 1 17';-119-4\ 3'IV. Vlnvl Chloride (75-01-4) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 GC MS FRACTION - ACID COMPOUNDS lA. 2-Chlorophenol (95-57-8) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 2A. 2,4-Dlchloro-phenol (1 20-83-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 '1 3A. 2,4-0Imethyl-phenol (105-67-9) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 4A. 4.6-0 Initro Cresol (534-52-1 ) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 5A. 2,4-0Inltro-phenol (51-28-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 SA. 2-Nitrophenol (88-75-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 7A. 4-Nitrophenol (1 00-02-7) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 8A. P-Chloro-M Cresol (59-50-7) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 9A. Pentachloro* phenol (87-86-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 lOA. Phenol (100-95-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 l l A. 2,4,6-Trlchloro-phenol (00-06-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1

                               ""'-   --          ~- . -- - -~                                                                                                              --- -- -

EPA Form 35'1~2C (0-90) Page V-5 CONTINU E ON PAGE V-6

CONTINIIFn "ROM 'Ar." v.~

1. POLLUTA NT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS . 5. INTAKE (nntint ~1l A ND CAS a. TEST* b. BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMB ER ING LlEVED LlEVEO (/lavallabl. (If avallabl., d . NO. OF a.CONCEN* b. MAsS AVERAGE VALUE .' . ANAL-(if available) RE- PRE- AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) . (2)W,SS ANAL* TRATI.ON (1)CONCEN- (2) MASS , YSES QUI RED SENT . SENT CONCENmATION CONCENTRATION ,CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION GC/MS FRACTION - BASEJNEUTRAL COMPOUNDS 1B. Acenaphthene (83-32-9) X 1 mg/l 2B. Acenaphtvlene (208-96-8) X 1 mg/l 3B. Anthracene (120-12-7) X 1 mg/l 4B. Benzidine (92*87-5) X 1 mg/l 5B. Benzo (a I Anlhracene X 1 mg/l 5fl*1;1;*:1\

6B. Benzo (a I Pyrene (50-32-6) X 1 mg/l 7B. 3 ,4-Benzo-fiuoranthene X 1 mg/l 1/?M.Q<l.?, BB. Benzo (otlil Pery lene X 1 mg/l i11!li_:>4.:>1 9B. Benzo (kl Fluoranthene X 1 mg/l 11?1l7.rIB*0l lOB. Bis (2*Cflloro-e/floxy) Methane X 1 mg/l 111*91 *1 \ 11 B. Bls (2*Cflloro* etltyl) Ether X 1 mg/l 11-1-44*41 12B. Bis (2*CI1/oro* Isopropyl) Ether X 1 mg/l Irl02*flrl.1 1 13B. Bls (2-£thvl* tlexyl) Phthalate X 1 mg/l iI11 7.R1.71 14B.4*Bromo* phenyl Phenyl X 1 mg/l Ii::th"i /1111*5<;.31 15B. Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (05* 66*7) X 1 mg/l 16B. 2*Chloro* naphthalene X 1 mg/l 1191 .5R.71 17B. 4*Chloro* phenyl Phenyl X 1 mg/l EII,"; 17005:7?::11 1BB. Chrysene (2 10*01*9) X 1 mg/l 198. Dibenzo (a.hl Anlhracene X 1 mg/l 11"".711." , 20B. 1.2*Dichloro-benzene (95'50*1) X <0.001 1 mg/l <0.001 1 2 1B. 1.3*Dichloro* benzene (541*73*1 ) X <0.001 1 mg/l <0.001 1 ~ _"__ L--...---- ------ EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page V*6 CONTINUE ON I'AGE V*7

~ I EPA 1.0. NUMBER (r.nnv from /tRm 1 nf Fnrm 1) IUUTFAL L NUMBER TN2640030035 101 rn ... T,... , ,,"n ",nn M p , ,GE V-n

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UN fl!f " 'OJTAIfO: I~ntlrom AND CAS a, TEST- b. BE- e, BE- a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b, MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c, LONG TERM AVRG, VALUE a. LONG TERM b, NO, OF t:lUMBER ING UEVEO UEVEO (II Bvallable (llaval/.lble d, NO, OF B, CONCEN* b, MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL*

(if available) RE- PRE- AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- mATION (I)CONCEN- (2) MASS YSES aUIREO SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION I': I' /M~ _ R ~ ~"/N"I r R1I1 1'1 ,MP nllN riC: 22B, 1,4-Dichloro-benzene (106-46-7) X <0,001 1 mg/L <0 .001 2 236, 3.3'-Dichlora-benzidine X 101_0d_1\ 24B. Dlethyl Phlhal:;~ X --- --- IM-nn-25B, Dimethyl Phthalate X W'l'I _l ' _~\ 26B. Di-N-Butvi Phthal~;~ X i/Ad-7A-27B, 2.4-Dinitro-toluene (1 21-14-2) X 28B. 2,6-Dinllro* toluene (606-20-2) X 29B. Di*N-Octvl PhthalaL~~\ X 1/ ll7_Rd_ 30B. 1,2-Diphenyl-hydrazine (as Azo- X

       /JaJJ,ono'      """_""_7' 31 B, Fluoranthene (206*44-0)                                            X 32B. Fluorene (86-73-7)                                             X 338. He)(BChlorobenzene (1 18-74-1)                                           X 34B. Hexa-chlorobutadiene                                       X I tn7_AA_~\

35B, Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene X 1177-;7-4\ 36B, Hexachloro-ethane (67-72-1) X 37B, lndeno (1,2,3-cd) Pyrene X iHl~-~g-i;\ 36B. Isophorone (76-59-1) X '. 39B, Naphthalene (91-20-3) X 40B, Nitrobenzene (96-95-3) X 41 B. N-Nitro-sodlmethylamine X I/A?_7~_Q\' 42B. N-Nitrosodl-N-Propylamlne X (62).64-7) ---- _ - '-- EPA Form 351~2C (8-90) Page V-7 CONTINU E ON PAGE If-8

CONTINlJl'D FROM p, ,GE V-7

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK'X' 3, EFFLUENT 4. NITS 5. INTAKE (nnfinn, A ND CAS a. TEST* b. BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AI/RG. VALUE s. LONG TERM . b. NO. OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED (1I8vallable (II 8V8118l"e d. NO. OF s;CONCEN* , ,ojLMAss t,*,.,. ;',

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   .AVERAGE VALUE          . ANAL-

{if available} RE- PRE* AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* TRAnON (1) CONCE.N- .(2) MASS YSES QUI RED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRAnON YSES TRAnON iGCIMS . rRAL 43B. N*Nilro - SOdlphenylamine X 86-30 -6\ 44B. Phenanthrene (8 5,01-8) X 45B. Pyrene (1 29-00'0) X 46B. 1,2,4 - T ri-chlorobenzene X 120-62-1 \ GC/ MS FRACTION

• PESTICIDES 1P. Aldrin -

(309-00-2) X 2P . Il~B HC (319-04-6) X

      ~P . Il - B H C (31 9-85-7)                                                   X 4P. -v* BHC (58-89-9)                                                     X "P . ~- BHC (31 9 8)                                                 )(

6P. C hlordane (57-74-9) X 7P.4,4'-00T (50-29-3) X BP. 4,4'-DDE (72-55-9) )( I 9P.4 ,4'-000 (72-54-8) X 10P. Dieldrin (SO-57-1 ) )( 1-1 p,....rt.*t;r1!1o~ lli fA n (11 5-29-7) X 12P. Il*Enrio""lfAn (11 5-29-7) X 13P. Endosulfan Sulfate X 1031-07-81 14P. Endrin (72-20-8) X

       '151'. Endrin Aldehyde                                                      X 742 1-93-4 \

16P. Heptachlor (76-44-B) X w ~------------ --- ~ - - - --- - - -- - - -- - ---- '1 EPA Form 2C-3510 (0-90) Page V-8 CONTfNUE ON PAGE V*g

loT EPA 1.0. NUMBER (CODV from /tern 1 of Form 1) OUTFAL L NUMBER TN2640 030035 101 CONTINUED FROM PAGE v-a

1. PULLUTAN I 2. MARK ' 3. EFFLUEN' 4. rs 5. INTAKE {DotlDr ell AND CAS a. TEST* b. BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM IWRG. VALUE B. LONG TERM a. LONG TERM b. NO..OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED (if available

                                                                                                                                      ..        " (if avalillble           d. NO. OF     AVERAGE VALUE            AVERAGE VALUE               ANAL*

(if available) RE* PRE* AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* a. CONCEN* b. MASS (l)CONCEN* (2) MASS . YSES QUIRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION TRATION . IGC/MS 17B. Heptachtor Epoxide X 1(1024-57-3\ l ap. PCB-1242 (53469-21-9) X 19P. PCB-1 254 (11097-69-1) X 20P. PCB-1221 (11104-28-2) X 21P. PCB-1232 (1 1141-16-5) X 22P. PCB-1248 (12672-29-6) X 23P. PCB-1260 (1 1096-82-5) X 24P. PCB-l 016 (12674-11-2) X 25P.Toxaphene (8001 2) X

    ~

(1) Nalual bacl<ground racliatlon levels. Nole: Long term average values from October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005. EPA Form 3510-2C (a-90) Page V-g

b. NO. OF ANALYSES IiISTOnlvl-'\'-

5 .5 5.2 2 mg/L 29.3 17.4 7 MGD

                                       '12.1                        11.2       7         "C NA                          NA                   "C B.OONCEN* I b.MASS TRATION 0.06                         0.03         mg/L Nitrite (as N)
~

\"J EPA Form 3510-2C (1J..90) Page V-1 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-2

~ ITEM V-R C ONT NlJED FROM PAGE V-l 2 MARK')\'

• EFFLUEN" 4. ITS

1. POLLUT- o. BE* b. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF ANT AND UEVED UEVED ({I available) ({I available) d. NO. OF a. CONCEN* b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL*

CAS NO. PAE- AB* (1) (2) MAS S (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- TRATION (1) (2) MASS YSES (jfa vailable) SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES CONCENTRATION

   !l. N il ro!len.

Total Organic asN)

h. O il and Grease <5 <5 2 mg/L I. Phosphorus (as P), Total 117723-14-0)

   '. Radloactivitv 1r Alpna:;-----

Total (2) Bel a, Tolal (3) Radium, Total (4) Radium 226, Total 1<. S ulfate (as SO .) 14808-79-8) I. Sullide (as S) m Sulfite (as S03) 14265-45-3)

n. Surfactants

o. Aluminum, Total 7429-90-5)

p. Barium, Total 117440-39-3)

Q. Boron, Total [17440-42-8\

r. Cobalt, Total 7440-48-4\

s. Iron,Total (7439-89-6)

I. MaQnesium , Total . 7439-95-4)

u. Molvbdenum ,

Total 174:lg*!1R.7\

v. ManQanese, Tolal 7439-96-5)

w. Tin. Total (7440-31 -5)

x. T itanium, Total

17440 6)

EPA Form 351002C (8-90) Pag'e V-2 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-3

EPA 1.0. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) OUTFALL NUMBER TN2640030035 102

       -_ .... ... ..... _- .. .........  ,.,~-., "" .. .....
                                                         ~    "' - ~

(alt to lOll PARTC- If you are a primary industry and this outfall contains process wastewater, refer to Table 2c-2 in the imltructions to determine which of the GCIMS fractions you must test for. Mark 'X' In column 2*a for all such GC/MS fractions that apply to your industry and for ALL toxic metals, cyanides, and total phenols. If you are not required to mark column 2-a (secondary Industries, nonprocells wastewater ouffalls, and nonrequired GelMS fractions), mark ' X' in column 2-b for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe Is present. Mark 'X' In column 2-c for each pollutant ybu believe Is absent. If you mark column 2a for any pollutant, you must provide the results of at least one analysis for that pollutant. If you mark column 2b for any pollutant, you must provide the rasuns of ai least one analysis for that polluiant Wyou Imow or have reason to believe it will be discharged In concentrations of 10 ppb or greater. If you mark col(rnn'2b.for acrolein, acrylonitrile, 2,4 dlniti"ophenol, or 2-methyl-4, 6 dlnrirophlinol; you must provide the

                           . results of at least one analysis for each of these pollutants which you know or have reason to believe that you discharge In ~ntratlons of 100 ppb or greater. Otherwise for Pollutants for which you mark column 2b, you must either submit at least one analysis or briefly describe 'the reasons the pollutant Is expected to be discharged. Note that there are 7 pages to this part; please review each carefuliy.

Complete one table ,all 7 eaoes) for each outfall. See Instructions for add~ional detailS and requlremlmts . . 1.' POLLUTANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4 . . UNITS 5. INTAKE (optional) AND CAS a. TEST- b.BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRI3. VALUE 8. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED (II available) (If available) d. NO. OF a. CONCEN- b. MASS AVERAGE VAlUE ANAL-(if available) RE* PRE- AB* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- TRATION (l)CONCEN* (2) MASS YSES QUIRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION METALS, CYANIDE AND TOTAL PHENOLS 1M. Anlimony, Total (7440,36-0) 2M. Arsenic, Total (7440*38*2) 3M. Beryllium, Tolal, (7440*41-7) 4M. Cadm ium, Total (7440*43-9) 5M. Chromium, Total (7440-47-3) 6M. Copper, Tolal (7440-50,8) 7M. Lead, Tolal (7439-92-1) 8M. MercUlY, Total (7439-97*6) 9M. Nickel, Tolal (7440-02-0) 10M. Selenium, Total (7782-49-2) l1M:-Sllver,Total (7440-22-4) 12M. Thallium, Total (7440-28*0) 13M. Zinc, Tolal (7440*66-6) 0.01 <0.01 3 mg/L 14M. Cyanide, Tolal (57-12-5) J 15M. Phenols, Total DIOXIN 2,3,7,B-Tetra- DESCRIBE RESULTS chlorodibenzo*P tv Dioxin 11764*01*6\ -0 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page V-3 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-4

1.* IJ/IIIIIIIIIt-1J I*HIJIVI

1. POLLUTANT ANOCAS NUMBER

                                 'Alit* V-:i

2. MARK

a. TESf* b. BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAilY VALUE

3. EFFLUEN'

b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. lONG TERM AVRG. VALUE

4. UNTS B.

5. INTAKE ("nUN g/I LONG TERM

b. NO. OF ING L1EVED L1EVED a/ avaifable (if available d. NO. OF a.CONCEN* b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL*

50 (If avallilble) RE* PRE* AB* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* TRATION (l)CONCEN* (2) MASS YSES QUIRED SENT GC/MS FRACTION - VOLATILE COMPOUNDS 1V. Acrolein SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             -- I (107-02-8) 2V. Acrvlonltrlle (107-13-1) 3V. Benzene (71-43*2) 4V. Bis (Gll/om-                                                                                                                                                                                        ,

metllyl) Ether 11542-BO.l \ 5V. Bromofolm (75-25-2) av. Carbon Tetrachloride 56-2::1-5\ 7V. Chlorob,>nzene

                                                           \

(100-90-7) OV. Chlorodi ,. bromornethane 11124-4B-1I 9V. Chloroethane (75-00-3) 1OV. 2-Chloro-athylvlnyl Ether 1(11n-71i~R\ liV. Chloroform (67-66-3) 12V.Oichloro-I bromomethane 117!'i-?7-4\ 13V. Olchloro-dlfluoromethane 171i. 71-m 14V. 1.1-010hloro* ethane (75-34-3) 15V. 1,2-0icliloro-ethane (107-06-2) 16V.l.l-0Ichloro-ethylene (75-35--4) 17V. 1.2-010hloro* propane (76-07-5) 18V. 1.3-0ichloro-propylene (542-75-6) 19V. Ethylbenzene (tOO-41-4) 20V. Methyl Bromide (74-03-9) 21V. Methyl Chlorldo (74-07-3) EPA Form 35102C (8-90) Page V-4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-S -

EPA I.D. NUMBER (coov from Item 1 of Form 1) OUTFAL L NUMBER T N2640030035 102

     '"' U N IINUI::. U t" t'UM t"A\.:i 1:. V- q                                                                                                                         lall 10 101

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS " IM"4K" (nnfinn, AND CAS a. TEST* b. BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED (If available fllB ilallable d. NO. OF a.CONCEN* b. MAss AVERAGE VALUE ANAL*

(if available) RE* PRE- AB* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ' ANAL- TRATlON (l)CONCEN' (2) MASS YSES aUJRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATlON CONCENTRATlON CONCENTRATlON YSES , TRATlON 1r.r.iMC: . 1Ir. 4' nUPnI, IIIno' 22V. Methylene " Chloride (75*09*2) 23V. l ,I ,2,2-Tetra-chloroelhane 1179-34-51 24V. Tetrachloro-ethylene (1 27-t6-4) 25V. Toluene (100-08-3) 26V. l,2-Trans-Dichloroelhylene IllliA-An -lil 27V, t,t,t -Tri - chloroethal)e 1171_",,_'" 2SV. l ,l, 2-Tri-chloroelhane 1179-00-51 29V, Trichloro-elhylene (79-01 -6) 30V. Trichloro-fluoromethane 7"-""-4' 31V. Vinvl Chloride (75-01-4) GC/MS FRACTION - ACID COMPOUNDS 1A. 2-Chlorophenol (95-57-8) 2A. 2,4-Dichloro-phenol (120-63-2) 3A. 2,4-Dimethyl-phenol (105-67-9) 4A. 4,6-Dinitro-O - Cresol (534-52-1) I 5A, 2,4-Dinilro-QiJ.er!QL(51-2!j-5L - 6A, 2-Nilrophenol (88-75-5) 7A, 4-Nilrophenol (100-02-7) SA. P-Chloro-M Cresol (59-50-7) 9A. Pentachloro-phenol (67-86-5) 10A. Phenol (1 08-95-2) 11A. 2.4.6-Trichloro-phenol (86-06-2) ~ " EPA Form 3510-2C (0-90) Paga V-5 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-6

~ CONTINUED FROM

1. POLLUTANT PAGE V-r.-

2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS  !;. INTAKF fnnfinn.1l AND CAS a. TEST- b. BE- c. BE- a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMBER ING lIEVED lIEVI~ D II/available /I available d. NO. OF a. CONCEN- b. MASS " " AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if available) RE- PRE- AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MAGS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- TRATiON (1)CONCEN- (2) MASS YSES QUIRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION GC/MS FRACTION - BASE'lNEUTRAL COMPOUNDS 1B. Acenaphthene (03-32-9) 2B. Acenaphtylene (20B-96-8) 3B. Anlhracene (1 20-12-7) 4B. Benzidine (92-87-5)

56. Benzo fa l Anthracene I

Imll-5fi-:l\ 6B. Benzo (aJ pyrene (50-32-0) , 7B. 3,4-Benzo- I fluoranlhene 205-99-2\ 8B. 6enzo (ahil Perylene 191-24-2\ 9B_Benzo (kJ Fluoranthene II?Cl7_ nR_Q\ 10B. Bis f2-Chlnro-atlJOXY) Methane 111 11-Q1-1\ 11 B. Bis (2-Chloro-ethyl) Ether 11 1-1:44-4\ 12B. Bis (2-Chloro-Isopropyl) Ether 1O?-OO-l \ 13B. Bis (2-Ethvl-hexyl) Phthalate 117-R1 -7\ 14B. 4-6romo- I phenyl Phenyl I Etl1"; 1101-55-3\ 15B. Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (85-68-7) 1G6. 2-Gllloro-naphthalene . 91-'iR-7\ 176. 4-Ghloro-phenyl Phenyl Ethe,: 170os:n-:l\ 1BB. Chrysene (218-01-9) 19B. Dibenzo (a.lll Anthracene

     ! {I;~_7n_ ~\

20B. 1,2-Dichloro-benzene (95-50-1) 2*t B. 1,3-Dichloro-benzene (541-73-1) EPA Form 351G-2C (G-90) Pag l~ V-6 CONTINUE ON PAG E V-7

EPA 1.0. NUMBER (r:onv from /tRm 1 nf Fnrm 1) OUTFALLNUMBER r.O IllTIIIIIIFn I'ROM p , ,r. F \/.Il TN2640030035 1~II'n1,~~

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS  !;. IN' r AKF Inntlnm AND CAS a. TEST* b. BE- c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMBER (if a va ilable)

INO LlEVED LlEVt;D PRE- AB-III available . lIIaval/a!>'" d.NO: OF a. CONCEN* b. MASS .' . AVERAGE VALUE .: ANAL* RE* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- TRATION (I)CONCEN- (2) MASS YSES QUIRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION

      ",rl.. e

• R ''',,::. rRAI r.IIMPC'lilN rll':

22B. lA-Dlchloro* benzene (1 06-46*7) 23B. 3.3'*Dlchloro* benzidine (~1 .~4 . 1\ 24B. Diethvl Phlhalate

    'Ind ...... ?\

25B. Dimethyl Phthalate 11131.11.::1\ 26B. Di-N*Butvi Phthalate IIA4.74-?\ 27B. 2 ,4*Dlnitro* to luene (12'1* 14-2) 28B. 2 .6* Dinltro* toluene (606*20*2) 29B. Di*N-Octvi Phthalate 1111 7.R4-0I 30B. 1.2-Diphenyl-hydrazine (a s Azo* Ihon7onolll,>?"".7\ 31B. Fluoranthene (206*44* 0) 32B. Fluorene (S6*73-7) 33B. Hexachlorobenzene (II B*74*1) 34B. Hexa* chlorobutadiene IIR7.f\JV'I\ 35B. Hexachloro* cyclopentadiene l i 77.A7.4\ 36B. Hexachloro* ethane (67*72* 1) 37B. lndeno (1 ,2,3'cd) Pyrena l il~~ .3!l.~\ 3BB. Isophorone (7B*59*1) 39B. Naphthalene (91*2D*3) 40B.-Nitrobenzene (98*95*3) 41B. N*Nitro* soclim ethylamlne i IlW.7~_Q\* 42B. N*Nilrosodi*N* Propylamln9 ~ 1{(' ?1: 1'<4.7\ EPA Form 351~2C (~90)

                                                               -                -                                                  Page V*7                                                                                          CONTINUE ON PAG E v*a

~ FROM p j lGE y-7 C'nIllTIIIII II::" _

            '1. POLLUTANT                 2. MARK 'X'.                                                     3. EFFLUENT                                                                 4. UNITS                /i, INTAKE/";':"."'"

AND CAS B. TEST- b. BE- c. BE- a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE, c. LONG TEAM A\fRG. VALUE a, LONG TEAM b. NO. OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED II/available {I/avallable d. NO. OF B.CONCEN- b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if available) RE- PAE- AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- TRATION (1) CONCEN- (2) MASS YSES QUIA ED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES - . TRATION r.~ _ R ~!':FIIIIFII RAI 436. N-Nitro-sodiphenylam ine 86-30-n\ 44B. Phenanthrene (85-01-8) 456 . p yrene (1 29-00-0) 46B_1,2,4 - Tri-chlorobenzene 120-02-11 GC/MS FRACTION - PESTICIDES 1P_Aldrin (309-00-2) 2P.n-BHC (3 19-04-6)

IP. ~ -BHe (319*85-7)  :

4P. 'Y- BHC (58-89-9)

        ~P . ~- 6 HC (31 9-06-8) 6P. Chlordane (57-74-9) 7P.4,4'-00T (50-29*3)

OP.4 ,4'-DDE (72-55-9) 9P.4,4'*000 (72-54-8) 10P. Oieldrin (60-57-1) 11 P. 1l.-Enrl o RIlIf~ n (1 15-29-7) 12P. ~ -E nrl M lllfM (115-29-7) 131'. Endosulfan Sulfate

         *t031-07-m 14P. Endrin (72-20-8) 15P. Endrin Aldehyde 74 2 1- 9 ~ - 4\

161'. Heptachlor (76-44-8) ______________ ~ _______________ *__1_____________JL______JL__________ .___L____,___L______________L_______L_____.L________L-______L-________..______..______ EPA Forrn 2C-351 0 (8-90) Page V-8 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-9

EPA 1.0. NUMBER (CODV from Item 1 of Form 1) OUTFAL L NUMBER

                                                                                                                                                                               ,~~;

TN2640030035 CONTINUED FROM 'AGI= V- 8 ("It

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK 3. IT 4. rs- 5. 'N*r.6KI= fnntinm>ll AND CAS a. TEST- b. BE- c. BE- a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALU,E c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a LONG TERM ' a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED ' (if available (ifavallatole d. NO. OF AVERAGE VALUE AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if available) RE* PRE- AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ' ANAL- a. CONCEN- b. MASS (1)CONCEN- (2) MASS YSES QUIRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION TRATION GC7Ms . (,."n '/n ..",.,1 17B. Heptachlor Epoxide (1024-57-3\

18P. PCB-1242 (53469-21 -9) , 19P. PCB-1254 (11097-69-1) . 20P. PCB-1221 I (11104-28-2) 21P. PCB-1232 (111 41-16-5) 22P. PCB-1248 (12672-29-6) 23P. PCB-1260 " (11096-82-5) 24P. PCB-l016 (1.2674-11 -2) 25P. Toxaphene (8001-35-2)

   ~

(1) Natual bacl<ground radiati on leve ls. Note: Long term average values (rom October 1, 2004 (hrough September 30. 2 005. ~ "') EPA Form 3510-2C (8*90) Page V-g

..t.- O'

d. NO. OF b. NO. OF ANALYSES ANALYSES (2) MASS

                                    " " ,n l,V '"
                                  <5.0                                                                                         1          mg/L 39                                                                                          1          mg/L 2.1                                                                                         1          mg/L 8.8                                                             4.9                         14         mg/L mg/L 191.360                                                  129.350               365              MGD I        NA
                                                                    'VALUE                IVALUE 22.8                       NA                           *11.5               182    lOG 23.0                183    lOG (1)

CONCENTR ATION (2) MASS I CONC1 NTRATION (2) MASS I (1) CONCENTRATION (2) MASS

a. CONCEN* I TRATION

b. MASS X <1.0 mg/L X <0.050 <0.05 262 mg/L X 5.0 PCU X NA X 0.12 mg/L Nitrite (as N) X <0.10 mg/L EPA Form 3510-2C (0-90) Page V-l CONTINU E ON PAGE V-2

ITEM V-B F ROM P An F V-1

2. MAR K X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. rs .  ;,'

• 5. INTAKEJootinnalL

1. POLLUT- a. BE- b. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE , * . LONG TERM b. NO, OF ANT AND UEVED UEVED {/I available) {/I available) d. NO. OF , * . CONCEilI- b, MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL* '

CAS NO. PRE* AB* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* TRATION (1) (2) MASS YSES (if available) SENT SENT CONCENTRAllON CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION . YSES .CONCENTRATION .

n. Nitronen. -"-

Total Organ!c X 0.28 1 mg/L asN) h.Oiland Grease X <5.7 1 mg/L I. Phosphorus (as P), Total X <0.10 1 mg/L 7723*1 4-0\

      '. Radioactivitv                                                                                                                                                           ~

(1 ) Alpha, Total X <3.20 1 pCi/L (2) Beta, Total X <2. 11 1 pCi/L (3) Radium , Tolal X (4) Radium - 226, Total X

     !I. Sulfate (as 80. )               X                       10.                                                                                              1            mg/L (MROS-7A.AI I. Sulfide (as S)                  X                    <0.050                                                                                              1            mg/L m Sulfite (as 80 s)               X                    <0.020                                                           <0.020                             2            mg/L 1426['-45-3)

n. Surfactants X <0.10 1 mg/L

o. Aluminum, Total X 0.37 1 mg/L 11742A-90-5\

fl. Barium , Total X 0.025 1 mg/L

    '1 7440-39-3\

Q. Boron. 0 Total X <0.20 1 mg/L 117440-42-01

r. Cobalt, Tota! X 0.0010 1 ---'TI9 /L 7440*4R-4

s. Iron.Total (7439-89,6) X 0.19 1 mg/L

t. Maj:lnesium, .

Total X 5.0 1 mg/L 7439-95-4\

u. Molvbdenum, - I Total X <0.0050 1 mg/L 7439-9B-7\

v. Man~anese.

Totai X 0.020 1 mg/L 1(7439-96-5\

w. Tin, Total (7440-31-5) X 0.0020 1 mg/L

~

'-J

x. Titanium ,

Total 117440-::1?_1>\ X <0.010 1 mg/L j EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page V-2 CONTINUE ON PAGE v-s

~ EPA I.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) OUTFALL NUMBER ". TN2640030035 113

     'W .... . . , . . '1 ..... ~ .... I 1 . ....... 1 '  ""~ ..... . ~ V I  I _lllV1 ' - 'I..r PARTC -                             If you are a primary industry and this outfall contains process wastewater, refer to Table 2c-2 in the Instructions to determine which of the GC/MS fractions you must test for. Mark 'X' in column 2-a for all such GC/MS fraclions Ihat app~' to your Induslry and lor ALL loxlc melals, cyanides, and total phenols. If you are not required to mark column 2-a (secondary Industries, nonpfOCllss wasiewater oiJlfalls, and nonmquired GCIMS fraclions) , mark 'X' in column 2-b for each pollutant you know or have reason to believe Is present. Mark 'X' In column 2-c for each pOllutant you iiellev~ is absent. ,If ,yoU mail< colUmn 2a for any pollutant, you must provide the resu~s of at least one analysis for that pollutant. If you marlc coiumn 2b for any pollutant, you must provide the resu~s of at least one aha~sls ior that poiiulani if yo'ti' .

know or have reason to believe It will be discharged In concentrations of 10 ppb or greater. If you mark column 2b for acrolein, acrylonitrile, 2,4 dinitrophenol, or 2-melhyl-4, 6 dinitrOphenol, you mList provide the results of at loast one analysis for each of these pollutants which you know or have reason to believe that you discharge In conr.entratlons of 100 ppb or greater. Otherwise for pollutants for whlcH'you mark " '

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     'J"' -

column 2b, you must either submit at least one analysis or briefly describe the reasons the pollutant Is expected to be discharged. Note that there are 7 pages to this part; please review each carefully. Comnlete one table (all 7 pages) for each outfall. See Instructions for additional detailS and requirements. , ," - "

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS 5. INTAKE (optional)

AND CAS ., T EST- b. BE- C. BE- a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b, MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE 8, LONG TERM b, NO. OF

     ~OMBE~ 11IIer+- ClEVEO- ClEVE[)                                                                                                          (II available)                         (If available)       --  d. NO. OF a. CONCEN-    b.MAss         AVERAGE VALUE                ANAL-(if avai/able)                           RE*              PRE-        AB*                    (1)         (2) MASS          (t)                (2) MASS            (1)                (2) MASS   ANAL-    TRATION                (I)CONCEN-      (2) MASS          ysEs auIRED            SENT       SENT         CONCENTRATION                    CONCENTRATION                          CONCENTRATION                         YSEs                              TRATION METALS, CYANIDE AND TOTAL PHENOLS 1M. Antimony.

Total (7440-36-0) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 2M. Arsenic, Total (7440-3S-2) X 0.0014 1 mg/L 3M. Beryllium. Total, (7440-41 -7) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 4M. Cadmium, Total (7440-43-9) X <0.00050 1 mg/L 5M. Chromium, Total (7440-47-3) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 6M, Copper, Tolal (7440-50-8) X 0.0018 1 mg/L 7M. Lead, Total (7439-92-1) X <0.0010 1 mg/L OM, Mercury, Tolal (7439-97-6) X 0.0000015 1 mg/L 9M. Nickel, Total (7440-02-0) X 0.001 0 1 mg/L 10M. Selenium. Total (7782-49-2) X <0. 0010 1 mg/L 11M. Silver, Tolal (7440-22-4) X <0.00050 1 mg/L 12M, Thallium. Total (7440-28-0) X 0.0020 1 mg/L 13M. Zinc, Total (7440-66-6) X 0.01 3 1 mg/L 14M. Cyanide, Total (57-12-5) X <0,0050 1 mg/L 15M. Phenols, Tolal X <0.040 1 mg/L DIOXIN ." . :, .. 2,3,7,0-Tetra- D ESC I~ I BE RESULTS chlorodibenzo-P X Dioxin 11 704-01-6\ EPA Form 351~2C (8-90) Page V-3 CONTINUE ON PAG E V-4

CONTIN IIFn FRnM ' Afl l= v_ ~

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS Ii INTAKF7';,.,ffnr;'i1 AND CAS a. TEST- b. BE- c. BE- a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONGTERM b. NO. OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED (if available (if available d. NO. OF a. CONCEN- b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if available) RE- PRE- AB- ( 1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- TRATION (I)CONCEN- (2) MASS YSES QUIRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION .

GC/MS FRACTION - VOLATILE COMPOUNDS 1V. Acrolein , (107-02-8) X <0.050 1 mg/L 2V. Acrylonitrile (107-13-1) X <0.010 1 mg/L 3V. Benzene (71-43-2) X <0.001 0 1 mg/L I 4V_ Bls (Chloro-methyl) Ether X <0.0010 1 mg/L

   !1542:RR-l \

5V. Bromoform - (75-25-2) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 6V.Carbon Tetrachloride X <0.0010 1 mg/L IIh A-?::l-<;\ 7V. Chlorobenzene (108-90-7) X <0. 0010 1 mglL 8V. Chlorodi-bromomethane X <0.0010 1 mg/L 11124-48-1\ 9V. Chloroelhane (75-00-3) X <0.0050 1 mg/L 10V. 2-Chloro-ethylvlnyl Ether X <0.050 1 mg/L 1{11n-7;,~A\ l1V. Chloroform (67-66-3) X <0.0050 1 mg/L 12V.Dichloro-bromomethane 1175-27-4\ 13V. Dichloro-X <0.0010 1 mg/L difluoromethane X <0.0050 1 mg/L b"_71_A1 14V. 1, l -Dichloro-ethane (75-34-3) X <0.0010 1 mglL 15V. 1,2-Dlchloro-ethane (1 07-06-2) X <0.0010 'tJ 1 mg/L 16V. l.l -0 ichloro-

                                                                                                           '/)

0 I 1> l'Tj ethylene (75:35-4) X <0.0010 :1

                                                                                                         .'-         c:

G')  ;~ 1 mglL 17V. 1,2-Dichloro- - ~ propane (78-87-5) X ' <0.0010 () (I 1--< C!r.l In r:o.-, 1 mg/L 1BV. 1.3-0 Ichloro- ,. -" propylene (542-75-6) X <0.0010 0 0

                                                                                                                   = f'Ti a'"

1 mg/L 19V. Ethylbenzene ....; - (100-41-4) X <0. 0010 lJ 1 mg/L 20V. Methyl Bromide (74-83-9) X <0.0050 1 mglL 21V. Methyl Chloride (74-87-3) X <0.0025 1 mg/L

~

'-Q EPA Form 351 0-2C (8-90) Page 'V-4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-l>

EPA I.D. NUMBER (CODV from /rem 1 of Fonn 11 OUTFAL L NUMBER S';

~

CONTINUED FROM P A 1 . POLLUTANT AND CAS NUMBER lE ING v-~

2. MARK! I

a. TEST- b. BE- c. BE-LlEVED LlEVED

a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE 3.

b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE TN2640030035

c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE 113

4. Irs " I .... ' .*"'F (nn'n.

a: LONG TERM b. NO. OF (/I available (/I avall8/Ile d. NO. OF a. CONCEN- b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if available) RE- PRE- AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) (Z)MASS (1) (Z)MASS ANAL- TRATlON (l)CONGEN- (2) MASS YSES QUIFIED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTl1ATlON CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION r.r. /M !': _ v r: ATII F OMI>OI Nn!': .i. 22V. Methvlene Chloride (75-09-2) X <0.0050 1 mg/L 23V.l,1,2,2-Tetra-chloroethane X <0.0010 1 mg/L

179-34-51 24V. Tetrachloro-ethylene (127-18-4) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 25V. Toluene (108-88-3) )( <0.0050 1 mg/L 26V. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene X <0.0010 1 mg/L 1/1 56-60-51 27V. 1,1 ,1-Tri-chloroethane X <0.0010 1 mg/L 1171-55-61 20V.1 ,1 ,2-Tri-chloroethane X <0.0010 1 mg/L 1179-00-5\

29V. Trichloro-ethylene (79-01-6) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 30V. Teichloro-fluoromelhane X <0.0050 1 mg/L b,,_f\Q_dl 31V. Vlnvt Chtorlde (75-01-4) X <0.0010 1 mg/L GC/MS FRACTION - ACID COMPOUNDS 1A. 2-Chlorophenol (95-57-8) X <0.040 1 mg/L 2A. 2,4-Dichloro-phenol (120-83-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L 3A. 2,4-Dimethvl- - phenol (105-67-9) X <0.040 1 mg/L 4A. 4,6-Dinllro Cresol (534-52-1) X <0.040 1 mg/L 5A. 2,4-Dinltro-phenol (51-28-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L 6A. 2-Nitrophenol (88-75-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L 7A. 4-Nitrophenot (100-02-7) X <0.040 1 mg/L OA. P-Cilloro-M Cresol (59-50-7) X <0.040 1 mg/L 9A. Pentachloro-phenol (07-86-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L lOA. Phenol (108-95-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L 11 A. 2,4,6-Trlchloro-phenol (88-06-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page V-5 CONTtNUE ON PAGE V-6

C O NTIN lI Fn FROM >A G E V - fi 1_ POLLUTANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4_ UNITS " I"'- ;"I(~ Inn'v", oil AND CAS a. TEST- b. BE- c. BE- a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRCl. VALUE a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED (/I available (/I available d. NO. OF a.cONCEN- b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if available) RE- PRE- AB- (1) (2}MASS (1) (2}MASS (1) (2}MASS ANAL- mATION (l}CONCEN- (2}MASS YSES a UIRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION GC/MS FRACTION - BASE/NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS 1B. Acenaphlhene (83-32-9) X 1 mg/L 2B. Acenaphlvlene (208-96-8) X 1 mg/L 3B. Anthracene (120-12' 7) X 1 mg/L 4B. Benzidine (92-07-5) X 1 mg/L 5B. Benzo fa) Anthracene X 1 mg/L 1156-55-:i\ 6B. Benzo fa) Pyrene (50-32-8) X 1 mg/L 7B. 3,4-Benzo-fiuoranthene X 1 mg/L 205-99-2\ 8B. Benzo fohi) Perylene X 1 mg/L IIHll 2\ 9B. Benzo Od Fluoranthene X 1 mg/L

     !19n7_nll_QI lOB. Bis f2-Chloro-ellioxy) Met/lane                            X                                                                                                    1        mg/L 111 11 11B. Bls f2-Chloro-etlwl) Elher                                 X                                                                                                    1        mg/L
        '111 4\

12B. Bis f2-Chloro-Isopropyl) Elher X 1 mg/L 1';2-.1O'-il 13B. Bis f2-Ethvl-hexyl) Phthalate X 1 mg/L 11 7-Rl -7\ 14B. 4-Bromo-phenyl Phenyl X 1 mg/L Eth",; 1101 -,,-1 15B. Butvl Benzyl Phthalate (05-66-7) X 1 mg/L 16B. 2-Chloro-naphthalene X 1 mg/L Iml-iiR-7\ 17B. 4-Chloro-phenyl Phenyl X 1 mg/L Ethe; /7005-'72-31 lOB. Chrysene (218*01-9) X 1 mg/L 19B. Dibenzo fa.h) Anthracene X 1 mg/L 11""',70*"'1 20B. 1,2-Dichloro-benzene (95-50-1) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 21B. 1,3*Dichloro- ~ benzene (541-73-1) X <0.0010 1 mg/L EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page V-6 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-7

J\ r EPA I.D. NUMBER (r.nnv fmm Ifam 1 nf Fnrm 11 OUTFAL L NUMBER TN2640030035 113 CONTINIIFn FRO M p , .nF I'-Iii

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK

a. TEST* b. BE*

                                                    'x:-                                                3. EFFLUENT                                                                   4. UNI~             . "'MTAIl"    /nnHnn, AND CAS                            c. BE*        a. MAXIMUM DAilY VAlUE        b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VAlUE            c.lONG TERM AVRG. VAlUE                                                8. lONG TERM         b. NO. OF NUMBER           ING       LlEVED  LlEveD                                               iiI aval/able                     (IIaval/lIIJle           d. NO. OF  8. CONCEN* .b. MASS       AVERAGE VAlUE            ANAL*

(if available) RE* PRE- AS- (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (I) (2) MASS ANAl- TRATloN ' . (I)CONCEN* (2) MASS YSES QUIRED SENT SEN'r CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION 1lCI"" 22B. 1 A -Dichlara-

                                 -  ""ru", r.>A,        EPliN Il~

benzene (106*46-7) <0,0010 1 mg/L

                                                         )(

23B. 3.3'-Dichlaro-

         ~~lnzldi~~                                                                                                                                                                mg/L
                                                         )(                                                                                                              1
              -Q4-1 24B. Diethvl Phthalate                                       X                                                                                                               1-    1'I1g/[

IA4 .1l1l-?\ 25B. Dimethvl Phlhalate )( 1 mg/L 11:'11-11-:'11 26B. Di-N-Butvl Phlhalate X 1 mg/L IIM.7"_?1 27B. 2A-Dinilra-loloone (121-14-2) X 1 mg/L 28B. 2,6-Dinitro* toluene (606-20-2) X 1 mg/L 29B. Di-N-Octvl Phthalate . X 1 mg/L 111 17_AII _nI 30B. 1,2-Diphenvl-hydrazine (as Azo* X 1 mg/l I J,on ~ono' I< ""_""_7' 31 B. Fluoranlhene (206-44-0) X 1 mg/L 32B. Fluarene I (86-73-7) X 1 mg/L 33S. Hexachlorobenzene (11 8-74-1 ) X 1 mg/L 34B. Hexa- I chlorobuladiene X 1 mg/L IIR7-IlA-:'I1 35B. Hexachloro-cyclopenladlene X 1 mg/L

      !177-4.7-4\

36B. Haxachloro-elhane (67-72-1) X 1 mg/L 37B. lndena (1,2,3-cd) Pyrena X 1 mg/L l ilQ~_:'IQ_i;, 38B. Isophorone (78-59-1 ) X 1 mg/l 39B. Naphthalene (91 3) X 1 mg/L 40B. Nilrobenzene (98-95-3) X 1 mg/L 41 B. N-Nilro-sodimethylamlne X 1 mg/L IIA?-7fi-!l" 42B. N-Nilrosodi*N-Propylam ine X 1 mg/L I IM;:,,~ .7\ EPA Form 351()"2C (8-90) Page V-7 CONTINUE ON PAG E V-8

CONTINIIFn FROM p , ,G E II.Z.

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UN TS " lorrAll1= Inntinn, A ND CAS a. TEST* b. BE* c. BE- a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMBER ING UEVED UEVED (llevelleble ,. (flevellebl. d. NO. OF a. CONCEN* b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL*

(if available) RE- PRE- AB* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* TRAllON (1)CONCEN- (2) MASS YSES QUI RED SENT SENl CONCENTRATION CONCENTRAllON CONCENTRAllON YSES TRAllON

• InN ""'" . '" """.,<:, rRAI C-l MelJUN I)!':

43B. N* Nitro-sodiphenylam Ine X 1 mg/L IIBB*30-si 44B . Phenanthrene (85-01*8) X 1 mg/L 45B. Pyrene . (129-00-0) X 1 mg/L 46B. 1,2,4

• Tri..

chlorobenzene X 1 mg/L 120*02* 1\ GC/MS FRACTION

• PESTICIDES 1P. Aldrin (309-00*2) X 1 mg/L 2 P .(J~B H C (319*04-6) X 1 mg/L

Ip.n*SHC (319-85*7) X 1 mg/L 4P. v* BHC (58*89*9) X 1 mg/L

        ~P .Ii* SHC (3 19.86*8)                                             X                                                                                                        1        mg/L 6P. Chlordane                                                                                                                                                                                          ,

(57*74*9) X 1 mg/L 7P.4,4'*0 0T (50-29*3) X 1 mg/L OP. 4,4'-DDE (72-55-9) X 1 mg/L 9P. 4,4'*000 (72*54*8) X 1 mg/L -c . I 1OP _Dieldrin (60-57.1) X 1 mg/L . i 11P. rt.* E nrl o~ lIl f~n (11 5*29*7) X 1 mg/L 12P. f\*En rl o ~ lIlf ~n (115.29*7) X 1 mg/L 13P. Endosulfan Sulfate

• X 1 mg/L 1031 *07*8\

14P. Endrin (72*20*8) X 1 mg/L 15P. Endrln Aldehyde X 1 mg/L 117421~!l3-4\ 16P. Heptachlor (76-44*9) X 1 mg/L (j -.~-~----

  . EPA Form 2C*3510 111-901                                                                                                Pan e V-8                                                                                      CONTINUE ON PAG E V* 9

J"\ -t: EPA I.D. NUMBER (copv from Item 1 of Form 1) OUTFAL L NUMBER TN2640030035 113 CONTINUED FROM PAGE v-a

1. POLLUTANT 2. MARK 3. 4. rs 5. IN-rAKE (nntlnn AND CAS a. TEST- b. BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a~ LONG TERM a. LONG TERM .. b. NO. OF NUMBER ING LlEVED LlEVED (i/avallable (i/avallable d. NO. OF AVERAGE VALUE . AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if available) RE- PRE* AB- (1) (2) MASS (1) . (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL- a. CONCEN- b. MASS (l)CONCEN- (2) MASS YSES aU IRED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATioN .. T.RATION GC/M~ FRACTION -

17B. Heptachlor Epoxide X 1 mg/L

   !1 024-57-3)

• l BP. PCB-1242 (53469-21 -9) X 1 mg/L 19P. PCB-1254 (1 1097-69-1) X 1 mg/L 20P. PCB-1221  :

(11104-20-2) X 1 mg/L 21P. PCB-1 232 (11141-16-5) X 1 mg/L 22P. PCB-1248 (12672-29-6) X 1 mg/L 23P. PCB-1260 (11 096-82-5) X 1 mg/L 24P. PCB-l0l 6 , (12674-11-2) X 1 mg/L 25P.Toxaphene (8001-35-2) X 1 mg/L

   ~

(1) Natual background radialion levels. Note: Long term average values (rom October I, 2 004 tl1rough September 30.2005. EPA Form 3510-2C (8*90) Page V*g

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND COI SERVATION NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION ADDRESSES All addresses must be completed even if the same address is used: NPDES PERMIT NUMBER: TN0020168 CORPORA TE HEADQUARTERS (where permit should be sent): CONTACT PERSON: Darrin Hutchison, Mgr Chemistry/ Environmental TELEPHONE (423) 365-8016 Name Title COMPANY NAME: Tennessee Valley Authority - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant STREET AND/OR P.O. BOX: P.O. Box 2000 CITY: Spring City STATE __~TN~______ 37381 PERMIT BILLING ADDRESS (where invoices should be sent): CONTACT PERSON: _J".,e<!.!rrC'-i""L"-..P,-,h,-,-,i""ll~ip",-s____,=,En,-,-v!.-'ir"-,o",nm~e-,-,!nt",-al!....!S",,c~ie""n'-"!ti!-",s,-- t TELEP HONE: (423) 365 -3 576 Name Title I FACILITY NAME: Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar Nuclear Plant STREET AND/OR P.O. BOX: P. O. Box 2000 CITY: Spring City STATE: TN Zl1 CODEO ;;..37:.. =:3=8-"---1_ _ _ _ FACILITY LOCA nON (actual location of permit site): CONTACT PERSON: Jerri L. Philli12s Environmental Scientist TELEPHONE: (423) 365-3576 Name Title F ACILlTY NAME: Tennessee Valley Authority - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant STREET AND/OR P.O. BOX: HWY 68 Nuclear Plant Road CITY: Spring City STATE: TN ZIP CODE: 37381 COUNTY: Rhea TELEPHONE: (423) 365-3576 DMR MAILING ADDRESS (where preprinted Discharge Monitoring Reports should be SE tnt): CONTACT PERSON: Travis Markum, W ater Permitting SQecia jist TELEPHONE: (423 ) 751-2795 Name Title FACILITY NAME: Tennessee Valley .A.uthoritv - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant STREET AND/OR P.O. BOX: 1101 Market Street. LP 50 CITY: Chattanooga STATE: TN ZIP CODE: 3740? CN-I090 RjDAs 2352 AND 2366 S:\meriia fiies-\water\.Y1pd~s\wbn\'W"BI\' permit address form 4-06 Ipj.doc

TN0020168 WBN PROCESSES 2C Addendum Chemicals uled in Plant Processes Chemical addi ives are used in plant processes and may be found in trace quantities in thE various NPDESdischarge points due to blowdown , leakage, and system mainteL:ance activities. The following paragraph describes the most commonly usep system additives. The table below summarizes all chemical additives inclu~ing the water additives that may be found in each outfall as wel l. The water addJtives are biocides and corrosion treatment chemicals and are discussed in ~ ore detail in the Biocide Corrosion Treatment Plan (BCTP) approved in April 2007 by the Division of Water Pollution Control and updated with this SUbm1 *ttal. Hydiazine, am . onia, bo~ic acid , sodiu~ tetiabora~e , mono~th.anolamine,. sodium molybdate, so lum tolyltnazole, potassium hydroXide, and lith ium hyd roXide are routinely adde~ to the Primary and Secondary Systems to control pH and corrosion. Up to 300 pounds of modified alpha cellulose could be added to the condenser inta~e channel to temporarily plug pinhole tube leaks in the condenser. H ~drogen peroxide may be added during refueling for Primary System cleanup to .reduce radiation exposure to maintenance personnel. Similarly, Smal ~qUantities of ethylene glycol, a heat transfer medium used in building chiller ackages, the ice condenser chiller packages, and diesel generators, cowld end up via leakage in OSNs 101, 102, internal monitoring point (IMP) 103, and IMP 107. March 2009

TN 00201 68 WBN PROCESSES 2C AI dendum

SUMMARY

OF CHEMICALS ADDED BY DlSCHARt E DESCHARGE DESCRIPTION CHEMICAL ADDED OSN 101 Diffuser Discharge Ammonium Hydroxide, Ammo~1 ium Chloride (Not added now but will add to U-2), Alpha Cellulose, Asbestos after 5 micron filter, Boric Acid, Sodium Tetraborate, Bromine, Chlorine, Copolymer Dispersa~t, Ethylene Oxide - Propylene Oxide copolymer, cCDpolymer, I Ethylene Glycol, High Pressure Fire Pro~ection flushes Hydrazine, Laboratory Chemicrl Wastes, Lithium , Molybdate, Monoetha~olam i ne , Molluscicide, Oil and Grease, ~hosphates , Phosphate Cleaning Agents, Pfint Compounds, Sodium Bisulfite, Sodium HYPichlorite, Sodium Hydroxide, Surfactant, Tolyltria,zole , X~ray Film Processing Rinse Water, Zinc Chloride Orthophosphate, Zinc Sulfate, Phosphino-carboxylic acid copolymer; Diethylenetriar inepenta-methylene phosphonic acid, Sodium salt; Sodium chloride; Ethylenediamine tetracetic acid, Sodium salt; Sodium Hydroxide (also see BCTP) . I OSN 102 Yard Holding Pond Alternate discharge path for OSN 101. Overflow Weir (See OSN 101) IMP 103 Low Volume Waste Am~onium Hy~roxide, Ammo1ium Ch.loride, . Treatment Pond BOric Acid , Sodium Tetraboratj, Bromine, Chlorine Copolymer Dispersant, Ethylelle Glyco l, Hydrazine, Laboratory Chem ica l Wastes , !lithium , Molybdate, Monoethanolamine, Molluscicide, Oil and Grease, Phosph ates, Phosphate Clean i!ng Agents, Pa int Compounds, Sodium Hydroxide, Surfactant, Tolyltri azole, X-ray Film Proce~si ng Rinse W ater, Zinc Sulfate, (also see BCTP ). : IMP 107 Lined Pond & Metals - mainly Iron and COPPEjr, Acids Unlined Pond and Caustics, Ammonium HYd~Xide , Ammonium Chloride, Asbestos after 5 micro n filter, Boric Acid, Sod ium Tetra orate, Bromine, Chlorin e, Copolymer Dispersa t, Hyd razi ne, Laboratory Chemical Wastes, ithium , iVionoeth anoiamine, Molybdate Molluscicide , Oil and Grease, Phosphates, Pho phate Cleaning Agents, Sodium, Sod ium Hydr xide, Surfactant, Tolyltri azole, Zinc Sulfate, (aIs see BCTP) March 2009

                                                                                          ~7

IM P 113 SCCW Diffuser Some contact with chemica ls present in OSN 101 . Alpha Cellulose, Bromine, Chlorine, copolyme r, Molluscicide, Zinc Ch loride Orthophosphate March 2009

TENN ESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) - WATTS BAR -NUCLEAR PLANT (W,B N) - NPDES PERMIT NO, TN0020168 - APPLICATION FOR PERMIT MODIFICATION Current Whole Effluent (WED Toxicity Limits (permit effective 7/1/10): Outfall 101 - 7-day or 3-brood IC25 ~ 3.3% effluent (30.3 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year Outfall 102 - 7-day or 3-brood le25 ~ 3.30/1 effluent (30.3 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year (only if discharge operated ~ ~o days f rom Jan. - Jun., or Jul. - Dec. if all toxicity testin1 has not been completed for Outfall 101) Outfall 113 - 7-day or 3-brood IC25 ~ 8% jffluent (12.5 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year Proposed Whole Effluent (WED Toxicity Requirements: Outfall 101 - 7-day or 3-brood IC 25 ~ 2.8o/ effluent (35.7 TUc) l Monitoring Frequency = 2/year, one during oxidizing biocide treatment and one djring non-oxidizing biocide treatment Outfall 102 - 7-day or 3-brood IC25 ~ 2.8°/ efflu ent (35.7 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/yer l (only if discharge operated ~ po days from Jan. - Jun. , or Jul. - Dec. if all toxicity testina has not been completed for Outfall 101) Outfall 113 - 7-day or 3-brood iC25 ~ 6.7°1c effluent (1 4.9 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/ye . r, one during oxidizing biocide treatment and one d ring non-oxidizing biocide treatment

Outfalls 101 and 113: In accordance with EPA's recommendation (Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPt{l505/2-90-001), and incorporating new flow rates associated with the operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2, V\fBN Outfall OSN101 and Outfall OSN113 would not be required to have chronic WET limits based o~ a demonstration of no Reasonable Potential (RP) for excursions above the ambient water quality chronic (CCC) criterion using effluent data for current operating conditions. Following guidance lin the Technical Support Document (TSD), when no RP exists, biomonitoring would be conducted at a f~equency of only once every 5 years as part of the permit renewal process to document acceptab e effluent toxicity and toxicity at the instream wastewater concentration (IWC) would serve only as a hard trigger for accelerated toxicity biomonitoring. However, raw wate used at the facility is treated with corrosion inhibitors and biocide products. These products, which can become concentrated in the cooling tower system, are discharged through Outfalls 101 and 113. The shemical makeup of the products used can change during the permit period and the combined toxicity e~ect of the chemicals is not known. Thus it is not feasible to control toxicity only by the application of chlemical specific effluent limits to the discharge. Toxicity testing is a reasonable method to evaluate fhe toxicity impacts of the products in the effluent. Therefore, TVA believes it is appropriate to incoqporate the proposed WET requirements stated above for WBN Outfalls OSN101 and OSN113 that aM le specified in the Biocide Corrosion Treatment Plan (BCTP), approved by letter on dated July 30, 2004, with one test per outfall during oxidizing biocide treatment and one test per outfall during non-oxidizing biocide treatment. TVA is requesting permit language consistent with the BCTP. The following RP d~termination utilizes sixteen years (33 studies) and eleven years (22 studies) of WET biomonitoring pata collected for Outfalls 101 and 113, respectively. Table 1 summarizes Outfall 101 biomonitoring results while Table 2 summarizes Outfall 113 biomonitoring results. Outfall 102: Sampling and analyris of Outfall OSN102 has not been required under the current permit or previous permit since the conditions for biomonitoring were not met. No RP determination was made for this Outfall.

Table 1. Summary of WBN Outfall OSN101 WET Biomonitori'lig Results: Test Date Test Species

1. Feb. 2-9, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100%

10.2t

                                                                  <1.0 Pimephales promelas   100%                           (IC2s:<1.0)

2. Aug. 26 - Sept. 22, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100%

                                                                  <1.0                <1 .0 Pimephales promelas   100%

3. Feb. 1-8, 1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100%

                                                                  <1.0                <1 .0 Pimephales promelas    98%                    >100%

4. Aug . 9-16,1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100%

Pimephales promelas <1.0 <1.0 100% >100%

5. Feb. 23 - Mar. 1, 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100%

Pimephales promelas <1 .0 <1 .0 98%

     .,1,                                                   e           ;"

6. Aug. 22-29,1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 89% >100%

                                                                 <1 .0                <1.0 Pimephales promelas   100%                    >100%

7. Feb. 19-26, 1997 Ceriodaphnia dubia 80% 58.0%

                                                                 <1.0                  1.7 Pimephales promelas   100%                    >100%

8. Aug. 12-20, 1~97 Ceriodaphnia dubia 0% 30.9%

3.1 3.2 Pimephales promelas 100% >100%

9. Feb. 24 - Mar. 3, 1998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100%

                                                                 <1.0                 <1 .0 Pimephales promelas   100%                    >100%

10. Sept. 16, 1998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 0% 32.4%

3.2 3.1 Pimephales promelas 98% >100% 11 . Mar. 2-9,1 999 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100%

                                                                 <1.0                  2.5 Pimephales promelas    90%                     40%

12. Sept. 9 - Oct. 6, 1999 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% 13.2%

                                                                <7.58                <7.58 Pimephafes promefas   100%                     13.2%

13. Apr. 4-11,2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% 13.2%

Mar. 22-29, 2000 Pimep.i?a!es promefas <7.58 <7.58 98% 13.2%

14. Oct. 25 - Nov. 1, 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% 13.2%

                                                                <7.58                <7.58 Pimephales promelas   100%                     13.2%

Su of WBN Outfall OSN101 WET Biomonitori

Acute Results {96-h Survivall Chronic Results

                                                % Survival in Study                    Study Test Date           Test Species         Highest Toxicity      IC25       Toxicity Concentration Units (TUa)               Units (TUc)

Tested

15. Apr. 18-25, 2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 89% <7.58 >13.2% <7.58 Apr. 17-24,2001 Pimephales promelas 95% >13.2%

16. Oct. 15-22,2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% <7.58 >13.2% <7.58 Pimephales promelas 100% >13.2%

17. Apr. 14-19, 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2% <7.58

                                                                    <7.58 Apr. 28 - May 3, 2002 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >13.2%

18 Oct. 22-29, 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2%

                                                                    <7.58                    <7.58 Oct. 21-28, 2002      Pimephales promelas       100%                      >13.2%

19. Apr. 14-21,2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2%

                                                                    <7.58                    <7.58 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >13.2%

20. Nov. 3-10, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90% 12.1%

                                                                    <7.58                     8.3 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >13.2%

21. Apr. 20-27, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2%

                                                                   <7.58                     <7.58 Pimephales promelas        98%                      >13.2%

22. Nov. 8-13, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2%

Pimephales promelas <5 .20 <5.20 100% > 19.2%

23. Apr. 12-19,2005 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2%

Pimephales promelas <5.20 <5.20 100% >19.2%

24. Nov. 2-9, 2005 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2%

Pimephales promelas <5 .20 <5.20 98% >19.2%

25. April 18-25, 2006 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2%

                                                                   <5.20                     <5.20 Pimephales promelas       100%                      >19.2%

26. Augu st 22-29, 2006 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >;9.2%

                                                                   <5.20                     <5.20 Pimephales promelas       100%                      > 19.2%

27. April 3-10, 2007 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% <5.20 >19.2% <5 .20 Pimephales promelas 100% >19.2%

28. October 16-23, 2007 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% <5.20 >19.2% <5.20 Pimepl7afes prarne/as 100% >19.2%

29. May 6-13, 2008 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2%

                                                                   <5.20                    <5.20 Pimephales promelas      100%                       >19.2%

Summary of WBN Outfall OSN101 WeT Biomonitoring Results (continued): Acute Results (96-h Survival) I Chronic Results

                                                         % Survival in        St d                       Study Test Date                  Test Species            Highest.         TO~C~y           IC25      Toxicity Concentration U*t (TU )                       Units (TUc)

Tested nI s a

30. Nov. 4-11, 2008 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2%

                                                                               <5.20                     <5.20 Pimepha/es prome/as          100%                          >19.2%

31. May 5-12, 2009 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2%

                                                                               <5.20                     <5.20 Pimepha/es prome/as          100%                          >19.2%

32. Nov. 3-10, 2009 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2%

                                                                               <5.20                     <5.20 Pimepha/es prome/as          100%                          >19.2%

33. May 4-11,2010 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2%

                                                                               <5.20                     <5.20 Pimepha/es prome/as          100%                          >19.2%

n 66 33 33 Maximum 100% 7.6 8.3 Minimum 1.0 1.00 Mean 95.8% 4.66 4.75 %CV 18.2 55.63 53.47 fStatistical endpoint biased by selection of the dilution series. IC25 derived from origin I data. Current perm it was effective July 1,2010. Shaded area designates data collected during previous permit (Effective Date: November 5,2004). Applicable permit limit: IC25 2: 2.4%,42.3 TUc. Applicable permit dilution series: Control, 1.2%, 2.4%, 4.8%, 9.6%, 19.2%.

Table 2. Summary of I Outfall OSN113 WET Biomonitoring Results: Acute Results (96-h Chronic Results Survival)

                                              % Survival in Test Date          Test Species                            Study                  Study Highest Toxicity    IC25       Toxicity Concentration Units (TUa)             Units (TUc)

Tested

                                                                    <2.43                  <2.43 Pimephales promelas       98%                       >41.2%

2. Apr. 4-11,2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90% 19.5%

                                                                    <2.43                   5.0 Pimephales promelas      100%                       >41.2%

3. Oct. 25 - Nov. 1, 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41 .2%

                                                                    <2.43                  <2.43 Pimephales promelas       98%                       >41.2%

4. Apr. 18-25, 2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

                                                                    <2.43                   4.0 Pimephales promelas      100%                        25.1%

5. Oct. 15-23,2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

Pimephales promelas <2.43 <2.43 100% >41.2%

6. Apr. 14-19,2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

Apr. 28 - May 3, 2002 Pimephales promelas 9"°; <2.43 5.0 v /o 20.0%

7. Oct. 21-28, 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

Pimephafes promelas <2.43 <2.43 98% >41.2%

8. Apr. 15-22, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

Pimephales promelas <2.43 <2.43 93% >41.2%

9. Nov. 3-10, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

Pimephales promelas <2.43 <2.43 100% >41.2%

10. Apr. 20-27, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2%

Pimephales promelas <2.43 <2.43 100% >41 .2%

11. Nov. 9-16, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >30.4%

Pimephales promelas <3.29 <3.29 100% >30.4%

12. Apr. 12-1 9, 2005 Ceriodaphnia. dubia 100% >30.4%

                                                                    <3.29                  <3.29 Pimephales promelas      98%                       >30.4%

13. Nov. 2-9, 2005 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >30.4%

Pimephales promelas <3.29 <3.29 98% >30.4%

14. April 18-25, 2006 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >30.4%

                                                                    <3.29 Pimephales promelas                                               <3.29 100%                       >30.4%

Summary of WBN Outfall OSN113 WET Biomonitoring Results (continued): Acute Results (96-h Survival) I Chronic Results -

                                                       % S~rvival in        Study                      Study Test Date                   Test Species          Highest.         Toxicity         IC25      Toxicity Concentration      Units (TUa)                Units (TUc)

Tested

15. August 22-29, 2006 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas 100%

100% <3.29 t 30 .4%

                                                                                                       <3.29 j 30.4%

16. April 3-10, 2007 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% j 30.4%

                                                                            <3.29                      <3.29 Pimephales promelas        100%                      j 30.4%

17. October 16-23,2007 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% j 30.4%

                                                                            <3.29                      <3.29 Pimephales promelas        100%                      j 30.4%

18. May 6-13, 2008 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% j 30.4%

                                                                            <3.29                      <3.29 Pimephales promelas        100%                      r °.4%

19. November 4-11, 2008 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% j 30.4%

                                                                            <3.29                      <3.29 Pimephales promelas        100%                      r°.4%

20. April 21-28, 2009 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% > 30 .4%

1

                                                                            <3.29                      <3.29 Pimephales promelas        100%                         30 1    .4%

21. November 3-10,2009 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% j 30.4%

                                                                            <3.29                      <3.29 Pimephales promelas        100%                      >30.4%

22. May4-11 , 2010 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas 100%

100%

                                                                            <3.29 t  30 .4 %
                                                                                     >30.4%
                                                                                                       <3.29 N                                                             44                22                        22 Maximum                                                     100%              3.29                        5 Minimum                                                      90%              2.43                       2.43 Mean                                                        99.3%             2.90                       3.20

%CV 2.1 2 15.12 22.96 Wi Current peiiTdt was effective July 1, 2010. Shaded area designates data collected du ' ing previous permit (Effective Date: November 5,2004). Applicable perm it limits: IC25;;:: 7.6%,1 3.2 TUc. Applicable permit dilution series: Contiol, 1.9%, 3.8%, 7.6/6, 15.2%, 30.4 10.

OSN 101 Reasonable Potential (RP) Determination Based on OSN101 Effluent Data Only Technical SUPPf' rt Document, Text Box 3-2 and Section 3.3 (EPAl505/2-90-001) DILUTION OSN101 Dischl rge Flow = 57.76 MGD (based on revised flow schematic) Stream 1Q10 = 2062 MGD Dilution Factol1 (DF): DF= Qs = 2062 =35.71 Qw 57.76 Instream Wastewater Concentration (IWC): !We = DF- 1 x100 = 2.80% Chronic TOXICITY I Step 1 33 WET Biomonitoring Studies, Maximum Observed Toxicity is 8.3 TUc. [AVe~age toxicity = 4.75 TUc; compliance limit = 42.3 TUc (lC 25 2! 2.37% efflut nt).] Step 2-3 Coe,icient of variation (CV) = 0.53. For ~ 20 samples and a CV of 0.5, the multiplying factor (99% confidence level and 99% probability) is 2.0. Step 4 Low lriver flow = 2062 MGD and WBN Outfall OSN101 discharge = 57.76 MG9 = 2.80% Instream Waste Concentration (Iyve) after mixing. At a 6.028 IWC: 8.3 TUc x 2.0 x 0.028 = 0.46 TUc . Step 5 0.46 TUc is less than the ambient CCC criterio n of 1.0 TUc. This outcpme demonstrates that no Reasonable Potential for excursions aboVje the CCC exists, based on effluent data obtained f rom testing conducted under cu rrent operating c onditions. OSN 113 Reasonable Po~e ntial (RP) Determination Based on OSN113 Effluent Data Only Technical Supp rt Document, Text Box 3-2 and Section 3.3 (EPA/505!2-90-001) DILUTION OSN113 Discha ge Flow = 148.895 MGD (based on revised flow schematic) Stream 1Q10 = 062 MG D Dilution Factor (DF): DF = Qs+Qw = 2062+148.895 = 14.85 Qw 148.895

Instream Wastewater Concentration (IWC): rwe = DF- 1 x 100 = 6.7 % Chronic TOXICITY Step 1 22 WET Biomonitoring Studies, Maximum Observed Toxicity is 5.0 TUc. [Average toxicity = 3.20 TUc; compliance limit = 13.2 TJ c (IC25 ;;:: 7.58% effluent).] Step 2-3 Coefficient of variation (CV) = 0.23. For::: 20 samples and a CV of 0.2, the multiplying factor (99% confidence level and 99% pr6bability) is 1.3. Step 4 Low stream flow plus WBN Outfall OSNl13 discharge 1 2210.895 MGD

                                                =

and WBN Outfall OSN113 discharge 148.895 MGD = 6.73% Instream Waste Concentration (IWC) after mixing. At a 0.0673 IWC: 5.0 TUc x 1.3 x 0.0673 = 0.44 TUc Step 5 0.44 TUc is less than the ambient CCC criterion of 1.0 TUc. This outcome demonstrates that no Reasonable Potential for excursions above the CCC exists, based on effluent data obtain d from testing conducted under current operating conditions.

Document Type: EIS-Administrative Record Indell Field: ¢nvironmental Document ansmitted Public/Agencies Proj ect Name: Project Number: E atts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 ompletion 2006-124 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPPiCT STATEMENT

                                                  ;j  'EC~EjVED AUG 1 8 2010 rrnit SeCtion COMPLETION AND OPERATION OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 Rhea County, Tennessee TENNESSEE VAL EY AUTHORITY JUNE 2007

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement June 2007 Proposed project: Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nu lear Plant Unit 2 Rhea County, Tennessee Lead agency: Tennessee Valley Authority For further information, Ruth M. Horton contact: Senior NEPA Specialist Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT 11 D-K Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865/632-3719 Fax: 865/632-345 1 TVA web www.tva.qov/environmentlreports/watlsbar2/ e-mail: rm horton@tva. com Abstract: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is proposing to eet the need for additional base load capacity on the TVA system and m~ximize the use of existing assets by completing and operating Watts Bar Nuc!ear Plant (WBN) Unit 2. The unit would be completed as originallt designed, alongside its sister unit, WBN Unit 1, which has been op~rating since 1996. Only minimal new construction is proposed, and no expansion of the existing site footprint would be requi~ed. TVA has prepared this final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) to update the extensive previous environmental record pertinent to th~ proposed action . In addition to this FSEIS, TVA is also conducting a detai ed , seoping , estimating and plann ing (DSEP) study. TVA will use inf rmation from the I DSEP and the FSEIS to make a decision about whether to complete construction of and to operate WBN Unit 2.

Summary

SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION Demand for electricity in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power se ice area has grown at the average rate of 2.4 percent per year for the past 15 years. Although this high level of load growth is expected to slow somewhat, TVA anticipates havi~g to add additional baseload capacity to its system in the next decade to meet growing demand for power. At the same time, TVA is interested in reducing fossil-fuel emissions and loWering the delivered cost of power. The proposal under consideration by TVA is to /neet the need for additional baseload capacity on the TVA system and maximize the use 9f existing assets by completing and operating Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2. The ur}it would be l completed as originally designed , alongside its sister unit, WBN Unit 1, which has been operating since 1996. Producing tritium for the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) at WBN Unit 2 is not part of this proposed action. This final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) will info m decision l makers and the public about the potential for environmental impacts ass ~ ciated with a decision to complete and operate WBN Unit 2. It updates the analysis oj potential environmental impacts resulting from construction, operation, and maintenance of WBN Unit 2 as a supplement to the original 1972 final environmental statemen:t (FES) titled Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (herea"liter referred to as 1972 FES) and subsequent WBN-related environmental reviews. It also updates the need for power analysis. In addition to this environmental review, a detailed, scoping, estimating, and I planning (DSEP) study is underway. TVA will use information from the DSEP and the FSEIS to make an informed decision about whether to complete construction of a~d to operate WBN Unit 2. NEED FOR POWER The need for power analysis presented in Chapter 1 shows how comple on of WBN Unit 2 would help TVA meet expected demands for increased baseload power, improve the diversity of resources serving its customers, reduce the risks inherent wih any particular kind of resource, provide added flexibility to reduce fossil plant emission$, and potentially lower the cost of power to TVA's customers. TVA prepares a range of f9recasts of future power demands on its system. Some of those forecasts show a need for additional baseload capacity as early as 2010. ALTERNATiVES iNCLUDiNG THE PROPOSED ACTION In the 1972 FES for Watts Bar Units 1 and 2 , TVA considered a number f alternatives to constructing and operating WBN, including the No Action Alternative. A is proposing to compl ete WBN Unit 2 as originally designed except for modifications co sistent with those made to Unit 1. Consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality's ational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations [§1502.4(D)], thi s docume t also tiers off of Energy Vision 2020 - An Integrated Resource Management Plan and Fi a/ Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (TVA 1995a), the Final Environmental mpact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor (DOE 1999), and the Reservoir Operations Study Final Programmatic Environmental Impact tatement (TVA 2004a) and incorporates by reference the balance of the environmental ecord pertinent to 8-1

Completion and ope.Jtion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plaht Unit 2 WBN. As such, this FSEIS identifies no new alternatives to those already addressed in those documents. CHANGES IN THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES I The environmental 0nsequences of constructing and operating WBN were addressed 1 comprehensively in ,i he 1972 FES for WBN 1 and 2. Subsequent environmental reviews updated that analysi!S, as described in Section 1.3 of this FSEIS. By 1996 when the r construction of Unit was complete, most of the construction effects had already occurred . Unit 2 would use str~ctures that already exist and most of the work required to complete Unit 2 would occur iTside of those buildings. All disturbances proposed for the construction of new support facilit.ies would be within the current plant footprint. TVA would use standard constructio1n best management practices (BMPs) to control minor construction impacts to air and water from dust, sedimentation, and noise. The reviews by TVA (1993a) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (1 995a) hereafter referred to as the 1995 NRC FEST updated existing environmental information at that time. Some mOI~ifications to plant design and operations have occurred since that time. This docume~t summarizes the environmental effects assessed in past WBN-related environmental reviews and assesses the potential for new or additional effects that could result from the comR'etion and operation of Unit 2. Table S-1 summarizes the potential for additional direct, ind'rect, and cumulative environmental effects. Table 5-1. Sumrari of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Effects Fr0"1 Completion of WBN Unit 2 (::;\i;F:}{>')~~~~#f~':' :':(*.'~?t*;;i::;:~;,~~$.i};'::~~Y;~i[; :~~}~@~!~g,!at~g¥.'ir~~m'~~i;;~ff~~E;:,~\Aj(;l;i;;~:;~~;;;?:'f.ii3:;;;;,:;~*:!.*.*::::, Insignificant hydrothermal effects on near-field and far-field temperatures and on the operation of the supplemental condenser COOling water (SCCW), given compliance with National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) permit limits. Insignificant effects from raw water chemical treatment. Water intake would increase by 33 percent over present conditions but still would be Surface Wa er Quality within the original deSign basis of the plant for two-unit operation. A corresponding increase of essential raw cooling water and raw cooling water chemical additives of 33 percent would occur. Towerbrom treatment for Condensing Cooling Water (CCW) would increase 100 percent. These increase are not expected to affect compliance with existing NPDES effluent limitations th at protect aquatic resources. G ro undwat~~ r Qua!ity No impacts expected. 8-2

Summary Table $-1 (continued)

,/::q':;;:;)~;[:,:::~R,;:~a'&~;!;::J?I~j!\j~t~;!~,:':~Wii?::gt~;~,) JWf~q!~pj!i~'l~qy{~~"m~ii.~f:~t~~Q;:,~~; !i ~;m~:';;,~~:g:r!d :{;:,:::'/' ::~:*: ' ~* :

Since no construction activities wbuld occur within 500 feet of the reservoir, all constructi~n activities would be subject to appropriate BMPs to eljlsure that there are no impacts to surface water, intake flows would stay within Aquatic Ecology the original design basis for oper~tion of the two-units in closed cycle mode, and discharg~ changes would remai n within existing NPDES limits. Any impacts to aquatic ecology, plankton, or aquatic communities in the vicinity of WBN would be insignificant. I Impacts on existing plant and ani ~ a l communities within or adjacent to the disturbed area ,Eotprint would be Terrestrial Ecology insignificant. Some minor disturbiance of communities may occur during construction. No new infestations of exotic invasive plant species are ~xpected. All construction work would be c~nducted using BMPs, no additional discharge-related imp~lcts would occur, and intake flows would not be increas~ over the original design basis for two-unit operatiop. There would be no effect on state-listed or federally (,sted aquatic animals or Threatened and their habitats. Endangered Species No impacts to threatened or end ct~gered terrestrial plant or animal species are expected. ~ o occurrences of state-listed or federally listed plant speies are known on, or adjacent to WBN. No impacts to bald eagles or gray bats are expected. I No impacts to wetlands are exp1 e ~ted. No disturbance is Wetlands planned that would affect the on forested wetland adjacent to the proiect footprint. No impacts would occur to the fiV~ natural areas with in 5 Natural Areas miles of WBN, including the Ch i c~a mauga State Mussel Sanctuary. I Because new mound disturbance would be minimal and Cultural Resources only minimal n~w construction is planned, historic (Archaeological and resources on and adjacent to thelsite and archaeological Historical) ~~~~~~~~; :~~~~e~e area of poterial effect would not be Some impacts to population, incll ding low income and minority groups due to influx of wbrkers; most impacts would be widespread and minor. A noticeable increase in Socioeconomics, demand for housing and mobile t ousing locations would Environmental Justice and occur during peak construction. Some impacts are Land Use expected to schools. Minor impabts are expected on land use. Beneficial effects on emplo ment and income, and local governments' revenues durinQ construction. Floodplains and Flood Risk No anticipated adverse f1ood-rela ed impacts. Seismic Effects No adverse seismic effects anticipated. 5-3

Completion and opeJ ion 01 Watts Bar Nuclear Plaht Unit 2 Tab le 5-1 (Contin~ed)

j~Jnt;[

~jr:};j~~~qr.~~n}1;l~~,~ttf;*~*t)4tf~UYit1~ J:;~Jf~lW~M~~~j~~nm~H§J,,§t~~~;ri~tmd~l~@T;},.;,':ili;;l;:t;!;}:Hti*;;'::~;:;;:;;

Climatology and .- A slight change i~ -local meteorol~gYCOUld affectwi-nd . Meteorologyl dis~ersion values. Effects expected to be insignificant. The risks of a beyond-design-basis accident from operation ofWBN are small. Increased risk from Unit 2 operation would be extremely low. Risk of and potential impacts from a terrorist attack on WBN are not expected Nuclear Plant Safety and to increase significantly due to completion of WBN Unit 2. Security Because WBN is an existing, operating nuclear facility, the risks and potential consequences of a terrorist attack already exist, and safeguards have already been taken to protect against such risks. Radiological lEffects Anticipated effects unchanged since 1995; insignificant. Radiological jWaste Anticipated effects unchanged since 1995; insignificant. Spent Fuel lilransportation Insignificant effects anticipated from the transport or and Storage storage of spent fu~1. The cumulative effe~ts of constructing and operating Units 1 and 2 were considered in the 1972 FES and the 1p95 NRC FES which TVA adopted. Potential cumulative effects to surface water and aQuatic ecology from operating both units in the future would be addressed and controlled by monitoring requirements and NPDES permit limits. Previous reviews also considered I the potential for cumUlative effects to air from Watts Bar Fossil Plant, which had not operated since 1983 and has since been retired. Cumulative effects are also considered lin many of th_ e documents incorporated by reference and/or tiered from for this supplement. Most notably, cumulative effects of transportation and storage of spent fuel were addressed in the DOE 1999 final environmental impact statement; cumUlative effects of transporta~ion of radioactive materials were addressed in NRC's Environmental Survey of Transpoliation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1 (NU~EG-75/038, NRC 1975); and cumulative effects of hydrothermal and water supply were j dressed in TVA 2004a. IDENTIFICATION 9F MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation of potential or actu al environmental impacts includes avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, lor compensating for the impacts. Mitigation measures have been identified in the 1972 FES and subsequent NEPA documents. Those measures are still in effect. This supple I ental document identifies mitigation measures to address impacts beyond what were iscussed in those earlier reviews. TVA will identify specific mitigations and commitments s lected for implementation in the Record of Decision (ROD) for this project. TVA has identified t e following measures that could be implemented during construction or operation of WBN nit 2 to address those potential impacts. TVA would desi nate certain counties as impacted by the construction process. This would make the eligible for a supplemental allocation from TVA's annual tax equivalent pay ent under Tennessee law. These funds could be used by counties to address impact on county services. S-4

Summary As part of the DSEP, TVA is conducting a labor study of the potenJ construction workforce. TVA would provide information from this study to official~ in the impacted counties . This information could help with local planning to accom Iodate the anticipated temporary population growth. S-5

Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................................... 1 1.1. The Decision ........................... ... .............................................................. i.. ............................. 1 1.2. Background .. ..... ......................... ..... .. .............................. ..... .... ................ J........................... . .. . 1 1.3. Other Pertinent Environmental Reviews and Tiering ..... .. .......... .............. j............................... 5 1.4. Scoping and Draft SEIS Review ....................................... .. ... .. ... .. ....... ... ................................. 9

     ~:::~: ~~;~i~~*ls*R~~i~~::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : 1 : : : : : : : : : : ::::::::::: :

1.5. Environmental Permits and Approvals ............................................ ..... .... .............. .. ... .......... 10 1.6. Need for Power .................... ................... .... .............. .. ........ .... ................. 1..... ... ... .................. 11 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................... 19 2.1. Proposed Action ......................... ....... ........... ....................................... .... .............. .... ............ 19 2.2. Changes in Plant Design and Operational Systems Since 1995 .......................................... 21 2.2.1. Plant Water Use ........ ..... ........... .. .. ............... .... ........... .... ................................. .. .. .... .. ... 21 2.2.2. Heat DiSSipation System .................... .. .................. ....... .... ............ .. f.... ......... ... .... .. ....... 21 2.3. Other Activities ........ .................................................. .......... .. ....... ....................................... .. 27 2.4. Summary of Environmental Effects ............ ..... .. ... .. ......... ..... .. ....... .... .......... .. ... .. .. .. ............... 29 2.5. Identification of Mitigation Measures .. ........ .. .............. .......... .................... .... .... ................... .. 31 2.6. The Preferred Alternative ........ ..................... .. .. ... ............................ .. ..... ............ ................ ... 32 3.0 CHANGES IN THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTfL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................................... r................. _......... ,. 33 3.1. Water Quality ... .......... ............ .. ..... ..... ............................. ..... .. ............ ............ ............... .. ....... 34 3.1.1. Surface Water - Hydrothermal Effects ............... .. ..... ........................................... ..... ... 34 3.1 .2. Surface Water - Chemical Additives to Raw Water ............. .... .................................... 46

3. 1.3. Groundwater ...................... ..... ............... .... ..................................... ... .. ... ...................... 53 3.2. Aquatic Ecology ............. ....... ....... ............... ... .... .. .. ........ ....................... .... ........ .... ..... ........ .... 54 3.3. Terrestrial Ecology .. ... ....................... .... .......... ....... .. ............... ..... ..................... ....... .. ........... 56 3.3. 1. Plants .. .. ... .. .......... ...... .... .................. ........................................ ... .... : ...... .. ..................... 56 3.3.2. Wildlife ..... .. .............. ........... .. ......... ............. .... ... ... ...... .... ... .. ...................... .. ....... .. .. ...... 57 3.4. Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................... ........................ ... .. .. ......... 57

   .3.4.1. Aquatic Animals ....... .......................................................... ........... ......... ...... .................. 57 3.4.2. Plants ........................................................... .. .. ...... .. .......... ...... ..... .................. ...... ......... 59 3.4.3. Wildlife ............................................................................ ................................. .............. 60 3.5. Wetlands ....... ............................................................ .............................................. ............... 61 3.6. Natural Areas ..................... ............................. ...... .. .... ......................... .................................. 61 3.7. Cultural Resources ................. ......... ...... ......... ..... ........................... .. ................ ... ..... .............. 62 3.8. Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Land Use ...................................... ............. ... ... 64 3.8.1. Population ................................................. .. .... .............. .............. ................... ............... 64 3.8.2. Employment and Income .......................................................................................... ..... 65 3.8.3. Low-Income and Minority Populations ........................................................................... 65 3.8.4. Housing and Community Services ................................................................................ 66 3.8.5. Schools ............. ............................................................................................................. 67 3.8.6. Land Use ............................... ........................................................................................ 67 3.8.7. Local Government Revenues ................... ..................................................................... 68 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Completion and Ope ra~io n of Watts Bar Nuclear Plar Unit 2 3.8.8. Cumulative Effects ........... ...... ............................. ..... ........... ........ .... .. ................. .... .... .... 68 3.9. Floodplains an~ Flood Risk ....................... ......................................... ............... ............... ...... 69 3.10. Seismic Effects .. .................. .. .... .............. ........... .... .. ........ ... ..................................... ..... ...... ... 71 3.11. Climatology a~d Meteorology ........ .. ...................................................................................... 72 3.1 2. Nuclear Plant Safety and Security ................. .... ......... .. ............... ..... ..... ........ .. ......... ..... ........ 73 3.12.1. Severe ~bcident Analysis ..................... ............... ................. ............. .. .... ..... ...... .... ....... 73 3.12.2. TerrorislT) ..... .. ..... ... ..... .. ............................... ... .. .... ...... ........ ...... ..... ... .. ... ......... ............... 75 3.13. Radiological Effects ................................................................................. ............. .. .......... ..... .. 76 3.14. Radioactive Waste .... ..... ... ..... ... ....... ............. ..... ....... .................... ............................ ......... .. .. 91 3.15. Spent Fuel stqrage ......................................................... .............. ......................................... 95 3.15.1 . Construcfion Impacts .. ........ ... ..... .. .. ... ....... ....... ...... ..... ... ... .... ........ ......... .. ..... .. ... ........ .... 97 3.15.2. Operatio~allmpacts .......... ... ........... ...... .... .. ......... .. ........ .. .... .... .. ................................... 98 3.15.3. Postulated Accidents .............. ..... .... .. ......... ....... .. ............. ... ..... .... .. ........... .... ................ 99

3. 16. Transportatio~1 of Radioactive Materials ...................................................... ...... .................. .. 99

3. 17. DecommisSi01ing .. ... ... ........... ......... ..... ............ ................. .. ........ ... ...................... .............. .. 101 4.0 LIST OF PREPf RERS*.......................................................................................................... 103 4.1. NEPA Project Management .. ......................... ...... .................... .... ........................ ................ 103 2

5.:. .D~~~:~:~~~~~:~~~~~~*~* ~;~~*~~;~:: : .: : :.: : : :.: : :.: : : : : : .:. ::::: : : . . .:.::. : : . :~: 5.1 . List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Draft or Final SEIS Were Sent an1 to Whom E-links Were Provided ...... ..................... .............. ..... ......... .... .... .. 109 5.2. DSEIS Press ~elease ... .. .......................... .. ... ... ................. ............................... ..... .............. 115 5.3. Information Open House Paid Advertisement .. .. ...... .......... .. ......... .......... .......... .................. 116 5.4. Information OJen House Handout ....................... ............ ......... .... ... ... ..... .. ... ... ... ........ ..... .. .. 117 6.0 SUPPORTING jNFORMATION ............................................................................................. 121

6. 1. Literature Cite ! .. .. .......... ...... ............. ... ........... .... ......... .. .......................... ............... .... .... ...... 121 6.2. Index.... ..... .. ......... .. .............. ................................ .. .. ...... ... ............ ......... ..... .. ... .................... 126 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Summa of Previous Hydrothermal Impact Studies .................................................. 129 Appendix B - NPDES low Diagram ............. ..................... .............................................................. 135 Appendix C - Aquatic co logy Supporting Information .... .......................................................... ...... 139 Appendix 0 - Respon e to Comments ............................................................................................. 157 ii inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Contents LIST OF TABLES Table S-1. Summary of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Effects From Completion of WBN Unit 2 ............ ............. .............................. .. ................................... 2 Table 1-1 . Environmental Reviews and Decuments Pertinent to Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 .............. ... .. .. ............. ... ............................ ......................... ..... ... ..... 6 Table 1-2. Effect ofWBN Unit 2 on TVA Delivered Cost of Power .. .. .. .. ........ ..... .......................... 17 Table 2-1 .

            ~~~;:~~fo~~~~I~~ii~e~~,..~~~.~.~.~.~.I~:~~~.~~~~~~.~:~~~~~.~.~1:.~.:..~~.~                                                        ... . . ... .        29 Table 3-1 . NPDES Temperature Limits for WBN Outfalls to the Tennessee ~iver ............... .. ..... 35 Table 3-2 . Estimated Hydrothermal Conditions for Release From Watts Bar Dam .......... .. .... .. .. .. 38 Table 3-3. Estimated Hydrothermal Conditions for Thermal Effluent From                                                      o~all1 01

~~~~e:1H~:~;:~::~;*~~*~~*i~;~~~*;~~* ~*~~*;~~;*~~;~*~~~*~ ~~~*~*1* .. ~;;* ~ *~ ~** .. **.. *** ******39

7m~~:d1H::~o:tr:~~:~~~o~~;~;~~~;:;*~~~~~~~~~L;;; . ... . .. ..

Table 3-4. 40 Table 3-5. Table 3-6.

~~~~~1H~:~;:hti:r:~;*~*~~*~*i~;~~~*;~~* ~*~~*;~~*;*~~;~*~~~*~ ~~~*~t~~;;* ~ *~*; * * *** **** ***** *41 With Unit 1 and Unit 2 Operation ...... ...... .. ....... ... .. .. .. ........ ........... .. .. .. ......... ... .. ..... ..... .. 42 Table 3-7. Predicted SCCW Impact on WBN Operation .. .. .................. ......... .......... .. .. ........ ...... .... 44 Table 3-8. History of 8etz Chemical Treatment of Raw Water at WBN 1996-Present Chemicals ... .......... .. .... .. .. ....... .... .. ....... .. ..... .. .... .. ...... .......... .. ....( .... 47 Table 3-9. History of Nalco Chemical Treatment of Raw Water at WBN 1996-Present .. .. ...... ... ..47 Table 3-10. Potential Chemical Discharge to NPDES Outfalis at WBN ..... .. .... .1... ... .. ....... .. .. ... .. .. .... 50 Table 3-11. History of Other Chemical Treatment of Raw Water at WB N 2oo9-present .. ......... .... 51 Table 3-1 2. State-Listed Plant Species Reported From With in 5 Miles of the Rroposed Project in Rhea County, Tennessee .. .... ................ .. ............... .. .. ...... .. .. ...... ... ...... .. .... .. 60 Table 3-13. Severe Accident Annual Risks ........ .... .. ....... .... .............. .... ........... .... .......... .. .. .... .. ....... 74 Table 3-14. Public Water Supplies Within a 50-Mile Radius Downstream of W J BN ............ ........ .... 79 Table 3-15. Estimated Recreational Use of Tennessee River Within a 50-Mil Radius Down stream Of WBN .................. .... ............................ .. .... .. ........... l... .*. . *. . . . . . . . . . 79 Table 3-16. WBN Total Annual Discharge-Liquid Waste Processing System f r Two-Unit Operation ............... ......................................... ........................ .... ........... .. .. ... ............... 80 Tab!e 3-17. Watts Bar Nuc!ear Plant Doses From Liquid Effluents per Unit fo Year 2040 ............ 84 Table 3-18. Comparison of Estimated Annual Liquid Releases and Res ulting oses per Unit at WBN ................. .... ...... .... .. .... ..... .. .. ....... .. ...... ............... .. ... .. ..... ..... .. .................... ......... . 84 Table 3-19. Receptors from A ctual Land Use Survey Results Used for Potent~al Gaseous Releases From WBN Unit 2 ...... ........... ... .......................................................... ........... 86 Table 3-20. WBN Total Annual Gaseous Discharge Per Operating Unit (curie lyearlreactor) ....... 87 Table 3-21. W8N Doses From Gaseous Effluent For Unit 2 Without Tritium P oduction for Year 2040 ..................................................................................................................... 89 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement iii

Completion and Ope r~tion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Table 3-22. compar~on 01 Estimated AnnualAirborne Releases and Resulting Doses ............... 9(] Table 3-23. Estimated Population Doses From Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.. .......... ...... 90 Table 3-24. MaXimu~ Anticipated Two-Unit Annual Solid Radwaste to be Processed .... .... .. ..... ... 95 Table 3-25. Data fori Number of ISFSi Casks Determination .. .. .............................. .. ... .. ........ ... ...... 96 Table 3-26. ISFSI Construction for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 as Compared to Construttion of Both Units 1 and 2 .... ........ :....... ......................................... ................. 97 Table 3-27. ISFSI o~eration for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 as Compared to Operation of Both Units 1 and 2 ............... .... ..... ..................... .................... .................. 99 Table C-1 . Total N. lmbers and Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected During 1976-1985, 1996, and 1997 in the Vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. ........ 141 Table C-2. ~~~:g.r.~~~~~~~:i:. ~~o~r~".s..a.~.d .?~~n>ll R~~.rv~ir ~iSh ~s.s.e.~~I~~~.I.nd~x lo~ 50 Table C-3. Recent (1 993-2005) RFAI Scores Developed Using the RFAI Metrics Upstream and Dot nstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ............. ........ .. .............................. ....... 151 Table C-4. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall Benthic Community Index Scores for Watts B~r Forebay and Sites Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Watts Bar and Chif kamauga Reservoirs, November 2005 .. ........ ... .............. .......... ... .... ............ 152 Table C-5. p Recent 994-2005) Benthic Index Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitorirg Program at Watts Bar Reservoir - Transition and Forebay Zone Sites (Upstream) and Chickamauga Reservoir Inflow (Upstream) and Transition Table C-6.  :~:i~i:~re::~a~::~;~~;' ~.~.~.~;~~. ~~~~~. ~~. ~~~.~.; 'i'~";~'~ .~~~~. ~~; .~~~ ...... .......... 153 Table Co?~ ~::::t~ From ~tts

~t~u~~:~::Y~V~~8~~f9~~~:::~a;~;~~;~il~~~~~~~;;~~~

Bar Dam, Tennessee River Mile 529.9 to 527.9 ........... ............... .... ...... 155 154 iv Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Location of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ............. .......... ... .. ..... ............ ...... .......... ..... .... ....... 2 Figure 1-2. Unit 2 Site Plan ..... .... ....... ........ ....................... ..... .......... ..... ........... .. ... ..... .. .... ............ .... 3 Figure 1-3. Actual and Forecast Net System Requirements ... .. ..... ....................... ........................ 13 Figure 1-4. 2008 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Type ....... .. ............... ................ .... ... ... ... .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. 13 Figure 1-5. 2013 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Type .... ... .... ...................... ...... . ............... ..... .. ....... . 14 Figure 1-6. 2008 Estimated Generation by Fuel Type ....... .............. ...... ... ..... ........ ........... .. .. ... .. .... 16 Figure 1-7. 2013 Estimated Generation by Fuel Type ........... ... .... .... ... ....... ..... .. ........................ ..... 17 Figure 2-1. Components of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Heat Dissipation Systej" ... .. .. ... .. .. ... ... ... ..... 22 Figure 2-2 . Schematic of Current Configuration of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant S pp lemental Condenser Cooling Water System ............ ...... ... .. .......... ..... ..... .......... ... .... ... .. ...... ...... .. 25 Figure 3-1. Mixing Zone for Outfall 101 .. .... ... ... ... ..... .. ... .... .... ..... ...... ... .. ... ... ... ..... .. .. ........... ..... ....... 36 Figure 3-2. Mixing Zones for Outfall 113 .................................... ..... ...... ............. .. .. ....... ................. 36 Figure 3~ 3 . Measured Temperatures for Outfall 113 Effl uent and Bottom of Mussel Re location Zone .. ... ........ .... ... .... .. ..... ................ ........ ...... ... ...... ............... ............ .... ..... . 43 Figure 3-4. Location of Mussel Sanctuary in Chickamauga Reservoir Below f atts Bar Dam .... .. 58 Figure 3-5. Archaeological Avoidance Area Within the Area of Potential Effeot.. .......... ....... ..... .. .. 63 Figure 3-6. Pathways to Man Due to Releases of Radioactive Material ........................... ............ 78 Figure 3-7. Plant Liquid Effluent Pathways and Release Points ............. ........ . ........ ..... ................ 82 Figure 3-8. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Liquid Radwaste System ................ .... .. .... .. ......... ... ...... .... ... 83 Figure 3-9. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Gaseous Effluent Release pOints ........ .. . ......... ..... ............... 88 r Figure 3-10. Liquid Radwaste Processing System - Simplified Flow Diagram for Tritiated Water .. ... ..... ... ... .............. .. .... .. .. .. ... ..... ....... .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ......f.......... .. .............. **. 92 Figure 3-11 . Liquid Radwaste Processing System - Simplified Flow Diagram f r Nontritiated Water ......... .. ..... .... .. .. ..... ... ... ... ....... ............. ... ... ...... ... ................... .. .. ....... 93 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement v

Acronyms, Abbrr ations, and Symbols ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SY BOlS Degree Celsius Degree Fahrenheit Plus or Minus y Gamma Radiation

      ~     Beta Radiation
      §     Section Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear R.1ant Units 1 and 2 1972 FES (TVA 1972) 1 Final Environmen!a/ Statement Related to the OperE/tion of Watts Bar 1978 NRC FES Nuclear Plant Umts 1 and 2 NUREG-0498 (NRC 19f 8)

Final.supplemental Environmental Review, Operation of Watts Bar 1995IFSER Nuclear Plant (TVA 1995b) I Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar 1995 NRC FES Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0498 (NRC 1995a) AEC Atomic Energy Commission APE Area of Potential Effect ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers B/CTP Biocide/Corrosion Treatment Plan BFN Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant BMPs 8est Management Practices C&I Commercial and Industrial CCS Component Cooling Water System CCW condenser cooling water CD Compact Disc COWE Condensate Demineralizer Waste Evaporator CFR Code of Federal Regulation cfs cubic feet per second Ci Curies CLWR Commercial Light Water Reactor Final Environmenta/lmp act Statement for the Produ tion of Tritium in a CLWRFEIS Commercial Light ~Vater Reactor (DOE 1999) CTBO Cooling Tower Blow Down DAW Dry Active W aste DMR Discharge Monitoring Report DOE U.S. Department of Energy 001 U.S. Department of Interior DSEP Detailed Scoping, Estimating, and Planning EA Environmental Assessment e.g. Latin term, exempli gratia, meaning "for example" EPRI Electric Power Research Institute EPZ Emergency Planning Zone Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement vii

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plaht Unit 2 I ERCW 6ssential Raw Cooling Water Uatin term , et alii (masculine), ef aliae (feminine), or et alia (neutral) , et al.

                       +/-eaning "and others" ETA          ~onoethanolamine etc.        yatin term et cetera, meaning "and other things" "and so forth" FES          ~ inal Environmental Statement FEIS         Prinal Environmental I mpact Statement FRP          ~Iood Risk Profile FEA          ~inal Environmental Assessment FSEIS         Prinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement FSAR          Prinal Safety Analysis Report FSER          Prinal Supplemental Environmental Review FONSI          ~inding of No Significant Impact iquare Feet gpm         Cfallons per Minute GWh Hg
                     ~~r::~tt Hour abitat Protection Area
                     ~

HPA HSP igh Stress Polymer i.e. ~atin term, id est, meaning "that is" IMP i ~ ternal monitoring point IPEEE I ~dividual Plant Examination for External Events qnergy Vision 2020 - Integrated Resource Management Plan and Final IRP FEIS

                     'frogrammatic Environmental Impact Statement (TVA 1995a)

IPS If take Pumping Station ISFSI I~ dependent Spent Fuel Storage Installation kV ~ i lovolt kW l1i1owatt LP ~ined Pond LRW Uiquid Radwaste LVWTP ~Ow.volume Waste Treatment Pond Max ~ axlmum MIC Microbiologically Induced Corrosion Min inimum MPC ultipurpose Canister mrem mirem mrad iIIirad MRZ ussel Relocation Zone msl ean Sea Level MVA eg avo Its-Am pere MW egawatt MWh/year egawatt Hours per Year N/A ot Applicable viii rinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Acronyms, AbbrL.tions, and Symbols NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act No(s). Number(s) NOx Nitrogen Oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Gwidance Document pC ilL Picocuries per Liter PMF Probable Maximum Flood PMP Probable Maximum Precipitation ppm parts per million PSAR Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Radw aste Radioactive Waste RCS Reactor Coolant System RCW Raw Cooling Water Region TVA Power Service Area RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index RHP Runoff Holding Pond ROD Record of Decision ROS Reservoir Operations Study Reservoir Operations Study Final Programmatic Enllironmentallmpact ROS FEIS Statement (TVA 2004a) RV recreational vehicle SCCW Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water SEIS Supplement Environmental Impact Statement SEPA Southeastern Power Admin istration SFP Spent Fuel Pool SGB Steam Generator Slowdown SQN Sequoyah Nuclear Plant SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SROS Solid Radwaste Disposal System S02 Sulfur Dioxide TSD To Be Determined T8SS Turbine Building Station Sump TCA Tennessee Code Annotated Tenn. Tennessee TPC Tritium Production Core TRM Tennessee River Mile TRO Total Residual Oxidant TVA Tennessee Valley Authority Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ix

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Pla'nt Unit 2 ULP J nlined Holding Pone U.S. Wnited States USEPA ~.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS ~ .S . Fish and Wildlife Service WAW 'fet Active Waste WET '{Vh0le Effluent Toxicity WBF ' fatts Bar Fossil Plant (also known as Watts Bar Steam Plant) WBH 't'atts Bar Hydro Plant WBN ' fatts Bar Nuclear Plant WMA \f'Iildlife Management Area YHP Yard Holding Pond x ~inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement I

Chapter 1 CHAPTER 1 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1. The Decision The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates the largest public power system in the country. Demand for electricity in the TVA power service area has groWn at an average rate of 2.4 percent per year for the past 15 years. In 2005, demand for ~Iectricity from the TVA system twice exceeded the previous all-time high demand (peak d~mand) on the system. Although this high level of load growth is expected to slow sOn1ewhat, TVA anticipates having to add additional baseload capacity to its system wit~ in the next decade to meet growing demand. At the same time, TVA is interested in reducing fossil-fuel emissions and lowering the delivered cost of power. The proposal unddr consideration by TVA is to help meet the demand for power resulting in a need for additidnal baseload capacity on the TVA system and to maximize the use of existing assets IbY completing and operating Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 alongside its sister unit, WBN Unit 1, which l has been operating since 1996. This proposed action does not include ( roducing tritium for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) at WBN Unit 2. The purpose of this final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) is to inform decision makers and the public about the potential for environmental impacts that would be associated with a decision to complete and operate WBN Unit 2 concur~ently with Unit 1. This document supplements the original 1972 final environmental statement (FES) titled Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (~ereafter referred to as the 1972 FES) for the plant and updates pertinent information discussed and evaluated in the related documents identified below. In doing so, TVA updates thd need for power analysis and information on existing environmental, cultural, recreationall, and socioeconomic resources, as appropriate. TVA is also conducting a de~ailed, scoping , estimating, and planning (DSEP) study to evaluate the cost and schedule for completing WBN Unit 2. TVA will use information from the DSEP and this FSEIS pliOcess to make an informed decision about the proposed completion of WBN Unit 2. 1.2. Background WBN is located in Rhea County on 1700 acres at the northern end of C~icka ma u ga Reservoir about 8 miles from Spring City, Tennessee (see Figure 1-1), ,t is adjacent to the TVA Watts Bar Dam Reservation at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 528 0T the western shore of Chickamauga Reservoir. The plant currently has one Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor with a capaclty of 1167 megawatts (MW)-enough electricity to ~aily supply about 650,000 homes. With the exception of the completion of Unit 2, the rem~ind er of WBN facilities were developed as planned in the 1972 FES, with the addition <pf training facilities. Other chang es have occurred since the 1995 supplemental environmental review (TVA 1995b). The tentative site plan, with a complete listing of existing and proposed buildings is shown in Figure 1-2. Although the exact location of the new facilities is Tot firm, the area to be disturbed is not expected to change. The extent of the area that is e pected to be disturbed during the completion of WBN Unit 2 is shaded grey. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 1

Completion and opeJ on of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2

            . . ...                 .... ... I . .
                                                                                         ." ....... ..,..,. : \'" '\
                                                     ...   ;.
                                                                                                            \
                                        "'-.'""';,.:
                                                  ~:: : r":. ; ' 'f' "j. ;-... ~'. .!.i- ¥li
                                                       .~ ...
       '~."
            . " .. .. ,{./
                 ,     (., .,

g:=i.~,~~;~yi'ir")~t_ '

• hat'tinif).(~ga.f ,,*f

t :."

J~.:." /'"

                                                                                                                       ---- C¢lJftty ~(la ilY N
                                                                                                                       =-~'~~"" !o.teTstal~ ~y$
                                                                                                                                ~~if            I A

Figure 1-1. loea ion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2 inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

000. 8. F,

   'tV W.t,~i;;;~rio<;JftIMiN'r "ijO'- ~~~-                                                         0    a.roo                                         m      212,1100 (1     ,,'jii:! MIItlli1.<LliAnbflN<; !Kll* 21!<1    1;,1).@  (!9  WAAatioUH ~                  ~    oI,eeo                                        tZll  liI,OOO
     .-,   lliill ~ TiMi-OilAi<Y j'MKri<ii       1/      ~j!4l"
                                                                  @   WAAIOO.UI!I"                  0   4MO                                            100   ~lioo

( t) (~J Mo.rt~l~ eTo!W)t lil.ixJ Ii i!Il.tOO b IITVJo4 cia_TOft eTOAAaI II 0.;00 0 {!X} Tf'JOllfNll caNTER i!lO ~.'liA\

                                                                  @ NOIlIftUll,QlII<l              0    1,2DQ   (0                                           1~,o!OO 0                                iJ   i.M!i (i)
    <D
          .OVNM!IC llWilNQ WIIT~ft IIITl! rAlllUTlt5l1UI"OiOO 00 16 1~.~
                                                         ~.~      e~~

OI!OOH DTORAIII' !WDlNQ NO~TH l'OJ!TN- Iii ~!-<<xi ""

                                                                                                                                                             ;,W:J

(~) I'I'IIMRY ~;II!'O'UAL ~ !i.~ ¥!I 'I~~ OP1lAATlON' aUl~ ~l ~,oOO eQi (i;) riltIUl1i:5I1J1!111Gi!a IlJlUlIHa H>> :n.<<:¢ ~iI ItIW MIJI.r.PURPOII8UIl.CN1 ~l' ;itOOij Q'?,l Nm Q"ICli BUI'-DINCI i>> tM'w) 4j TIIoIPOIWIV CIIAJT i~!,iJ!1 ni 3f,~ TOlALPOWliR PiiolW!liiOij!'" /' NO" I-'ii~,* Q~~ WAn~ TIllAThIlIIiTlJUiLDiNll ~,~ @ l'o'IlTel!.~~\l iI l~.hlM riO) ([;~ PGOllUlLOINI) iii ~,QOO (~ NeW cONiT. A!li!lIi ,AllILITY t@ (~!) ~1lfIK,,"1V\ ;2 ~llJlO

                                                                  ,~ NJ;Wlf-l,PftOC;"I"IQ O'NTC~   !q   MOO

(\~? 1508 5UIlDlNO 1011 ~6J'5 (i, ~  !~@ (i~ DN(lIl!iJ!I!!IQlOW\un- !!l.DO. 2I\l lIO,OOO rorlL,liJ!Il'OI!T 1>>1 att,..

    @      alWRln' ~!'Hll! MOIUlY               1~      1,000
                                                                  ~ "!"f(~!>I~_.

(f,~ GOOLifl(l TWiII~!I o* r=J ~~~Aci!M '" ~!;~ UVR MILL GIiNT£A !iI! I e,c.:>J Figure 1*2. Unit 2 Site Plan

Chapter 1 The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued construction permits (now the responsibility of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]) for the two-unit, 254b MW plant in January 1973, and TVA began construction in the spring. TVA applied t6 the NRC (the agency that superseded the AEC) for operating licenses in 1976. Licen~ing of the plant was delayed due to new safety requirements following the 1979 aCcidenlIt at Three Mile Island, a number of other site-specific construction concerns, and a decline in the need for power following the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. During the NRC's 0r:rating license application review, construction of WBN Unit 1 was 85 percent complete:;, and Unit 2 was 80 percent complete. In 1985, TVA halted construction activities for WBN in order to address regulatory concerns. In 1995, TVA decided to defer completion ofWBN Unit 2 (see the discussion of TVA 1995a in Section 1.3). To improve operation of WBN Unit 1, a supplemental condenser cooling water (SCCW) system was installed in the late 1990s. The SCCW enabled generation from Unit 1 to be increased. At the request of DOE, WBN Unit 1 began producing tritium In 2003 to help meet national defense needs. In 2006, four steam generators associate1 d with operation of WBN Unit 1 were replaced to maintain full generation capability. Enviro ~m ental reviews for these and other actions are listed in Table 1-1. TVA still holds a valid construction permit for the completion of WBN Unit 2. Over time, components from WBN U~it 2 have been used at TVA's WBN Unit 1, Sequoyah , and Browns Ferry Nuclear Plants. If TVA decides to complete construction of WBN Unit 2, TVA would first botify the NRC of its intention to recommence construction. The next step, expected months later, would be to apply to NRC for an operating license. This would occur while compl~tion of the unit was still ongoing. The applicati~n proces~ includ~s ~re£>~ration o! a ~inal S~:fety.AnaIYSjS Report (FSAR) and an EnVIronmental Report. NRt.,; IS expecIed 10 cono1 u ct Its own environmental review prior issuing an operating license. TVA is the nation's largest public power provider and is completely self-~nanced . TVA provides power to 62 large industries and federal facilities as well as 158 power distributors that serve approximately 8.7 million consumers in seven southeastern states. TVA currently has about 35,000 MW of dependable generating capacity (win~br net) on its system. This capacity consists of 3 nuclear plants, 11 coal-fired plants, eight combustion-turbine plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, one pumped-storage facility, one k ind turbine energy site, and one meth ane-gas co-firing facility. More than 60 percent of TVt 's installed generating capacity is from coal, almost 30 percent is from nuclear, a nd~he remainder is produced by hydro, combustion turbines, and renewable energy resources turbines. 1.3. Other Pertinent Environmental Reviews and Tiering l-Over 15 environmental.reviews, studi ~s, and white p.aper~ ha~e b~en ~r~pared for .~ction related to the constructIon and operatIon of WBN . The follOWing descno1es some or Ihe more pertinent documents, and Table 1-1 provides a more complete listiC9 of relevant environmental documents. As appropriate, TVA incorporates by reference, utilizes , tiers from , and updates information from these earlier plant-specific analyses for the present FSE iS. 1 The TVA 1972 FES reviewed the potential environmental and socioeco omic impacts of constructing and operating th e two-unit plant. TVA updated the 1972 FItS in November 1976 and submitted additional environmental information and analyses tp NRC in an environmental information supplement in 1977 (TVA 1977a). In Decem r 1978, NRC issued its FES, NUREG-0498, related to the licensing of the two-unit pia t. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 5

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear PI1nt Unit 2 Table 1-1. Environmental Reviews and Documents Pertinent to Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit2 I FES FinJI Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant November 1, 1972 Unit$ 1 and 2 (TVA 1972) I Environmental Information, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Other Units 1 and 2 (TVA 1976a) [Note: This is a supplement November 18, 1976 to thb 1972 FESJ I Envi(onmentallnformation, Supplement No.1, Responses to NRC Questions for Operating License Other May 1977 Statk Environmental Review, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit11 and 2 (TVA 1977a) Fina~ Environmental Statement Related to the Operation FES of V\fatts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 NUREG-0498 December 1, 1978 (NRC 1978) En J onmental Assessment for Low-Lever Radwaste EA July ii , 1980 Man~gement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (TVA 1980a) I Watts Bar Waste Heat Park, Rhea County. Tennessee, Draft FEIS October 20, 1980 VolJrnes 1 and 2 (TVA 1980b) EA pro~osed Incinerator for Burning Low-Level Radioactive Was:te (TVA 1989) January 1989 FES Review ReJew of Final Environmental statement, Walts Bar August 1, 1993 Nuclf]ar Plant, Units 1 & 2 (TVA 1993a) Fina } Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Wf.ltts Bar Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2, Supplement FES April 1, 1995 N0. 1, NUREG-0498 , Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391 (N R~ 1995b) FSER Fina} Supplemental Environmental Review, Operation of June 1,1995 Wat~s Bar Nucfear Plant (TVA 1995b) FSEIS AdoJtiOn of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact July 10,1995 Adoption Stat$ment, 60 FR 35577 (TVA 1995c) Rectd of Decision - Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear August 9, 1995 Unit!1 (TVA 1995d) Ene)gy Vision 2020 - Integrated Resource Management FElS and Plan I-and Ffnai Programmatic Environmental impact December 21 , 1995 ROD Stat~ment (TVA 1995a) 6 I=inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 Lead Test Assembly Irradiation and Analysis, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Tennessee, and Hanford Site, Richland, EA Adoptionl Washington - Adoption of U.S. Department of Energy Ar 9ust 19, 1997 FONSI Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Si nificantlm act, EA-121 0 TVA 1997 Final Environmental Assessment Related to the Watts I " FEA/FONSI Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Ai 9ust 20, 1998 Water Pro 'ect (TVA 1998a Low Level Radioactive Waste Transport and Storage, FEAlFONSI Watts Bar and Se uo ah Nuclear Plants TVA 1999a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the I FEIS Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water March 1999 Reactor DOE 1999 I Record of Decision and Adoption of the Department of ROD/ " Adoption Energy Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Ught Water jay 5, 2000 I Reactor TVA 2000 FEIS/ROD Reservoir Operat;ons Study Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (TVA 2004a)

                                                                        ~ay  19,2004 FEA/FONSI Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Replacement of Steam Generators, Rhea Count, Tennessee TVA 2005a A~ril7' I

2005 FEAlFONSI +y 1, 2005 In 1993, TVA conducted a thorough review of the TVA and NRC documL ts to determine if additional environmental review was needed to inform decision makers ~bout whether to complete WBN Units 1 and 2. The 1993 TVA review, focusing on 10 settions of the earlier documents, concluded th at neither the plant design nor environmental cbnditions had changed in a manner that materially altered the environmental impact all alysis set forth in the earlier FES. In 1994, TVA provided add ition al analyses and informa ion in support of NRC's preparation of an FES supplementing its 1978 FES related to the operation of WBN Units 1 and 2. That supplemental FES , issued by NRC in 1995 , similarl1 concluded that there were no significant changes in the potential environmental impacts from the proposed completion of WBN Units 1 and 2. In July 1995, following independent ~rview of the adequacy of the analyses and a new analysis of the need for additi o n a l~ower, TVA adopted the 1995 NRC FES supplement. In August 1995 , TVA issued a record of decision (ROD) confirming the agency decision to complete WBN Unit 1. In 199 , TVA prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FO SI) for a project to Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 7

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plaht Unit 2 provide SCCW to WBN fo r the purpose of increasing power generation from Unit 1 that was constrained by coolihg tower performance. In the late 1990s, Tf A participated as a cooperating agency with DOE on an environmental review evaluating the production of tritium at one or more commercial light water reactors (CL WR) to ensure s~fe and reliable tritium supply for U.S. defense needs. In March 1999, the Secretary of DOE designated the TVA WBN and Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) as the preferred alternativel for tritium production in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tri1tium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor (DOE 1999), hereafter referred to as the CUWR FEIS. DOE issued a ROD in May 1999. TVA issued its own notice of adoption a~d ROD for the CLWR FEIS in May 2000, and tritium production began at WBN Unit 1 in 20([)3. (The proposed action here does not include producing tritium at WBN Unit 2 .) The gLWR FEIS also includes pertinent information on spent nuclear fuel l management, healt and safety, decommissioning, and other topics. In December 1995, TVA completed a comprehensive environmental review of alternative means of meeting d~mand for power on the TVA system through the year 2020 (TVA 1995a). This review was in the form of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) titled Energy Vision 2020 - Integrated Resource Management Plan and Final Programmatic Environmentallmpa~t Statement (hereafter referred to as IRP FEIS). Deferral and completion of WBN Unit 2 were embedded among the suite of alternatives evaluated in this FEIS. To address fJture demand for electricity, TVA decided to rely on a portfolio of energy resource options, in ~luding new generation and conservation. Because of uncertainties about performance ~nd cost, however, completion of WBN Unit 2 was not included in the portfolio of resource lOPtions selected by TVA for implementation. Keeping open alternatives that \Nou!d meet the goals and objectives oftl-Je IRP FE!S, TVA did , however, reserve for future cohsideration completing WBN Unit 2. This consideration is now occurring. The pres~nt FSEIS updates analyses in the previous environmental reviews and tiers from the IRP FIBS , particularly utilizing the analYSis of energy resource options therein. In the .IRP FEIS, Tvl made conservative assumptions about the expected performance of its nuclear units (i.e. 1the capacity factor-roughly how much a unit would be able to run). This capacity factor was used in conducting the economic analyses of nuclear resource options. TVA nucfeJr un its , consistent with nuclear industry performance in the U. S. , now routinely exceed thi d earlier assumed capacity factor, which changes the earlier analyses for W BN Unit 2, and lis being taken into account in the current consideration of completing the unit (see Se ctio ~ 1.6 , Need fo r Power). The present environmental review and any resulting decisions will serve to update any pertinent portions of and related decisions made aftei completing the! RP FE IS. . In February 2004, T A issued its ReseNoir Operations Study Final Programmatic Environmental fmpa t Statement (hereafter referred to as the ROS FE IS) evaluating the potential en vironme ~ta J impacts of altern ative ways of operating the agency's reservoir syst em to produce o~e ra ll greater public value for the people of the Tennessee V alley (TVA 2004a). That f E IS review addressed the water supply needs of TVA gene rating facilities, such as WBN, and complianCe with limits of their NPDES and other permits. A ROD for the ROS F~ I S was subsequently issued in May 2004. The assumptions for reservoir operations resulting from the ROS FE IS review and the cumUlative effects analysis as it pertai s to the operation of WBN are incorporated by reference in the present evaluation. 8 inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Ch apter 1 1.4. Scoping and Draft SEIS Review 1.4.1. Scoping As described above, WBN Units 1 and 2 have received extensive environmental review over the past 30 years. Additional public scoping is not required for an SEIS [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1502.9(c)(4}]. However, extensive intem~1 scoping by a TVA interdisciplinary team included compilation and review of the document~ listed in Table 1-1, the TVA 2002 FSEIS for operating license renewal of the Browns Ferry INuciear Plant (BFN), and information about the proposed completion of WBN Unit 2. Based on that review, it was determined that the following topics should be addressed in this update of the environmental record for the completion of WBN Unit 2: Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Aquatic Ecology Terrestrial Ecology Threatened and Endangered Species Wetlands Natural Areas Cultural Resources (Archaeological and Historical) Socioeconomics Environmental Justice Land Use Floodplains and Flood Risk Seismic Effects t'-Juclear Plant Safety and Security Radiological Effects Radiological Waste Spent Fuel Storage Transportation of Radioactive Materials Decommissioning Other areas of potential impact were found to have been adequately evaluated in the previous environmental reviews, and no substantive changes to either piroposed activities or design , or additional information relevant to the particular environme~ta l concern, were discovered. Impacts from transmission line construction , operation, a n~ maintenance are addressed in the 1972 FES and the Final Supplemental Environmental f eview, Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, hereafter referred to as 1995 FSER (final sypplemental environmental review). Since no changes in or additions to transmiss ic~ lines are planned as a result of completion of WBN Unit 2, no further discussion of th ese ilTIpacts are included in this document. Upgrade of the WBN temporary site power distributiomsystem is under consideration. While not a requirement for or part of the proposal to co plete and operate WBN Unit 2, the potential impacts associated with upgrading the site po er distribution system are discussed in this document. 1.4.2. Draft SE/S Review The DSEIS for the Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Pia t Unit 2 was posted on TVA's website on March 29, 2007. A notice of availability was publis ed in the Federal Registeron March 30. In addition, the document was mailed or e-maile to the state, local and Federal agencies and organizations list in Section 5.1. A press rele se describing opportunities for commenting on the DSEIS, including an information op n house, was Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 9

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plaht Unit 2 issued on April 6 (sele Secti on 5.2). Paid advertisements for the open house (see Section 5.3) were run in the following newspapers: Friday. April 6. 2007 and Monday. April 16, 2007 Chattanooga Times Free Press Knoxville News-Sentinel Athens Daily Post Athenian Cleveland Daily Banner Monroe County Advocate/Democrat Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Dayton Herald News The Bradley News Weekly An information open house was held in the gymnasium of the Rhea County High School in Evansville, Tennessee from 4:30 to 8:00 pm eastern daylight time. Twenty seven people registered. During t~e open house, comments on the draft could be made orally to a court reporter, on the inte~net by computer, or by written comment form. A copy of the open house handout is included in Section 5.4.

   .                   I TVA accepted comrrrents on the DSEIS from March 30 until May14, 2007. A total of 1258 comments were received. These consisted of 1229 form letters, 22 other comments from the public, and 7 lettrrs from state and federal agencies. Many of the commenters opposed nuclear power and vpiced general concerns about the use of nuclear power. Many comments focused on water quality, the safety of nuclear power, spent fuel, radwaste, alternative sources tif energy and conservation, and socioeconomic impacts. Some comments raised cohcerns about, the cost of power and the adjacent mussel sanctuary. A listing of all commen~s received, by author and TVA's responses to these comments are included in APpendil D. Comments were responded to directly or by revising sections of the SEIS.

1.5. . Environmental Permits and Approvals Existing WBN envir~nmental permits and approvals are described in Table 1-1 in Section 1.3 of TVA's 1995 FSER (TVA 1995b). Construction and operation ofWBN Unit 2 may require that some of lthese permits be amended and additional approvals obtained. For example, the air emif sion operating permit for the plant might have to be amended to add any new emission sources associated with WBN Unit 2 such as emergency diesel generators. Becausk VVBN Unit 1 is already operating and construction activities associated with WB~ Unit 2 are expected to occur pri marily within existing structures, there should be few additi ' nal permits and approvals required. TVA would work with pertin ent regulatory agencies 0 obtain any necessary amendments and approvals. NRC approval to operate the unit wo Id have to be obtained. Federal and state e vironmental agencies continue to cond uct periodic inspections to verify that W BN Unit 1 co plies with all permit and applicable requirements. If WBN Unit 2 is completed, these in pections will include Unit 2. The 1972 FES desci'bes the initial involvement of other state and federal agencies in consideration of the onstruction of WBN Units 1 and 2. At that time, state and regional input was coordinat d via A-95 clearinghouses. In 1995, TVA consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I<USFWS) and jointly with NRC submitted a biological assessment. In 10 rinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 response, USFWS issued a biological opinion. Correspondence with th~ USFWS was included as Appendix D in NRC 1995b. Further coordination with USFvyS occurred in the preparati on of the subsequent environmental reviews pertaining to WBN Units 1 and 2 listed in Section 1.3. Based on the updated analysis of potential impact~ on federally listed as threatened or endangered species from construction and operation 0lf WBN Unit 2, no effects on listed species are expected. TVA has communicated supporting information about this determination to USFWS and additional information is includEki in TVA's response to a comment letter received from the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of Interior (001). This FSEIS also documents TVA's compliance with Section 106 of the Niational Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Section 3.7). 1.6. Need for Power Electricity is a just-in-time commodity. It cannot be stored in meaningful amounts, so the resources needed to produce the amount of electricity demanded from a system must be available when the demand is made. If the demand cannot be met, redilictions I and curtailments in service-i.e., brownouts or blackouts-result. One of T'1A'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 facilitiesI, and literally millions of people depend on TVA to get this right. To meet this responsibility TVA forecasts the future demand and the need for additional generating resources in the region it serves. Today's load forecasting ~ethodologieS are superior to ti10se of two decades ago because they recognize that demand for electricity is a derived demand determined by (1) the level of economic activity, (2) t~e price of electricity, (3) the prices of available alternative fuels, and (4) increased lefficiencies from r new conservation and technology. Further, today's methodologies utiliz an explicit ~::'r~~~Of uncertainty with ranges of inputs to investigate alternative rd-9rowth A need for power exists when future demand exceeds the capabilities 0; currently available and future planned generating resources. Because planning, permitting and construction r of new generating capacity typically takes many years, TVA must make Itlecisions to build new generating capacity well in atlvance of the actual need. This sectior updates the need for power analysis in Section 1 of the 1995 FSER and shows th e circumstances when demand exceeds supply and additional baseload generation is needed . iTVA'S method of forecasting demand and its anaiysis of a iarge number of generating and demand-side management resources (options) that could meet forecasted demand arrl addressed in the IRP FEIS. In addition to meeting increased power demand, adding to nuclear capafity improves the diversity of resources on the TVA system, thereby reducing th e risks inhrrent with any particular kind of resource; provides added flexibility to reduce emissions from TVA fossil generating plants by reducing generation from those plants; and potenti~lIy reduces the cost of power to cust?mers. Future p~~er demand, sup~ly, and capaCi~ for the TVA system and the resU"ln9 need for acidlUonal power are discussed below I Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 11

Comp letion and Operrtion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Description of the TVA Power System TVA serves an 80,qOO-square-mile region encompassing almost all of the state of Tennessee and p01ions of the states of Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virgi ~ ia. The major load centers are the cities of Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, and ~noxville, Tennessee, and Huntsville, Alabama. The population of the service territory in 2006 is estimated to be 8,836,484. TVA serves 158 municipal and cooperative customlbrs as their sole supplier of electricity, and 61 directly served industries as retail customers. The total number of businesses and residential customers served in 2006 was 4,394,601- TVA supplies almost all electricity needs in Tennessee, 32 percent in Mississippi, 27 perc1ent in Alabama, and 26 percent in Kentucky. Its contribution to the electricity needs in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, respectively, is 3 percent or less. Power Demand The primary factor affecting the demand for power in the TVA power service area (Region) is economic growth. Historically, regional economic growth has been more dependent on manufacturing than lthe U.S. average. This trend is forecast to continue as the Region benefits from its favprable location at the center of the auto industry in the southern U.S., even though job grgwth in the manufacturing sector is declining in the Region. Population growth is expected to be strong. Most migration to the Region is still due to job opportunities. Som~ of this population growth results from jobs in retail businesses, serving the existing population, but a growing part is "export" services that are "sold" to areas outside the Region. 1Notable examples are corporate headquarters such as Nissan in Nashville and Service Master in Memphis, but also include such industries as the still-growing music bUSi~1 ess centered in Nashville. In addition , the Region has become an attractive locality to retirees looking for a moderate climate and a more affordable area than traditional retirement locations. The increase in retiree population results in additional population growth i1 service industries and the people needed to work in them . The expected load ~orecast for TVA retail customers reflects historical sales and announced plans of customers to use electric power. The actual and forecast net system requirements for TVA, including residential, distributor-served commercial and industrial (C&I), and direct-served industrial customers are shown in Figure 1-3. Net system requirements grew at an average rate of 2.4 percentfrom 1990 through 2006, driven by distributor-served residential and C&lload growtltl. The forecast period is shown for three alternative load-growth scenarios. TVA traditionally plans toward the medium-load forecast, but the low and high forecasts help inform power r supply deciSiOn-ma~jng. Under th e medium forecast, it is assumed th at demand and energy will grow at rate based on expected economic growth. The assumptions u~ der!ying the load forecasts for higher or lower loads are the same as for the medium-load fo ~ecast except for economic growth: Demand and energy for the high-1t load forecast grow a rate based on high economic growth and for the lOW-load forecast at a rate based on 10W economic growth. I Net system requireTents are projected to grow at an average rate of 2.0 percent through 20 10 fo r the medium-load forecast, but grow at a lower rate in the long term as compared to the recent past. 0 t ct-served industrial growth is to be assumed flat. 12 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 225,000

                                                                                                            /'-            ----'

200,000 __ Actual 175,000 '---

                    ""'-High
                    -I!-- Medium                                                       ~~
                                               ~
                    -+-Low 150,000 J:
  ;:

125,000

              . .... ~

Cl 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 0 ,... c;; SJ on en ~

                               ~

0 0 8 '" <D 0 N

                                                                                                                       '"0 "0 OJ          <t) /'- <XI   C>             N    OJ                    (Xl Ol
              ~  ~    ~

Cl

                           ~   ~

Cl

                                  ~

Ol

                                       ~   '"
                                           ;'!

en

                                               ~     ~  8   8       0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c '" 0  ;; (; 0 N '" N

                                                        '"  <'<     N
                                                                         '" N   N   N    N     N   N    N    N
                                                                                                                  '"   N Figure 1-3.               Actual and Forecast Net System RequirementS Power Supply TVA's existing and planned power supply consists of coal, nuclear, hyd ~o, gas, additional renewable resources, and purchases. Planned power supplies include resour~es under contmct or projects contemplated by TVA as future capacity additions                                                 or    uprates. The estimated capacity of the TVA portfolio by fuel type in 2008 and 2013 ar shown in Figures 1-4 and 1-5, respectively. No long-term fuel availability problems are anticipated that would r

limit the capability of resources included in the capacity plan. Purchase~ and interru ptible load are considered a type of capacity because they are available to re ipond to demand. No .... Hydro Renewables 0.01% Gas and Oil Hydro 14% 17% Purchases (Gas) 2% REC'::EIVED Interruptibl Load 5% AUG 1 8 2010 Nuclear 19% Perm't.,j., S eCUon 39% Figure 1-4. 2008 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Ty Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 13

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plaht Unit 2 Non* Hydro Renewables Gas and Oil 0,01 % 13% Purchases (Gas) 4% Interrupti ble load 4% Nuclear 20% 35% Figure 1-5. 201 3 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Type Capacity additions td TVA-owned resources are also included in Figures 1-4 and 1-5. For analytical purposes, these include additions that are currently being implemented such as the restart of TVA's , FN Unit 1 and the uprate of all three units at the plant, a mix of energy resource options from the portfolio of options in TVA's IRP FEIS (TVA 1995a) that could be implemented, and co1l mp!etion of WBN Unit 2. Demand-side management options are also included in this mix. None of TVA's existing resources are expected to be retired during the period analyzed here. Hydro capacity includes both conventional hydro and pumped storage. Additional ~rnewable resources include solar, wind, and landfill gas resources. Only the portion of t~ese resources that are likely to be generating during the peak period hours are counted to/",ard capacity needs. Small changes in the capacity of coal units are included in the capa9ity plan to account for changes in TVA's plan to meet emissions requirements. These changes include changes in fuel source and operation of air pollution control eq uipment th~t affect the net generating capability of the units. The TVA nuclear units have an assum~d capacity factor of approximately 90 percent going forward-a significant improvemLnt over th e assumed capacity factor in the IRP FEIS (67 percent). The capacity plan shews a long-term base load capacity purchase (Red Hills Power Plant); long-term intermediate capacity purchase (hydro marketed by the Southeastern Power Administration [SEP'rJ1 and hydro owned by Tapoco, a subsidiary of the Aluminum Company of AmericCj), and short-term interm ediate and peaking capacity purchases from the market. Interruptible load contracts are included and counted toward reserve requirements. ~ , The amount of gene ating capacity, the source for which is yet to be determined (TBO), increases between 2 08 and 2013. During this period, the need for capacity of any type (baseload , intermedirte or peaking) increases by 3800 MWs in that five year period; . 1 A substantial amount of the electricity provided by SEPA comes from the hydroelectric units at Wolf Creek Dam (Lake Cumberland on the Cumberland River system. Output from these units is expected to be reduced . substantially while repai s to the dam are made, an effort that could take 7 to 10 years. This increases the need for additional capa ity in the intermediate term. 14 final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1

                                                                                        ~

Completing WBN Unit 2 with its 11 50 MWs would only meet part of this Iprojected need. The TVA Board recently announced in the form of a strategic plan that A would place greater emphasis on increasing energy efficiency and energy conserva~ion and more use of renewable energy resources to help meet and reduce future demand. These actions would help address the projected shortfall that remains even if WBN Unit 2 is tompleted. Need for New Capacity TVA is a dual-peaking system with high demand occurring in both the summer and winter months. However, the forecasted peak load or the highest demand Plat.ed on the TVA system is always projected to be in the summer months. A need for power exists if TVA has insufficient capacity to meet the peak demand in the summer, or if the resources in the capacity plan cannot provide enough energy to meet the load (Figure 1i3). Baseload capacity is the primary type of capacity used to meet energy needs. This generation is expected to be available and operate during almost all hours. Peaking capacity is generation that is expected to be available and operate during peak dertJand periods on a system. Baseload generation typically has lower operating costs, such bs nuclear generation and larger coal units. Hydro generation has the lowest operkting costs and is generally reserved for peak demand periods or to help regulate the sysfem due to the limitations on water supply. I To assure that enough capacity is available to meet the peak demand i~ the summer, additional resources or planning reserves are required. Planned reserves in the utility industry are typically 12-18 percent, depending on the age of current re~ources. TVA targets a planned reserve of 15 percent, which includes 10 percent long-term reserves and 5 percent operating reserves. TVA determines how much of the total capacity need should be baseload generation by comparing the expected generation of available resources to net syste~1 requirements (Figure 1-3) to determine whether there is a surplus or deficit of energy2. If there is a deficit of energy, then some of the additional capacity needs should be met wi~h new baseload resources. Any additional capacity needs would be intermediate or peaking resources . Add itional base load generation is needed by 2010 under the medium- a1nd high-load forecasts. Under the low-load forecast, bringing on WBN Unit 2 in 20131provides additional fuel diversity, operating flexibility, and a lower delivered cost of power. Th e addition of W BN Unit 2 in 2013 would improve the diversity of resources serving TIA customers and reduce the cost of power. It would provide TVA the flexibility of relying less on its coal-fired generation. TVA has installed and is continuing to install pollution contrfl devices on its coal-fired generating units to reduce the emissions of sulfur dioxide (SOp), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg) to respond to emissions reduction requirements. Increasing nuclear generation beyond what may be needed to meet near-term loa~ growth would give TVA the flexibility to reduce generation from higher-cost coal generatio~1 and reduce emissions this way, thereby reducing these emissions depending on ac1ual demand in the future and the performance of TVA's other resources. 2 8aseload capacity is needed if baseload demand exceeds base load capacity. Baselo d demand is that portion of forecasted net system requirements occurring at loads equal to or less than verage load (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Standard Review Plan, NUREG 1555 October 1999). 8aseload capacity consists of aU resources with expected capacity factors greater tha 65 percent. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 15

Completion and OperatIon of Watts Bar Nuclear Pla~t Unit 2 The estimated percentage of generation by fuel type for 2008 and 2013, are shown in Figures 1-6 and 1-7, lrespectively. The capacity mix that would result in this generation was shown previously in Figures 1-4 and 1-6 by fuel type. The capacity percentage by fuel type differs from the generation percentage by fuel type because actual operation of installed capacity (how much ISgenerated*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., pea~ load, baseload). TVA (and other utilities) employs sophisticated production cost models that consider all of these variables in order to simulate future demands on each type of generation, each plant, and each unit on the TVA system. Coal resources produce ~ percent-of the simulated generation in 2008, but only 52 percent of generation in 2013 a~er WBN Unit 2 begins operation. Nuclear generation increases from 29 percent in 2008 to 33 percent in 2013. Resources that are using or are likely to use gas or oil3 produce 4 per ent to 5 percent of generation, depending on the year. Non*Hydro Renewables 0.05% Market 4% Interruptible Load 0% Coal 54% Fig re 1*6. 2008 Estimated Generation by Fuel Type 3 Assumed to include gaJ and oil and market, in Figure 1-3. 18 ~inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 Non-Hydro Renewables 0.05% Gas and Oil 3% Market 1% I Interruptible Load O!l. Coal 52% 2013 Estimated Generation by Fuel Type I The effect of the addition ofWBN Unit 2 on TVA delivered cost of powe ~ in 2013-15 is shown in Table 1-2. The addition of WBN Unit 2 is projected to reduce ~he delivered cost of power an average of 3.7 percent in 2013-15. Table 1-2. Effect ofWBN Unit 2 on TVA Delivered Cost of Power

                                          '.;.'.;;;" '013 :,::';<; \':;!;*:2,01.4\:;*,-(.;; :q~i;:*> 2()1:5;;: >:::<;

Without WBN Unit 2 (cents/kWh) 4.89 4.93 I 5.08 With WBN Unit 2 (cents/kWh) 4.73 4.74 4.88 Change (cents/kWh) -0.16 -0.19 -0 .20 Percent Change -3.3% -3.9% -3.9% Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 17

Chapter 2 CHAPTER 2 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION TVA considered a number of alternatives to constructing and operating WBN, including the No Action Alternative, in its 1972 FES. In December 1995, TVA issued the IRP FEIS (TVA 1995a). As described in Section 1.3 of this document, the IRP FEIS analyzed a portfolio of options for meeting TVA's future power needs that were derived from the best strategies identified during a two-year process with extensive public input. The enyironmental impacts of energy resource options were evaluated as part of the IRP FEIS. Because I of uncertainties about performance and cost, however, completion of WBN Unit 2 was not included in the portfolio of resource options selected by TVA for implem~ntation. Keeping open alternatives that would meet the goals and objectives of the IRP FEIS,I TVA did, however, reserved for future consideration completing WBN Unit 2. TV{\ is now, in the context of this SEIS process, reconsidering completion of WBN Unit 2. jfhis 'is in large part due to the actual operating experience with TVA's nuclear plants which have achieved a capacity factor of 90 percent, a substantial improvement compared to what was projected in the IRP FEIS (67 percent) (see Section 1.3). In tiering off the original11972 FES, the IRP FEIS, and the balance of the environmental record pertinent to WBN, this FSEIS identifies no new alternatives or resource options beyond those already addressed I in those documents. The need for power analysis presented in Chapter 1 shows how com Pieri ion of WBN Unit 2 would help TVA meet expected demands for increased baseload power and the need for greater operating reserves. WBN Unit 2 compietion would also provide more flexibility to reduce fossil plant emissions and lower the cost of power. To meet the need for additional baseload power and the objective of maximizing the use of exiting assets, TVA is proposing to follow through with its original plans to complete WBN Unit 2. 2.1. Proposed Action I TVA proposes to complete WBN Un it 2 with minimal changes to the original plant design. Unit 2 was about 80 percent complete when construction work halted in 11985. However, a substantial amount of equipment/components-including reactor coolan ~ pump, rotating assemblies, valves, instrum entation- have been removed over the years to support WBN Unit 1 and SON Units 1 and 2. As a result of this and the corrective actipn s th at must be implemented similar to those performed on Unit 1, WBN Unit 2 is now con sidered approximately 60 percent complete. I A removed equipment log has been maintained on WBN Unit 2, and limited scope walkdown conducted in 2005 showed good correlation between the rem1 0ved equipment and the iog. The existing equipment in the reviewed systems was foung to be in good condition , and the hardware installation appeared to be 75 to 80 percent compl ete. A limited documentation review of randomly selected records for two syst~ms (chemical and voiume controi system and main feedwater) demonstrated a high correl~tion of retrievable records for completed fieldwork, design, and procurement. In 2000, the preventive maintenance program for Unit 2 equipment was reduced in scope when it was determined to be more cost effective to replace or refurbish equipment should Unit be completed. While some equipment continues to be maintained, most Unit 2 mecharlical and electrical Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 19

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 systems are not currently in the preventive maintenance program. This equipment may need to be rePlaced lor refurbished if Unit 2 is completed. The following list of actions required to complete WBN is based on a 2005 cost estimate. The DSEP, which islbeing prepared concurrently with this environmental review, will provide a more detailed and complete description of what is required to complete Unit 2. If the DSEP results in loperational or design changes not reviewed in this document, a supplemental environmental review would be prepared to address potential environmental impacts of those changes.

• Upgrade to i ~ corporate major capital projects implemented on Unit 1 since commercial operation to achieve fidelity between Units 1 and 2, with the exception of modifications made to enable tritium production at WBN Unit 1. Currently, there are no plans Ifor Unit 2 to produce tritium. _
• Refurbishment of major nuclear steam supply systems equipment such as reactor coolant pumr s and control and instrumentation.
• Replacement of transmission system equipment utilized for Unit 2 operation such as switchyard breakers.
• Upgrade of J nit 2 cooling tower consistent with the upgrades completed on the Unit 1 cooling tower.
• Refurbish ml jor turbine generator equipment such as bearings, rotors, and electrical generator. I
• Replacement of equipment that has been removed to support WBN Unit 1 or SON operations silich as feed pump turbine and feedwater flow regulating valves.

I

• Replacement of various obsolete instrumentation and control systems for both th e nuclear stea~ supply systems and secondary plant operation such as tu rbine supervisory and core power monitors.
• Constru cti on of minor facilities required to support construction.
• Code jn s pec~ion , documentation and reconciliation to meet American Society of Mechanical ~n gi neers (ASME) III standards. (WBN is an ASME III designed and constructed plant.)

Since the reactor co~tainment, turbine, control buildings, and cooling towers have already been constructed, n0 new m ajor construction activities would be iequired to complete Unit

2. No new water intakes I or outfalls are needed. As described above, the majority of work would invofve refurbishment or replacement of interior controls and equipment. All new support buildings (the tentative locations of which are shown in red on Figure 1-2) and laydown areas wou! be constructed inside the existing vehicle barrier wall. Temporary I

parking areas would be established on the site perimeter on previously disturbed land. Equipment, material , and supplies for Unit 2 completion would be delivered by truck to the plant site. BMPs fo erosion and sedimentation and noise and dust control would be used during construction. A general permit for stormwater associated with construction activity 20 Final Supplemental Environmentai Impact Statement

Chapter 2 would be applied for is cumulative disturbances of greater than or equal to 1 acre occurs. All construction waste would be recycled or disposed of in an appropriate, licensed landfill. Four steam generators dedicated to the operation of WBN Unit 1 were ~ePlaCed in fall 2006 after 10 years of operation. At this time, there are no plans to replace the installed steam generators for Unit 2 during completion of the unit. Chemistry control and removal of . copper tubing from other secondary heat exchangers are expected to ~aximize the life of the existing WBN Unit 2 steam generators. Construction activities are expected to last approximately five years. A design and construction workforce of up to 3000 is anticipated, comprised of apprmbmately 1500 manual craft workers, 400 nonmanual craft workers, and 600 engineers. Additionally, TVA will hire approximately 200 staff augmentation contractors and an additibnal 120 TVA employees dedicated to completion of Unit 2. The workforce peak is e~pected in years 2 and 3 of construction . Accommodation of the construction workforce is biscussed in Section 3.8 of this document. 2.2. Changes in Plant Design and Operational Systems Since 1995 Several changes have been made to plant design and operations Since !1995, the most important of which was the addition of an SCCW system. As explained in the SCCW FEA (TVA 1998a), the SCCW system was added to WBN to improve plant performance. The changes to plant operations resulting from installation of the SCCW system are addressed here and in Section 3.1.1. Some changes also have been made to the ~ystems and processes for handling liquid and solid radioactive waste and spent fuel J These changes are addressed in Sections 3.14 and 3.15. 2.2.1. Plant Water Use In terms of basic sources, water use for WBN has not changed since theI 1972 FES. Steam generator makeup water, service water, and condenser cooling water (GCW) are obtained from the Tennessee River. In the original configuration of the plant, all this water was obtained from an intake pumping station (IPS) located at TRM 528.0, a90ut 1.9 miles below W atts Bar Dam. In 1999, the SCCW system was placed into service, w~ ich provides additional water by gravity flow from an intake structure located at TRM ~29 . 9 , immediately upstream of W atts Bar Dam . The locations of these water intakes are sr own in Figure 2-1. Potable w ater continues to be obtained from groundwater supplies provided by a local utility, Watts Bar Utility District. 2.2.2. Heat DiSSipation System The major components of the W BN heat dissipation system are shown schematically in Figure 2- 1. The original arrangement for dissipating waste heat at W BN, described in the 1972 FES, includes a closed-mode cooling system with one natural draft cooling tower per nuclear unit. With this arrangement, all water required for the plant coolih g systems ins ide the reactor buildings and turbine building was to be obtained from the Tennessee River Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 21

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plat t Unit 2 ponents of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Heat Dissipation System 22 inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 by the IPS located at TRM 528.0. In the system, nearly all the waste heati created by the plant is dissipated in the atmosphere by the cooling towers. A small fracti~>n of the waste heat is dissipated in the Tennessee River by the cooling tower blowdown.l. Cooling tower blowdown includes water that is continuously removed from the CCW sys~em to control the level of dissolved solids in the system. At WBN, blowdown in the orginal system is returned to the Tennessee River through multiport bottom diffusers, located 2.0 mil:es below Watts Bar Dam at TRM 527.9. To provide adequate dilution of the plant effluen~, discharge from the diffusers is permitted only when the release from Watts Bar Dam is a~l least 3500 cubic feet per second (cfs). To ensure this happens, an interlock is provided between the dam . and WBN that automatically closes the diffusers when the flow from the h~droturbines at Watts Bar Dam drops below 3500 cfs. To provide temporary storage of ~ater during these events, the blowdown discharge conduit also is connected to a yard holdir g pond. When the flow from Watts Bar Dam drops below 3500 cfs, thereby closing the dIffuser valves, the blowdown is automatically routed to the yard holding pond. When hydro (1)perations resume with releases of at least 3500 cfs, the interlock is "released" and the diffu~er valves can be opened. When this occurs, the discharge from the diffusers would contair blowdown from the cooling towers and blowdown from the yard holding pond. To protect the site from the consequences of exceeding the capacity of the yard holding pond , an emergency overflow Cli weir is provided for the pond , which delivers the water to a local stream annel that empties into the Tennessee River at TRM 527.2. The operation of Watts Bar Dam and the W BN blowdown system are very carefully coordinated to avoid unexpect d overflows from the yard holding pond. Previous studies estimated the average and maximum inflow for the IPS ~or the operation of both WBN units are expected to be about 107 (TVA 2007a) and 143 cfs q VA 1977b), respectively. Experience "'lith one unit operation (i.e., Unit 1) identifies the inflow for the IPS as about 80 cfs (Appendix B) . For the original heat dissipatIon SysteT' the maximum dIscharge from the plant diffusers due solely from blowdown from the coo/ing towers was expected to be about 50 cfs for the operation of one unit and 85 cfs for the operation of both units (TVA 1977b). For the case where the diffusers are discharging blowdown from both the cooling towers and the yard holding pond, the maximum flow is expected to be about 135 cfs for the operation of one unit and 170 cfs for the operation of both units (TVA, 1977b). In general, apart.from unexpected emergency situations, the dist harge from the overflow weir of the yard holding pond would be 0 cfs (for operation of on~ or both WBN units). I Prior to the startu p of the plant, engineering studies predicted that th e W~ N cooling towers would not remove the desired amount of heat from the steam cycle, resulfing in generation losses. This w as confirmed by measurements after Unit 1 began commercia! operation in 1996. Internal modifications were made to the Unit 1 Cooling Tower and~e SCCW system w as placed into service in July 1999. The basic components of the SCC system are shown in Figure 2-1. A more detailed schematic is shown in Figure 2-2. he SCCW system withdraws water from the intake structure located immediately up tream of Watts Bar Dam at TRM 529.9, which formerly served the Watts Bar Fossil Plant (now retired). A new SCCW intake conduit was constructed between the fossil intake and the cooling tower basin for WBN Unit 2. To reach Unit 1, the SCCW flow passes through t e Unit 2 cooling tower basin and mixes with the Unit 1 CCW flow through a gated opening added in the wall separating the Unit 1 and Unit 2 CCW intake channels. The temperature of the water in the SCCW system is usually lower than that provided by the Unit 1 cooling to er. In this manner, the SCCW flow reduces the temperature of the Unit 1 condense flow and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 23

Completion and Oper?tion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 enhances the perfo~mance of the steam cycle, reducing generation losses caused by the deficiency in the cooling tower design . After passing throu dh the condenser and cooling tower, the CCW flow ends up in the basin beneath the Unit 1 dooling tower. The cooling tower basin includes a side-channel weir to remove blowdown f from the CCW system. Since the SCCW inflow exceeds the capacity of the Unit 1 blowdOW ~ conduits, the SCCW system also includes a separate side-channel weir in the Unit 1 copling tower basin to deliver heated water back to the Tennessee River. The elevation and length of the SCCW side-channel weir was selected to preserve the design of the Origin~1 blowdown system . In this manner, the amount of flow withdrawn from the Unit 1 cooling tor-er basin via the SCCW discharge conduit is roughly the same as that delivered to the pla~t by the SCCW intake conduit: This SCCW discharge conduit releases the SCCW effluent ~o the river through a discharge structure located at TRM 529;2, about 0.7 miles below Wa~s Bar Dam. As with the SCCWintake structure, the SCCW discharge structure formerly served the Watts Bar Fossil Plant. Since the SCCW system is operated by gravity flow, the ~mo unt of water entering and exiting the system depends on the elevation of the water surface behind Watts Bam. Based on design computations, the flow through the SCCW ~ystem is not expected to exceed about 365 cfs (high pool behind Watts Bar Dam). Experie ~ce with one unit operation (I.e., Unit 1) identifies the average SCCW flow to be about 20~ cfs (Appendix B). The SCCW system ~as designed and constructed as a discretionary system. In this manner, the SCCw~ system has no significant impact on the original blowdown system , allowing the plant t operate with or without the SCCW system in service. If the SCCW system is in service, the fraction of waste heat dissipated in the Tennessee River can be higher than that of ~e original full, closed-mode operation. Control valves are provided in both the SCCW int ke conduit and the SCCW discharge conduit to allow adjustment of the w ater level in the c ~Oling t ower basins and provide a proper balance of the flows entering and exiting the Unit 1 CCW system. Under certain conditions, releases from the SCCW discharge structure an approach environ mental limits for the water temperature in the Tennessee River. 10 avoid exceeding these limits, the SCCW system includes a conduit with a control valve ~hat allows part of the cool intake flow to bypass the plant and mix directly with the h e~ted effluent in the discharge conduit. When there is a threat of exceeding the tempf3rature limit in the river established by the plant's NPDES permit, the bypass conduit is olPened to provide precooling of the effluent before it enters the SCCW disch arge structure. 24 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 W3IL~Bliff'os.P.I ~I (~} 1;,Jr:4;; o{~nS4\1' c;;I(lIl':19

     'l*','lte#, h:lJ1lidia)

I,JM t "1~r~,!;{tj) W~ ~ {adt,lD'l Figure 2-2. Schematic of Current Configuration of Watts Bar r Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water System Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 25

Completion and opeT~ tion of Watts Bar Nuclear PI nt Unit 2 If W BN Unit 2 is completed , the current plan is to supply the SCCW to both th e Unit 1 and the Unit 2 CCW systems. In this manner, and with the SCCW system in operation, neither Unit 1 nor Unit 2 wop, ld be returned to the original full, cfosed-mode operation. Thus, Unit 1 and Unit 2 would inalude heat dissipation primarily to the atmosphere, and if the SCCW system is in service I Unit 1 and Unit 2 could include a sizable amount of heat dissipation to the Tennessee Riv~r. The hydrothermal analysis conducted to evaluate heat dissipation is described and pote ~tial impacts evaluated in Sections 3.1 , 3.2, and 3.4. The WBN NPDES ~ermit, renewed in November 2004, identifies the diffuser discharge as Outfall 101 (TRM 527 .9), the emergency overflow from the yard holding pond as Outfall 102 (TRM 527.2) , and ~e discharge from the SCCW system as Outfall 113 (TRM 529.2). As emphasized above, the permit stipulates that discharge from Outfall 101 can occur only when releases from the Watts Bar Hydro Plant (WBH) are greater than 3500 cfs. When releases drop belo I 3500 cfs, the diffuser discharge for Outfall 101 is automatically suspended and blmrdown flow is diverted to the yard holding pond . The discharge fro m Outfall 102 is very iml frequent; whereas, the discharge from Outfall 11 3 is common throughout the yea r. Unlike Outfall 101, the operation of Outfall 102 and Outfall 113 do not require a minimum flow from WBH. . The NPDES perm it bf 1993 stipulated that TVA conduct temperature modeling studies to determine th e appr~priate daily average discharge temperature limit from Outfall 101 and Outfall 102. In resppnse, TVA completed studies and reported the results to the state in December 1993. T~ e report, titled Discharge Temperature Limit Evaluation for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, recormended a daily average discharge temperature limit of 35 degrees Celsius (0C) (95 dewees Fahrenheit [OF]) for Outfall 101 (TVA 1993b). A recommendation also was provided f0r the size of the mixing zone fer the discharge diffusers, provid ing ample space for thel movement of fish in the river past the outfall. The stUdies and recommendations i ~cl uded the operation of one or both nuclear units at WBN. The recommendations v,'ere adopted by the permitting authority, as specified in th e current NPDES permit, eff~ptive November 2004. The temperature for outfall 101 is measured by a continuous monitqr in the blowdown conduit before the water enters the river. The current NPDES perrinit also specifies a discharge temperature limit of 35°C (95°F) for Outfall 102. Since discharge by the emergency overflow is infrequent, the temperature limit for Outfall 102 apPli~s as a daily grab sample rath er than a daily average value of continuous measurerments. The TVA modeling studies demonstrated that outside of the recommended m i xi ~g zone , these discharge limits will ensure compliance with th e State of Tennessee water q,11ality standards fo r the protection of aquatic wildlife. Th ese standard s are as follow s: The receivin water shall not exceed (1) a maximum water temperature change of 3°C (5.4°F) elative to an upstream control point, (2) a maximum temperature of 30.5°C (86. - OF), except when upstream (ambient) temperatures approach or exceed this alue, and (3) a maximum rate of change of 2°C (3. 6°F) per hour outside of a ixing zone. The same temperat re standards also apply to Outfall 113 and are applied to assigned mixing zones for th safe passage of fish in the river. Outfall 113 also contains a temperature limit of 33.5°C (92.3 C F) in the receiving stream bottom at the SCCW outlet (see Table 3-1). In contr st to Outfafl101 and Outfall 102, the standards for Outfall 113 are enforced by a com ination of continuous instream temperature measurements, field tests, and routine model redictions. 26 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 2.3. Other Activities WBN is the only TVA Nuclear power station that did not convert the temporary site power distribution system to a permanent system when it began operation. Thif system is old and many parts need upgrading or replacement. The temporary site power s¥.stem is currently used by WBN Unit 1 to supply power to WBN support non-safety related Ifunctions including the wastewater treatment plant, offices and storage buildings and also serves as the power supply during outages. The distribution system consists of the sUbstatio~ in the old Watts Bar Fossil (WBF) switchyard and a 13 kilovolt (kv) line that goes to the Cprridor Substation (commonly known as the "Corridor Sub"), located on the north side of WIBN. The Corridor Sub includes two substations, the Corridor Substation and a constructiO~f Power Substation. Various proposal to upgrade to a permanent system have been under co sideration for several years, but no decision has been made as to whether to proceed. Although WBN Unit 2 construction could benefit from the upgrade of the temporary site ~ower distribution system, it is not a requirement to go forward with completion and operati<!m of WBN Unit 2. Currently, two options are currently under consideration for upgrading th!.1 distribution system. Option 1- Under this option, TVA would abandon the existing su station at WBF and build a new 161-kv line and substation adjacent to the corrid~r SUb. The new substation would occupy approximately a 100 square foot (ft2) ar a. Since space is limited in the the existing switchyard, this would entail expanding he substation foot print, possibly to the west. The new single circuit 161-kV transmi~sion line wou ld go from the new substation to the north and then northwest about o.~ mile until it taps into the existing WBH- Spring City 161-kV Line near Crosby road.1 The tap point would consist of a tap structure and two 2000 amp sectionalizing switches. The new line would have a 100 to 150-foot right of way, a large portiol' of which would need clearing. The entire line would be on TVA property. The new substation would include a new 161-13-kV 10 MVA tranformer, two circuit qf switchers with isolation and bypass switches on the 161-kV side the transformer, and one 13-kV breaker along with associated isolation and bypasp switches. This breaker would attach to the existing 13-kV bus in th e "Corridor" substation. Also, retaying protection would be installed for all new equipment in the I new substation. Option 2 - Under Option 2 TVA would build the new substation a! the retired WBF, adjacent to the existing switchyard, tapping the existing WBHP-v'rF 161 -kV line for power supply. The new statton would occupy approximately 100 2. A tap structure or flying tap and a short span of line would be installed to connec to the new substation. No upgrade would be required to the existing 13 kv li les that bring power from VV8F to the Corridor Sub. . The new substation would include a 161 kV 10 MVA transfor e r, two circuit switchers with isolation and bypass switch es on the 161 -kV side f the transformer, and one lowside breaker (13-kV) along with isolation & bypass s itches. This breaker would attach to the existing 13-kV line that supplies the C rridor substation . Arso, relaying protection would be installed for all the new equipm nt in the new substation. FinaJ Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 27

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear PI~nt Unit 2 The new sUbstation~ and line connections described in Options 1 & 2 are not part of the proposed action in this SEIS, i.e. completion and operation of WBN Unit 2. However, because upgrade o~ the distribution system is anticipated some time in the future, the potential for cumulaf ve impacts exists and is discussed below: Wildlife Re~ources. Due to the extent of prior disturbance, there is a general lack of wildlife haf.itat at the project site and neither upgrade option would significantly degrade av,ilable wildlife habitat. The state-listed eastern hellbender, the federally Usted bald ergle and the state-tracked osprey occur within 3 miles of WBN and the federally list(jld gray bat is known from Meigs County, Tennessee. As stated in Section 3.3.f, no suitable habitat for these species occurs at the project site. The implementat!on Of either upgrade option in combination with Unit 2 completion would not result in pumulative effects for any of these species: Additonally, three heron colonies, bu~ no caves had previously been located within 3 miles of sites for either power option. All of these heron colonies have moved because of pine beetle infestations, land the nearest colony is 4 miles away. Plant Resou rees. Under Option 1, some disturbance of existing plant communities would occur during the construction of a new substation and new 161 kV power line. i Even thoug ~ clearing of vegetation would be necessary on a large portion of the proposed riglht-of-way, no uncommon terrestrial communities or otherwise unusual vegetation of cur on the lands to be disturbed. Less disturbance of existing plant communities would occur under Option 2, which does not entail power line construction ! No new infestations of exotic invasive plant species are expected as a result of the bither alternative. In addition, no occurrences of federally listed as threatended or endangered or state-listed plant species are known on or t immediately adjacent to the two proposed areas. No cumulative impacts to plant communities or to sensitive plant species from either option in combination with completion Unit 2 are expected. Aquatic Resources. No impacts to aquatic resources are anticipated under either option . Con~truction offacilities and associated lines would use BMPs to avoid or reduce poteljltial impacts to streams and the reservoir. These BMP's are used routinely in tr.e construction of TVA transmission line and distribution facilities and provide go01 protection for aquatic resources . Neither option is expected to affect any sensitivr aquatic species or critical habitat. Natu ral Arer Resources. No Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) streams or Wild and Scenic ~ivers are in the area. Five natural areas are in the vicinity of the proposed o~i o ns . Natural areas with in 3 miles of the proposed work described in Options 1 a d 2 and the approximate mileage from the proposed work areas, respectively, are as follo'vvs: Chickamauga Reservoir State Mussel Sanctuary - 0.8 mile (0.4 m il r), Chickamauga Shoreline TVA Habitat Protection Area - 1.0 mile (1.3 miles), Chic~~mauga State Wildlife Management Area Yellow Creek Unit - 1.0 mile (1 .5 miles), Meigs County Park - 1.4 miles (1 .0 mile), and Yuchi W ildlife Refuge at t Smith Bend 2.3 miles (3.0 miles). Because the distance from each option to natural area t is sufficient for the work proposed, no cumul ative impacts from either option in co bination with the completion of Unit 2 are anticipated. Additionally, both options are I cated on TVA property that is designated for power generation and where on-sit development of power facilities and structures would be expected to occur. 28 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Historic Resources. Both Options 1 and 2 have the potential to effect prehistoric and/or historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the Nationall Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If TVA selected one of these options-o~ any other option that would involve construction of new facilities- TVA would com~ly with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) . As appropriate, this would involve conSUltation with the Tennessee State Historic preservatiot Officer (SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. Potential impacts on cultural resources are not expected to be significant. Since no effect on historic reso1urces are expected from the completion of WBN, no cumulative effects to these resources would be expected from section of either upgrade option I Visual Resources. Option 1 involves construction of additional transmission structures, substation components, and lines. The visual impact df such incremental changes may not be individually significant, but when ladd itions are seen in combination with similar existing features, the impact coult! grow. This could result in a cumulative change in the visible landscape. The Jtructural changes or additions required for Option 2 would be minimal and would no~ likely create a noticeable visual effect. J Based on this review, the potential for adverse cumulative affects would e small from either of these options in combination with the completion of WBN Unit 2 ~ut more likely from Option 1 than Option 2. If and whenTVA decides to upgrade the existing temporary site power distribution system at WBN, a more detailed environmental re~iew will be conducted and further consideration given to the potential for cumulative ffects. If adverse effects a identified, appropriate mitigation would be considered. 2.4. Summary of Environmental Effects Table 2-1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects fro the proposed completion of WBN Unit 2, as updated by the present environmental review. Table 2-1. S ummary of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative EnVironmerl tal Effects From Completion of WBN Unit 2 Insign ificant hydrothermal effectstn near-field and far-field temperatures and on the OPlation of the supplemental condenser cooling ater (SCCW), given compliance with National Pollutan Discharge System (N PDES) pe rmit limits. Insignifica t effects from raw w ater chemical treatment. Water Intake would increase by 33 percent over present condltions but st!!l would be Surface Water Quality within the original design basis of he plant for two-unit operation. A corresponding increlse of essential raw cooling water and raw COOling water chemical additives of 33 percent would occur. Towerbr pm treatment fo r Condensing Cooling Water (CCW would increase 100 percent. These increases are not expected to affect compliance with existing NPDES ~ ffluent limitations that protect aquatic resources. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 29

Compielion and op.,ltlon of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Table 2-1 (continu~d)

' }

,P(~~$9;~r~~H'. :,:, <,:,{:>'):':§;' ;i~1~{~9~~b~.f(i:6vif9:~m~H~l~~~~ct$'.i: . (\ ,.\': ... ',~, ',( .* ,'.

Groundwat~r Quality No impacts expected. Since no construction activities would occur within 500 feet of the reservoir, all construction activities would be subject to appropriate BMPs to ensure that there are no impacts to surface water, intake flows would stay within Aquatic Eco ogy the original design basis for operation of the two-units in closed cycle mode, and discharge changes would remain within existing NPDES limits. Any impacts to aquatic ecology, plankton, or aquatic communities in the vicinity of WBN would be insignificant. Impacts on existing plant and animal communities within or adjacent to the disturbed area footprint would be Terrestrial Ef Ol09y insignificant. Some minor disturbance of communities may occur during construction. No new infestations of exotic invasive plant species are expected. All construction work would be conducted using BMPs, no additional discharge-related impacts would occur, and intake flows would not be increased over the original design basis for two-unit operation. There would be no effect on state-listed or federally listed aquatic animals or Threatened ~nd th eir habitats. Endangered Species No impacts to threatened or endangered terrestrial plant or animal species are expected. No occurrences of state-listed or federally listed plant species are known on, or adjacent to WBN. No impacts to bald eagles or gray bats are expected . No impacts to wetlands are expected. No disturbance is Wetlands planned that would affect the one forested wetland adjacent to th eQl'oj ect footprint. No impacts would occur to the five natural areas within 5 Natural Are" s miles of WBN, including the Chickamauga State Mussel Sanctuary. Because new ground disturbance would be minimal and Cultural Resources only minimal new construction is planned, historic (Archaeolog cal and resources on and adjacent to the site and archaeological Historical) resources within the area of potential effect wouid not be adversely affected. 30 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Table 2-1 (continued) '.': *'::.*.;.*:./Fi~~~~r:~~ * ;".~.:X:';:':!~::':(;~:*:~;::/:jF;):fflp!~~tJ~:i;g6.yj,~~Bm~h~fJ§ff.i~~:: ,* ,;:;::;>;,~:';*:, i'::: :::f:~;: :::, ', :L . ~, . Some impacts to population, including low income and minority groups due to influx of wdrkers; most impacts would be widespread and minor. } noticeable increase in Socioeconomics, demand for housing and mobile hIDusing locations would Environmental Justice and occur during peak construction. Sbme impacts are expected to schools. Minor impa9~s are expected on land Land Use use. Beneficial effects on employrent and income, and local governments' revenues during construction. Floodplains and Flood Risk No antiCipated adverse flood-relat~d impacts. Seismic Effects No adverse seismic effects antici~ated. Climatology and A slight change in local meteorology could affect wind Meteorology dispersion values. Effects expect~d to be insignificant. The risks of a beyond-design-basis accident from operation ofWBN are small. IncrJased risk from Unit 2 operation would be extremely 10w.1 Risk of and potential impacts from a terrorist attack on WBN are not expected Nuclear Plant Safety and to increase Significantly due to cOlfPietion of WBN Unit 2. Security Because WBN is an existing, ope ~ating nuclear facility, the risks and potential consequences of a terrorist attack already exist, and safeguards have l' already been taken to protect against such risks. Radioloaical Effects Anticioated effects unchanged since 1995; insignificant. Radiological Waste Anticipated effects unchanaed sin~e 1995; insignificant. Spent Fuel Transportation Insignificant effects anticipated frdm the transport or and Storage storage of spent fuel. 2.5. Identification of Mitigation Measures Mitigation of potential environmental Impacts Includes aVOiding, mlnlmlz l~g, rectifYing, reducing, or compensating for the impacts. Mitigation measures have bE1en identified in the 1972 FES and subsequent NEPA documents. Those measures are still 1n effect. This supplemental document identifies mitigation measures to address impac~s beyond what were discussed in those earlier reviews. TVA will identify specific mitiga ons and commitments selected fo r impiementation in the ROD for this project. TVA has identified the following measures that could be implemented du ing construction or operation of WBN Unit 2 to addreSS those potential impacts. TVA will designate certain counties as impacted by the construction rocess so that they would become eligible for a supplemental allocation from TVA's ax equivalent payments under Tennessee law.. These funds could be used by c unties to address impacts on county services. As part of the DSEP, TVA is conducting a labor study of the potential construction workforce. TVA will provide information from this study to officials in he impacted Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 31

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear PI~nt Unit 2 counties. This i ~formation could help wnh local planning to accommodate the anticipated tem r rary population growth. 2.6. The Pr~ferred Alternative Completion of Unit 2 is TVA's preferred alternative. This alternative addresses the identified need in a bast-effective I manner with only limited additional environmental impacts. It permits TVA to make use of an existing asset, the partially completed Unit 2 and potentially helps re~uce the cost of TVA power. It also provides TVA flexibility to reduce emissions from its f~ ssil plants by reducing generation from those plants, depending on future events and the demand for energy. 32 Final Supplemental Erivironmentallmpact Statement

Chapter 3 CHAPTER 3 3.0 CHANGES IN THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES I The environmental consequences of constructing and operating WBN were a~dressed comprehensively in the 1972 FES for WBN Units 1 and 2. Subsequent envini> nmental reviews updated that analysis, as described in Section 1.3 of this FSEIS. By 1996, w~en the construction of WBN Unit 1 was complete, most of the construction effects had already occurred. As described in Section 2.1, WBN Unit 2 would use structures tha~ already exist and most of the work required to complete Unit 2 would occur inside those buildings. As shown in Figure 1-2, any disturbance proposed for the construction of new support fadlities would be within the current plant footprint. Although the facility locations in this tentati~e site plan are not firm, any relocation would occur within the marked area to be disturbed. TV1 would use standard construction BMPs to control minor construction impacts to air and water from dust, sedimentation , and noise. I The reviews by TVA and NRC in 1993 and 1995 focused primarily on the completion ofWBN Unit 1. Some modifications to plant design and operations have occurred sinbe that time. Chapter 3 summarizes the environmental effects assessed in past WBN-related environmental reviews, identifies any new or additional effects that could result from the cO l1jlpletion and operation of WBN Unit 2, and assesses the potential for impacts. The curre l~ review focused on the entire proposed area to be disturbed. Cumulative Effects . cumUlative effects of constructing and operating WBN Units 1 and 2 were cor sidered in the 1972 FES and the 1995 NRC FES, which TVA adopted, The potential for curpulative effects to surface water and aquatic resources are addressed by the plant's NPDES PEJrmit and its monitoring requirements. Concerns over potential cumulative effects to air ~ere tied to emissions from WBF plant, which had not operated since 1983 and has since been retired . Cumulative effects are also considered in many of the documents incorporatl d by reference and/o r tiered from for this supplement. Most notably, cu mUlative effects of s~ent fuel storage and transportation were addressed in the CLWR FEIS; cumulative effects 0j ra nsportation of radioactive materials were addressed in NUREG-75/038 {NRC 1975); and c mulative effects of hydrothermal and water supply were addressed in the ROS FE IS. In this re jiew, TVA has found th at no new or additional cumulative effects beyond those identified in ,e arlier NEPA documents are expected to result from completing the construction of WBN 4Jnit 2. As summarized in Table 2-1, for the most part, only minor, temporary, or in s ig ni~cant effects are expected for most of the resources considered. As such, these effects are n t expected to contribute to cumulative impacts on affected resources. The potential for ad itional operational cumulative effects are considered in the following assessments. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 33

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plr Unit 2 3.1 . Water Quality 3.1.1. Surface Iw ater- Hydrothermal Effects Hydrothermal effect? primarily consist of the impact of the heated effluent from WBN on the Tennessee River. 1 ere. hydrothermal effects are divided into two categories, near-field effects and far-field effects. Near-field effects consist of the impact of the heated effluent on the river water temperature i ~ the immediate vicinity of the plant, as defined by the assigned mixing zones for the outfalls in the NPDES permit. Limits for river water temperature are specified by the State of Tennes~ee in the NPDES permit for the plant. Far-field effects consist of the impact on the receiving str~am on a larger scale, in this case all of Chickamauga Reservoir. Waste heat created IbY the operation of WBN is dissipated both in the atmosphere and in the Tennessee River. 11- description of the heat dissipation system is given in Section 2.2.2. The current configuratio ~ of the system includes three outfalls to the river. Outfall 101 includes regulated releases through two multiport diffusers located on the bottom of the river at TRM 527.9,. Outfall 102 ihcludes emergency overflow from the plant yard holding pond and consists of a surface discharge from a local stream channel at TRM 527.2. Historically, releases from Outfall 102 have be~n made only when maintenance is required for Outfall 101 . Outfall 113 includes releases fr?m the WBN SCCW system through a discharge structure at TRM 529.2. Outfall 11 3, origin al~y the outfall for the retired WBF, consists of a shoreline release slightly below the water sUrface of the river. The current configuration of the SCCW system provides water solely for WB t-J Unit 1. For the combined operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2, the control stru ctures that regu late the amount SCCW flow between and out of the cooling tower basins would need 10 be modified to preserve the original design bases for all three outfalls. An extensive number of previous studies on the hydrothermal characteristics of releases from WBN have been cohducted over the years. These studies are described and their results summarized in App~ndix A. In general, these studies have basically evaluated and documented: I

1. That W~N can be effectively operated without causing violations of water temperature limits in the Tennessee River (near-field effect).

2. The vali~ity of operating assumptions made in previous analyses.

3. The vali Iity of the assigned mixing zones and modeling results for river temperature.

4. Evaluati ns for changes such as the addition of the SCCW system or the Reservoir Operati ns Study (ROS).

5. That op ration of WBN is not expected to have any noticeable impact on ChiCka~1auga Reservoir (far-field effect).

NPDES River Tem erature Limits The current NPDE : permit limits for managing the near-field impact of the th erm al effluent from WBN outfalls are s mmarized in Table 3-1. Those for Outfall 1 01 and Outfall 1 02 apply to the temperature of the ffluent before it enters the river (i.e., "end-of-pipe" limitations). Those for Outfall 113 are inst eam limitations and apply relative to the assigned mixing zones. Releases from Outfall 101 ca be made only when the flow in the river from WBH is at or above 3500 cfs. 34 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Releases from Outfall 11 3 do not require a minimum flow in the river, except in events where there is a planned, sudden change in the thermal loading from the SCCW system. Table 3-1. NPDES Temperature Limits for WBN Outfalls to the TennesJ.e River I

  "P~lh : ; * ::i'</.~':i"/:;:EffI~eritParilmete t{;: : \;;:;.::f:Y*:"';2\:;P:;;~ .~:};O:jily ;;8eDQrt <I:;: .::

• t : *:*~'?:liiimt ::;::**. :'; ".' **

101 Effluent Temperature Dailv Ava 135.0°C (95°F) 102 Effluent Temperature Grab Instream Temperature Max Hourly Avg 30.5°C (86.9°F) 2 I nstream Temperatu re Rise . Max Hourly Avg 13.0 Co (5.4°F) 113 Instream Temperature Rate-of-Change1 Max Hourly Avg +/-2 ~o/hr (+/-3.6 P/hour) Instream Temperature ReceivinQ Stream Bottom 3 Max Hourly Avp. $3.5°C (92.3°F) Notes: 1 Downstream edge of mixing zone 2 Upstream ambient to downstream edge of mixing zone 3 Mussel relocation zone at SCCW outlet Mixing Zones The mixing zone for Outfall 101 is shown in Figure 3-1. The recommended d'mensions of the mixing zone are based on a physical hydrothermal model test of the diffusers (TVA 1977b, 1977c). Measurements from the model indicated that sufficient mixing would be achieved at a distance equivalent to roughly the length of the outflow section of the diffuser ports. The blowdown system includes two diffuser legs, one containing an outflow sectio1n 80 feet long (upstream) and one containing an outflow section 160 feet long (dOwnstream? Hence, the assigned mixing zone for Outfall 101 is 240 feet wide and 240 feet downstre~m. The width of the river at Outfall 101 is about 1100 feet, thus about 80 percent of the river is available for safe passage of fish. The design of the diffusers and mixing zone are based on t~e operation of both units at WBN, and the extreme river conditions used for the design of the diffiliser are still applicable (Le., minimum river flow of 3500 cfs). For the operation of one unit, the performance of the diffuser was confirmed by field studies after the startup of Unit 1 (TVA 1998b). Similar studies would be performed to confirm the performance of the diffusers with the operation of two un its at WBN. . I Sin ce releases resulting from the emergency overflow of the yard holding po ~d are so infrequent, a mixing zone currently is not defined in the NPDES permit for o ult fa II 102. For Outfall 113, standards for water temperature are enforced by means of !to mixing zones, active and passive , as shown in Figure 3-2 . Two mixing zones are used to better align monitoring of Outfall 11 3 with the behavior of the effluent in the river. Compytations and measurements show that spreading of the effluent from Outfall 113 varies sur'stantialiy between conditions with and without flow in the river from Watts Bar Dam (TVA 1997b 2001 , 2004b). For conditions with flow, the effluent tends to reside in the right-hand-side of he river (facing downstream) and is monitored by the active mixing zone, whi ch inciudes instream temperature monitors at its downstream edge. For conditions without flow, the effluent car. spread across the river and is monitored by the .passive mixing zone. Since the passive mijing zone encompasses regions of th e river that must remain clear for navigation, the ~de quacy of the passive mixing zone is checked biannually (';,',:inter and summer) by special w ater termperature surveys (i.e ., rather than instream monitors). Outfall 11 3 is a near-surface di charge, and computations and measurements confirm that the heated effluent from Outfa I 113 disperses in the surface region of the water column (TVA, 1997b, 2001, 2004b, 2005c, 2 06a, 2007b, 2007c), providing ample room beneath for the safe passage of fish, particula Iy in the deep Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 35

Completion and Operation of wat~s B~r Nuclear PI1nt Unit ~ . . navigation channel am the nght-hand-slde of the river. TVA would not change the dimensions of the Outfall 113 mixi ! g zones with the completion and startup of Unit 2. r;-:!.~. f.~jll:a.;.' Jut' 0. Y1. Ir,'!Q"t. p~~n~ ~tilU'C!tt"i~, flftl .. (fv*~?* --"\:>

~'~::~~ :f{"'l~t::::Ef;-~:~ (

1h]ffi .

         ;2-;5-~:'I:_e::~~~~~~~~i~~_:~.J3~:~-*z '~- :~;~7
         -- .' 0, ::::., **,... ".. *                    ' :::;::~:':.::,,'" >L/ : ,#:!-;;'                             . --

Figure 3~1. Mixing Zone for Outfall 101 Figure 3-2. Mixing Zones for Outfall 113 It is important to no e that since the startup of WBN Unit 1, the plant has operated successfully through a wide ran e of river flow conditions, without any exceedences of the NPDES limits for I the near-field impa t of thermal effluent on the Tennessee River. Concurrently, no significant 36 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Ch apter 3 adverse impacts have been reported on the ecological health of the river as a result of releases from any of the WBN discharge structures-Outfall 101, Outfall 102, or Outfal ' 113. Updated Hydrothermal Analyses In depth near-field hydrothermal analyses of the heat dissipation system have been updated for the proposed completion and operation of WBN Unit 2 (Dynamic Solutions 2007). This was necessary for several reasons. First, although the SCCW system has proven Ito be an effective method to boost generation of the plant, the combined operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2 with the SCCW system had not been examined. Second, detailed multiyear simulatio ~s with the dual mixing zone for Outfall 113, as depicted in Figure 3-2, had not been performe<i:l.I Third , previous model evaluations had not considered the combined operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2 coupled with the river operating policy of the ROS FEIS or the characteristics of new stea~ generators recently installed for WBN Unit 1. Appendix A includes more detail about prev ious model evaluations and the modifications to the Outfall 113 mixing zone. 1 The updated analyses began with the model used for the 1998 EA of the SCOW system (TVA 1998a). For the updated analyses, modifications were made in the model for:1 (1) combined operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2, (2) discharges from Outfall 113 with dual mixing zones, (3) ambient river conditions based on the river operations policies of the ROS) and (4) performance characteristics of the new steam generators for WBN Unit 1. In this process, the following modeling assumptions are emphasized: performance as that of the cooling tower for Unit 1. WBN Unit 2 would operate with the original steam generators. The SCCW system currently serves Unit 1. With the combined operation pf Unit 1 and Unit 2, the SCCW system would serve both units. While some modifications to the SCCW system would be required for combined operation (see above), these mO~ifications would be limited to installed plant systems and would not change the volume of water delivered and removed by the SCCW system. The following analysis assumes that the ~CCW system would be changed to provide service solely to Unit 2. This assumption prpvides a suitable bounding estimate of the potential order of magnitude of the hydrothermall impact on the Tennessee River from the operation of Unit 2 while both Units are in operation. Although other options are possible, none would result in a substantial change in v11ume and/or temperature of fl ow released to the river through Outfalls 101, 102, and 1. 13. Mixing of thermal efflu ent from Outfall 101 is adequately described by the ebserved behaviour in the physical model study of the discharge diffusers (TVA 1977b; TVA 1997c), and in a field study conducted after the startup of Unit 1 (TVA 1998c). Mixing of thermal effl uent from Outfall 113 is adequately descri bed by an . nalysis tool recommended by the U.S. EPA known as CORMIX (Jirka, et al. 1996). Model simulations were performed for a 30-year period based on observe hydrology and meteorology in the upper Tennessee River watershed for years 1976 thro gh 2005. The model input requires the flow and ambient temperature of the river at W8 . To incorporate the impact of the ROS operating policy, a reservoir scheduling model was used to help estimate the hourly river flow at WBN. Hourly values of the ambient wate temperature were estimated using SysTemp, a collection of linked water quality models oft e key water Final Supplemental Environmental 1mpact Statement 37

Completion and Oper~iion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 bodies in the SysTemp were Te~nessee River reservoir system. The reservoir scheduling model and

                          ~oth previously calibrated as a part of the ROS FEIS rrVA 2004a).

An important aspecJ common to all the above assumptions is that with the addition of Unit 2, the blowdown and SCC}N systems would be adapted, if needed , to ensure no substantial change in the design bases fo~ Outfalls 101, 102, and 113. That is, the maximum volume of flow and heat from the outfalls would not change substantially from their original design. For Outfalls 101 and 102, this includes th:e operation of both WBN units, and for Outfall 113, this includes a maximum flow of about 365 cf~ , whether from Unit 1, Unit 2, or both Unit 1 and Unit 2. In this manner, the updated hydrother~al analyses would primarily ascertain the expected impact of recent changes in river oPEfrations, and provide assurance that with both WBN units, the current mixing zones and methods/of operating the plant and river would effectively satisfy state standards for instream water temfllerature and provide safe passage for aquatic species in Chickamauga Reservoir. I Two operating cases for WBN were considered as part of the updated hydrothermal analyses-Unit 1 only (i.e., curtent, base case conditions) and combined operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2, with the SCCW system serving only Unit 2. For both cases, the key statistical properties of flow and temperature of r-ater released from Watts Bar Dam are summarized in Table 3-2. As shown, daily average releases ranged from a minimum of 3300 cfs in May to a maximum of over 150,000 cfs in l60th March and April. Flows over about 45,000 cfs would be due to spill operations in sUPPoirt of flood control. On an hourly basis, releases can be 0 cfs, due to peaking operations of the h~dro units. The overall average release for the entire 3D-year period was about 27,000 cfs. ~he hourly release temperature varied between a minimum of 36.3°F in February and a maximum of 84.6°F in August. Thus, based on historical hydrology and meteorology, the a~bient river temperature is not expected to exceed the state standard of 86.9°F. Table 3-2. Estimated Hydrothermal Conditions for Release From Watts Bar Dam I

      .;~~~k);'<'!!~~=~!~;'%!i11!!:~~~~t!~t£e~r~

Jan 5,$00 36,900 122,400 0 36,900 122,400 36.6 44.0 52.0 Feb 6,$00 43,000 11 5,300 0 43,000 11 5,300 36.3 43.8 52.2 Mar 5 ,~ 00 36,600 156,600 0 36,600 156,600 38.9 48.9 60.0 Apr 3,$00 21,000 156,600 0 21,000 156,600 47.8 56.3 65.4 May 3,$00 17,300 11 9,300 0 17,300 11 9,300 54.4 63.9 73.2 Jun 5,200 21,600 81 ,300 0 21,600 81,300 61 .6 71.3 79.1 Jul 5,$100 19,300 60,200 0 19,300 60,200 68.7 76.4 83 .9 Aug 5 , ~00 22,600 41 ,200 a 22 ,600 49,100 72.4 . 78.0 84.6 Sep 4,1300 22,400 81 ,300 0 22,400 81 ,300 69.6 76.2 82.7 Oct 4,000 21,000 70,600 0 21 ,000 70,600 57.5 68.3 79.2 Nov 6,$00 29,700 85,000 0 29,700 85,000 47.1 58.5 68. 1 Dec 4,MO 32,300 102,300 0 32,300 102,300 37.7 49.3 59 .5 Notes:

1. Results pe SysTemp hydrotherm al model simuiation

2. Reservoir c perating policy per the ROS FEIS

3. Historical hvdrology and meteorology for 1976 through 2005 38 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 The following summaries are provided for the results of the updated hydrotherrmal analyses. Outfall 101 The estimated hydrothermal conditions for the thermal effluent from Outfall10 1 are given in Table 3-3 for sole operation of Unit 1 (base case) and Table 3-4 for the combi ed operation of h both Unit 1 and Unit 2. For the sole operation of Unit 1, the hourly discharge through Outfall 101 varied between 0 cfs and about 108 cfs. Discharges of 0 efs occur for pe1riods when the release from WBH is less than 3500 cfs. With both WBN units in service, the IhOurlY discharge from Outfall 101 can be as large as 175 cfs, as shown in Table 3-4. This is ati> out 3 percent larger than the maximum value cited in previous design studies (TVA 1977b), lbut is not considered significant with respect to the as-built size of the blowdown syste~ . For both cases, the estimated maximum daily average effluent temperature was 89.8°F, wellmelow the NPDES limit of 95°F. For the purpose of judging the impact on instream river temper~tures, the statistical properties of the resulting hourly river temperature and river temper~ture rise also are given in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. As shown , the maximum values are well below ~he state standards of 86.9°F for maximum river temperature and 5.4 FO for maximum river temPirature rise. For the latter, the estimated maximum temperature rise is 1.3 FO for the sole operption of Unit 1 and 1.6 FO for the combined operation of both Unit 1 and Unit 2. At these levels, tre maximum instream temperature rate-of-change would be well below the state standard of +/-3.6 FO per hour. Table 3 3. M Estimated Hydrothermal Conditions for Thermal Effluent From, Outfall 101 With Unit 1 Operation "~~ .:,' : '-':.':7: :,'iMlrr:'~ :';; Mean ~,:: Max;::: : ,: J.(iJ;i:~\:; ;;tM9ar.;~::hiMa£;:, :;> Miff}; ;~Meall'}.:" ::M~)(o;;: :;;;I'MJrf:;;; \Me.aOY~:: Max;i;; Jan 0 44 102 49.0 64,0 79.4 38 ,2 45.8 53.8 10.0 0.1 1.1 Feb 0 44 102 49.2 65.9 78.4 37.9 45.6 55.7 10.0 0.1 1.1 Mar 0 43 102 53.2 69.6 82, 1 40,3 50,5 61 .0 10.0 0.1 1.1 Apr 0 43 108 62.5 74.2 84.6 48.9 58.2 66.9 10.0 0.2 1.3 May 0 43 108 70.7 78.9 85.8 57 ,3 66.1 73,8 10.0 0.2 0.9 Jun 0 43 108 75.3 83.6 89.0 62.7 72.8 79.6 10.0 0,1 0.8 Jul 0 43 108 80.2 85.6 89.1 70.2 77.5 84.6 1-0.2 0.1 0.5 Aug 0 43 108 77.4 85.6 89.8 73.8 78.8 84. 7 -0.1 0.0 0.5 Sep 0 43 108 71.6 81,8 88.2 69.9 76.8 83.0 -0.3 0.0 0.5 Oct 0 43 102 63.7 75.3 83.9 58.3 68,8 79,3 -0.3 0.0 0.6 Nov 0 43 102 56.2 69.5 83,3 47.9 59 ,3 69.7 -0. 1 0.0 1.0 Dec 0 43 102 49.4 65.2 81.2 38.2 50.7 61.7 -0.1 0.1 1,2 Notes:

1. Results per W BN hydrothermal model simulation

2. WBN Unit 1 with new steam generators of 2006

3. WBN Unit 2 idle 4, SCCW servin g Unit 1

5. Reservoir operating policy per the ROS FEfS

6. Historical hydrology and meteorology for 1976 through 2005 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 39

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Table 3*4. EstimatL Hydrothermal Conditions for Thermal Effluent From ouifaII 101 With Unit 1 a+dUnit 2 Operation

1~~1~~'~!!!!~!_}' §~~I!!i !.1iI Jan 0 80 165 48.9 64.0 79.3 38.3 45.9 53.9 0.0 0.2 1.4 Feb 0 ap 165 49.1 65.9 78.3 38.0 45.7 56.0 0.0 0.2 1.6 Mar .0 7~ 166 53.1 69.6 82.1 40.3 50.6 61.2 0.0 0.2 1.5 Apr 0 79 171 62.5 74.2 84.5 48.9 58.3 67.3 0.0 0.3 1.6 May 0 80 170 70.6 78.9 85.8 57.4 66.2 73.9 0.0 0.3 1.0 Jun 0 80 171 75.3 83.6 88.9 62.7 72.8 79.6 0.0 0.2 0.9 Jut 0 8~ 175 80.1 85.5 89.0 70.2 77.6 84.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 Aug 0 8~ 172 77.3 85.5 89.8 73.9 78.8 84.7 -0 .2 0.1 0.6 Sep 0 80 170 71.6 81 .7 88.2 69.9 76.8 83.1 -0.4 0.1 0.6 Oct 0 8b 166 63.6 75.2 83.8 58.4 68.9 79.3 -0.4 0.1 0.9 Nov 0 80 166 56.1 69.4 83.2 47.9 59.4 69.8 -0 .2 0.1 1.1 Dec 0 7~ 166 49.3 65.1 81.1 38.4 50.8 61.8 -0.2 0.2 1.5 Notes

I

1. Results per WB N hydrothermal model simulation

2. WBN Unit 1 with new[steam generators of 2006

3. WBN Unit 2 with origi[nal steam generators

4. SCCW serving Unit 2

5. Unit 2 cooling tower performance the same as Unit 1 cooling tower perform ance

6. Reservoir operating ~olicy per the ROS FEIS

7. Historical hydrology and meteorology for 1976 through 2005 Outfall 102 r For both the sale oReration of Unit 1 (base case) and the combined operation of both Unit 1 and Unit 2, there were np events with overflow from the plant yard holding pond. As a result, under normal operating cornditions, releases from Outfall 102 are not expected .

Outfa ll 11 3 The estimated hydrotherma l cond itions for the th ermal effl uent from Outfall 11 3 are given in Table 3-5 for sole OfI eratio n of Unit 1 (base case) and Table 3-6 for the co mbined operation of both Unit 1 and Uni 2. For both cases, the hourly discharge through Outfall 113 v aried between about 222 cfs and ~bo ut 294 cfs. This demonstrates th at the flow from the SCCW system is inde pendent of the unit served by the system (i.e., Unit 1 for the base case and Unit 2 for the case with both unit~ in ope ration). In a similar fashion, f or both cases, the hourly effluent te mperature throug ~ Outfa ll 11 3 varied betvleen about 39.5°F and 97.3°F. Since the flow and te mpe rature of the ~CCW effluent are essentially the same for both cases, similar conditions are found for instre~ m temperatu re conditions. The estimated maximum hourly instream river tempe rature for bot~ cases is 84.rF, we ll below the NPDES limit of 86.9°F. The estimated maximum hourly instream river temperature rise fo r both cases is 5.4 FO, which is the same as the current N PDES limit. T he estimated largest hourly instream river temperature rate-of-cha nge (up/+ or do n/-) for both cases is -3.6 P per hour, which is the same as the curre nt NPDES limit. The xtreme values for the temperature rise and temperature rate-of-ch ange occur in the cooler winter months" of the year, whe n the buoyancy-related mixing of the thermal effluent is reduced. In practice, TVA would not risk operation of th e SCCW system with the effluent parameters so close to the NPDES limits. In extreme temperature events, the SCCW system would be a erated in a more conservative manner than what has bee n assumed in the hydrothermal mode. In particular, the temperature of the Outfall 113 effluent would be reduced 40 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-5. Estimated H~,drotherma l Conditions for Thermal Effluent From Outfall 113 With Unit 1 Operation

               "'T1 5'

en

                          *~~r';\; :~~~~~;r~i)i~)**

c:

g Jan 222 iii Feb I 222 I 222 I 223 I 40.7 I 64.8 I 82.8 I 37.8 I 45.6 I 55.3 I 0.3 I 1.8 I 5.4 I -3.6 I 0.0 I 2.4 3 Mar I 222 I 223 I 227 I 45.9 I 68.3 I 86.1 I 40.2 I 50.9 I 62.0 I 0.0 I 1.9 I 5.4 I -3.6 I 0.0 I 2.5 ro

J l[ Apr I 226 I 256 I 277 I 57.5 I 72.7 I 90.2 I 48.9 58.6 68.5 0.0 2.3 m May I 240 I 286 I 292 I 63.6 I 79.3 I 90.9 I 56.8 66.3 74.6 0.0 2.4

                ~           Jun         257     291      292     68.6     83.8     94.2    62.7   73.1   79.8   0.0   1.8
                ~J          Jul         275     292      293     71 .6 I 86.1 I 97.3 I 70.2       77.8   84.5   0.0   1.4         -2.2    0.0

l 3 Aug I 284 I 292 I 293 I 73.2 I 85.5 I 94.9 I 73.6 78.9 84.7 0.0 0.9 -2.0 0.0 ro 65.7 81.7 92.6 69.6 I 76.9 I 83.0 I 0.0 I 0.7 I 2.9 I -1 .7 I 0.0 I 1.3

                ....:J~     Oct         287     291      292      57.7    75.0     89.7    58.3   69.3   80.4   0.0   1.0   4.8   -2.8    0.0   2.0 3'
               "0 Nov         226     258      288      52.7    69.7      85.7   47.9   59.8   70.9   0.0   1.3   5.4   -3.4    0.0   2.1 Q)          Dec         222     222      226      44.5    64.7      84.4   39.1   51.0   63.2   0.0   1.7   5.4   -3.5    0.0   2.1
                ~        1Amount of change  in miver temperature, up or down, in one hour.

ill Additional Notes: CD 1. Results per WBN hydrothemlal model simulation

                 ~       2. WBN Unit 1 with new steam generators of 2006

J 3. WBN Unit 2 idle

- - - - - - - '-'--'--- 4. SeeW-servi ng-tl nit -- - - - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - - -- - - - -- -

5. Reservoir operating policy per the ROS FEIS

6. Historical hydrology and met.eorology for 1976 through 2005

()

Q)

                                                                                                                                                      ~
            .t:>.
                                                                                                                                                      .,ro C,...)

  .l>-

N

                                                                                                                                 ~~

3 C/l -o OJm ru  !:!"*

                                                                                                                                 ..,  0 z:::l C ru

() :::l Table 3-6. Estima~ed Hyd rothermal Conditions for Thermal Effluent From Outfall 113 With Unit 1 and Unit 2 mo. Operation ruO

                                                                                                                                 -" -0
       ,~6n~JPi!!i~:~ ~~~1~~~h!llffirc :'!ftl~~[L~ .'I' Jan     I 222 I 222 I 222 I 39.5 I 62.6 I 82.6 I ~8 . 1 I 45.8 I 53.7 I 0.0            I 1.8 I 5.4 I -3.6 I 0.0 I 2.7 1_1_*____

Feb I 222 I 222 I 222 I 40.7 I 64.7 I 82.7 I 37.8 I 45.6 I 55.3 I 0.3 I 1.8 I 5,4 I -3.5 I 0.0 I 2.4 "::;.

~

222 22 62.0 0.0 1.9 5.4 -3.5 0.0 2.5 256 277 57 .3 72.6 90.2 48.9 58.6 68,4 0.0 2.3 5,4 -3.5 0.0 2.6 (/) C May I 240 285 292 63.5 79.2 90.8 56.7 66.2 74.6 0.0 2.3 5.3 -3.0 0.0 1.8 -0 -0 29'1 292~2 I 68. 5 I 83.7 I 94.1 I 62.7 I 73.0 79.8 0.0 1.7 5.2 -2.8 0.0 1.7 m 291 294~4 71 I 71.5 I 86.0 I 97.2 I 70.2 I 77.8 84.5 0.0 1,4 4.3 -2.2 0.0 1.7 3(I)

l 292 292 84.7 0.0 0.9 3.4 -2.0 0.0 1.5

![                             292     2!                                                83.0 0.0   0.7   2.9   -1.7   0.0   1.3 m

I Oct I 287 I 291 I 292 I 57.5 I 74.8 I 89.6 I 58.3 I 69.3 80,4 0.0 0.9 4.8 -2.7 0.0 2.0

 <         Nov     I 226    I 258    I 288    I 52.6 I 69.6 I 85.7 I 47.9 I 59.8         70.9 0.0   1.3   5.4   -3.4   0.0   2.1 a'

l Dec I 222 I 222 I 226 I 44.3 I 64.6 I 84.3 I 39.1 I 51 .0 63.3 0.0 1.7 5.4 -3.5 0.0 2.1 3(I) Notes:

l 1. Results perWBN hydrothermal model simulation

[ 2. WBN Unit 1 with new steam generators of 2006 -0 3" 3. WBN Unit 2 with original steam generators III 4. SCCW serving Unit 2

  ~     5. Unit 2 cooling tower performance the same as Unit 1 cooling tower performance

(/) 6. Reservoir operating policy per the ROS FEIS

  ![    7. Historical hydrology and meteorology for 1976 through 2005 (I) 3(I) a

Chapter 3 by passing additional water through the SCCW bypass conduit or perhap~ by removing the SCCW system from operation. I For Outfall 113 the NPDES permit also includes a limitation on the maxinrum temperature of the receiving stream bottom (mussel relocation zone). This temperature is not estimated by the WBN hydrothermal model. However, historical data can be examined to demonstrate that the Outfall 113 effluent would not create a significant inipact on river bottom temperature. Measured temperatures for the Outfall 113 effluent bnd river bottom in the mussel relocation zone (MRZ) are shown in Figure 3-3. Data are shd1wn for 1999, when the SCCW system first began operation, through mid-2004. In this span, 2002 was among the warmest years since TVA began monitoring water temperature beloY'[ Watts Bar Dam. As shown, even in a warm year, the maximum MRZ bottom temperature IS only about 84°F, well below the NPDES limit of 92.3°F. It is important to note that the ma~imum allowable temperature of essential raw cooling water (ERCW) for continued operati ~n of WBN Unit 1 currently is 85°F, which is needed to guarantee a safe shutdown of the rE1actor in the event of an emergency. Efforts currently are underway to increase this limit to 88°F (TVA, 2004c, 2006b). The completion of Unit 2 is expected to include an ERCW limit 9f 88°F. If the water temperature at the plant pumping station located 1.3 miles downst~eam of Outfall 113 approaches 88°F , the operation ofWBN would be suspended , and thus tr e heat load from r the SCCW system would be dramatically reduced. Therefore, in terms of protecting bottom-dwelling species and fish passage, the impact to the river from Outfall 113 would by necessity be reduced by WBN suspension of operations should the ambi~nt bottom temperature ever reach 88'F, still well below the MRZ temperature limtt 92.3'F. 10oT5~~~+=P=~~~~~~~+/-T:7&RIT~S7:~~~~~~77~ts~~~~ 90 80 E E

~

70 --

~

Q. E

~

l-s.. g ~ 60 50 40~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure 3-3. Measured Temperatures for Outfall 113 Effluent a d Bottom of Mussel Relocation Zone Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 43

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear PI1nt Unit 2 Impact on WBN Operation As emphasized in S~ction 2.2.1 , the purpose of the WBN SCCW is to enhance the performance of the Jmit(s) that it serves. When TVA anticipates that one or more of the NPDES temperaturJ limits are threatened for Outfall 113, part of the SCCW inflow is diverted via the bypkss to the discharge conduit to reduce the temperature of the SCCW effluent (e.g., see Figure 2-2). If the temperature of the Outfall 113 effluent cannot be sufficiently reduced py this process, the SCCW system is removed from service. In this manner, the impact pf the SCCW system on WBN operation can be evaluated based on the length of time the Sf-CW system is placed in bypass and the length of time the SCCW system is removed from service. Provided in Table 3-7 is a summary of these impacts for the two cases examined herein. As noted, compared to current conditions with the SCCW system supporting Unit 1, combined operation of both units with the SCCW system supporting Unit 2 prbvides a slight reduction in the hours of required bypass operation , and no change in the nutnber of hours the system must be removed from service. For all practical purposes, given modeling uncertainties, the results in Table 3-7 suggest that the completion and operation of Unit 2 as assumed herein would not create a substantive change in the operafion of the SCCW system. The average annual generation for base-case conditions witH Unit 1 obtained by the updated analyses was about 10,602,000 megawatt hours perl year (MWh/year). For the combined operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2, the average annual gene I ration obtained by the analyses was about 21 ,182,000 MWh/year, w hich is less than 0'101 percent less than twice the amount of generation for the base-case (Unit 1) conditions. This slight difference is due to the minor change in performance characteristics of the new steam generators for Unit 1 verses the original steam generators for Unit 2. Table 3-7. Pre1icted SCCW Impact on WBN Operation 525 10 515 10 Low River Flow It is important to notr that the simulation period from 1976 through 2005 contains four of the five driest years ev~r recorded in East Tennessee, 1988, 1986, 2000, and 2005 (1 St, 3 rd , 4 th , and 5th driest for pe~iod of record from 1875 to present). Thus, the simulations summarized herein encompass ~erhaps near the most extreme conditions expected for the impact of WBN thermal effluept on the river. For Outfail 101, the extent of diY conditions is of little significance becau~~ the thermal effluent can be released from Outfall 101 only when the discharge from Watts Bar Dam is at least 3500 cfs. That is, even in the driest years, there will be at least 35001 efs of flow in the river for the assimilation of waste heat from WBN . The minimum daily rverage release in Table 3-2, 3300 cfs, would allow a release of 3500 cfs for at least 22 h~~rs in a single day. In practice, hydro releases from Watts Bar Dam are usually made at lev* Is above 3500 cfs (e.g., 6000 cfs). Under these conditions, the impact of a dry year is to r duee the number of hours per day that a flow of 3500 efs can be provided for Outfall 01, thereby forcing a greater volume of water to be stored in the WBN yard holding pond . his would increase the probability of an overflow from the yard holding pond and unwanted releases from Outfall 102. But as presented earlier, in the 30-year 44 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 I si mulations, there were no events where it was found necessary to provide releases from the yard holding pond via the emergency overflow (i.e., including years s~ch as 1988). For Outfall 113, the impact of a low flow year would be to increase the dJ ation of events where hourly releases from the SCCW system are made in the absence 6f hourly releases from Watts Bar Dam. In general, for such events, if there is a threat to o~e or more of the hourly instream water temperature limits, the amount of heat released frolT, Outfall 113 would be reduced by passing water through the SCCW bypass conduit or perhaps by removing the SCCW system from operation. Since the plant can be operated without the SCCW system in service, such action poses no threat to the overall integrity of WBN generation. Overall, because WBN in closed mode uses such a small a~ount of flow compared to the potential minimum daily average flow in the river, the plant thermal effluent under extreme low flow conditions would not have an adverse impact on Water temperature in the Tennessee River. Overall Near-Field Effects Overall, with the recent changes that have been made at the plant (e.g., SCCW system and new steam generators for Unit 1) and for the operation of the Tennessee lRiver (i.e., ROS), the updated hydrothermal analyses reconfirm, as concluded in the 1972 FES, I that the operation of two units at WBN will not have a significant impact on near-field hydrothermal conditions in the Tennessee River. Effects on water temperatures in the Iriver can be effectively maintained within the current NPDES limits for all the plant discharge outfalls without Significant adverse effects on plant generation. Additionally, datJ from recent field studies (Appendix A) support the methods of modeling the dissipation of r aste heat in the river, and the patterns of mixing from the outfalls provide ample space fa fish passage and protection of bottom habitat. Far-Field Effects By virtue of the fact that the heated effluent is expected to have an insig~ificant impact on near-field conditions in river, far-field impacts on Chickamauga Reservoi ~ also are expected to be insignificant, for both the operation of one or two units at WBN. T~ils is supported by th e WBN discharge temperature limit evaluation conducted in 1993 (TV'l 1993b), by water quality modeling performed as part of the ROS FEIS (TVA 2004a), and br operati ng experience since the startup of Unit 1 in 1996. Ongoing activities under the TVA Reservoir Releases Improvement Program and the TVA Vital Signs Monitoring Program would continue to provide close scrutiny of any potential far-field impacts from 1 e heated effluent fromWBN. . The near-field and far-field effects summarized above are based on the ydrothermal analyses described herein, and are judged to have no significant impact pn temperatures in Chickamauga Reservoir. That conclu sion, however, is Hm!ted to the imPficts of discharge to the Tennessee River from Outfalls 101 : 102, and 113 associated with th e presumed simultaneous operation of Watts Bar Units 1 and 2. The potential for cu ulatlve effects of the completion of WBN Unit 2 in conjunction with other factors that could impact Tennessee River temperatures was also considered. In June 2004, following completion of a detailed ROS, TVA implemented a new reservoir operating policy (TVA 2004a). This policy specified changes in the oper ting guide curves at Chickamauga and other reservoirs. Potential changes in reservoir an water quality characteristics were studied in detail as a part of the ROS FEIS. These ~haracteristics included turbine discharges and associated temperatures, residence times , thermal Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 45

Completion and Opeiation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plaht Unit 2 stratification, both cold and warm water volumes, dissolved oxygen , and algae. The impacts of the adop,ion of the ROS preferred operating policy for all of these characteristics, relative to the previous operating policy, were determined to be insignificant in Chickamauga ReseNoir. There is no evidence to suggest that the adoption of the new operating policy hasl had or will have any contribution to cumulative effects in Chickamauga ReseNoir. Whereas the ROS studies included only the operation of WBN Unit 1, the updated hydrotherrrtal analyses summarized above show that the impact to the near-field river temperature of [adding WBN Unit 2 would be insignificant. As such, the startup of WBN Unit 2 would not change this conclusion regarding the potential for cumulative effects. 3.1.2. Surface Water - Chemical Additives to Raw Water The referenced earlier environmental reviews analyzed potential impacts to surface water and water quality. 4 primary area of concern for surface water and water quality relates to the chemicals added to treat raw water. These earlier analyses continue to adequately depict the kinds of cihemicals used at the plant and associated environmental impacts. Proposed chemical additives and their respective toxicological data are presented to the state for approval p ~ior to plant use in the facility's Biocide and Corrosion Treatment Plan (B/CTP) required by the WBN Unit NPDES permit. To ensure the water quality criteria in the receiving strea~ is maintained, the state reviews the chemical usage request and evaluates the reasohable potential environmental impacts of a specific chemical discharge to determine the pl~nt NPDES permit monitoring requirements and discharge limits. Upon start of operation in IMay 1996, WBN was issued NPDES permit number TN0020168 (TVA 2005d). WBN is authorized to discharge process and non-process wastewater, cooling water and storm water runoff from Outfall 101 and Outfall 102 turbine building sump water, alum sludge supe rn~te , reverse osmosis reject water, drum dewatering water, water purification plant w,ter, and storm water runoff from internal monitoring point (IMP) 103; metal cleaning wastewater, turbine building station sump water, diesel generator coolant, and storm water thrbugh IMP 107; treated sanitary wastewater through IMP 111; HVAC cooling water, stor~ water, and fire protection wastewater through Outfall 11 2; and SCCW from Outfall 113 to the Tennessee River (refer to Figure 1-2, Unit 2 Site Plan and Appendix B, NPDES Flow Di ~gram). In addition to revisions to the B/CTP, the potential sources of chemicals and cherr ical quantities are reviewed and updated in connection with the application for NPDES Permit renewal. Compliance with the State Water Quality criteri a is also confirmed by r?,utine semi-annual Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing at Outfall 101, Outfall 112, and oural! 113. TVA applied to renew the WBN permit in May 2006. To support the application for this permit reissuance, ~r detailed walkdown of the plant was conducted to ensure that previously identified discharge point sources remain valid. A comprehensive sampling and analysis event was~also conducted to characterize waste water discharges from the authorized dischar e pOints. As a component of he NPDES Permit, Part III, Section G, B/CTP, WBN is authorized to condu ct treatments P'f intake or process waters with biocides, dispersants, surfactants, corrosion inhibiting fhemicals, and detoxification chemicals. To ensure protection of the receiving stream, water treatment processes are controlled to comply with State Water Quality criteria and kpplicable NPDES permit conditions . WBN monitors effluent discharges and reports to the s;te the specific chemicals injected along with the respective active ingredient discharg d on the monthly Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and the Annual B/CTP Report. In a dilion, WBN performs semi-annual WET testing at Outfall 101, Outfall 112, and Outfall 113. Most of the chemicals used in these treatment programs are added at 46 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 the IPS to ensure all raw water systems are protected. Several of these sybtems, the High Pressure Fire Protection and the ERCW systems in particular, are essentiall for the safe operation of the plant. While WBN has requested modifications to the B/CTP over the years, the approach and active ingredients for the various water treatment programs at WBN have not fundamentally changed . Proposed chemicals undergo an extensive toxicological review and comparison with maximum instream wastewater concentrations to ensure water qualify standards are met. The products used have changed over the years to slightly differentiformuiations of the same active ingredients or constituents and the processes or frequencies of applying those products occasionally have been changed. These StCTP modifications continue to provide the same high level of protection for aquatic life in the Tennesse~ River while increasing the flexibility of plant eqUipment treatment options. Most rece~tly , WBN submitted a B/CTP modification request to the state in December 2006. TVA sought approval (1) to replace the dispersant PCL-401 with 73200, (2) for contin ~ous use of oxidizing biocides, and (3) to chlorinate using sodium hypochlorite. In addition , TVA requested to add the non-oxidizing biocide H150M to the B/CTP app rov~\ list. This request was approved by the state on April 30, 2007. The history of the use of c~emicals for treatment during the same time period is shown in Table 3-8 and Table 3-9. Table 3-8. History of Betz Chemical Treatment of Raw Water at WBN 1996-present Chemicals r ,':.: :i :' ~ChemJC~d ;: :** * ";;:: ' * :~; ;:::~~~Sijlrt ~¥~~*r:.',, *;::)J :~?:;:S~}',:j;Et1(f¥ear~';;r::~:) '. \~;:.::; ;r!*:::§YstE#IF~/,~: : <; Clamtrol CT1300* 1996 1998 '6,.RCW/RCW Spectrus NX 1104';' i 998 Present ERCWfRC'v"J CopperTrol CU-1 1996 1998 ~RCW/RCW Biotrol 88P 1996 1998 ERCW/RCW

 *Vendor global chemical name change from Clamtrol CT1300 to Spectrus NX11b4 in 1998
 **ERCW = Essential Raw Cooling Water; RCW = Raw Cooling Water Table 3-9.          History of Nalco Chemical Treatment of Raw Water at WBN 1996-Present 1 I

H-901G 1996 Present E'RCW3 tRCW Coppertrol .1996 1999 FfRCW/RCW PCL-10Z 1996 2002 F;.RCW/RCW PCL-60K 1996 2002 ERCW/RCW PCL-401 1996 2006 ~RCW/RCW Towerbrom 960 1999 Present qooling Tower H-1 30M2 2002 2002 $ RCW/RCW MSW- 109 2003 Present fiRCW/RCW H-1 30M 2004 2004 ERCW/RCW Coagulant Aid-35 2004 Present IERCW/RCW H1 50M 2005 Present tr-RCW/RCW 1 Known as Calgon Corporation, 1996-2001, Ondeo-Nalco, 2001-2003, Nalco, 2003-pres~nt 2 H-130M used with no detoxification in 2002 3 ERCW = Essential Raw Cooling Water 4 RCW = Raw Cooling Water Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 47

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear PI~nt Unit 2 Raw Water Chemhtal Treatment Summary for the W8N Unit 1 B/CTP The following sumniarizes chemical treatment programs currently in use or available for future use at WBN Wnit 1 and/or Unit 2 for corrosion, deposit, microbiological, and macrofouling contr91 in the raw water systems in accordance with the current BfCTP. Protection of the raf water cooling water pipe systems requires oxidizing biocide (chlorination) and n ~>n -oxidizing biocide treatments to control macro invertebrates and microbiologically induced corrosion (MIG). WBN currently uses products from Nalco, a major industrial wat~r treatment company. Raw Water corrosiln and Deposit Treatment Mild Steel Corrosio1 and Deposit Control. WBN uses a zinc/orthophosphate-based program (MSW-10~~ for mild steel corrosion control of the ERCWand raw cooling water (RCW) systems. MSW-109 contains 12.6 percent zinc chloride and 36 percent orthophosphate. A ~easonal feed program is used where MSW-109 is fed to the raw water system when river vyater temperature is above 60° F. The concentration of zinc and phosphorous is not Ito exceed 0.2 parts per million (ppm) at effluent discharges Outfall 101 and Outfall 113. . WBN has the oPtiori to feed a dispersant (73200) to the ERCWand RCW systems that controls deposits of lcalcium phosphate, zinc, iron, manganese, and suspended solids. Dispersant 73200 contains 36 percent high stress polymer (HSP). The active HSP level will not exceed 0.2 ppmi at effluent discharges Outfall 101 and Outfall 113. Copper Corrosion Control. WBN has the option to feed tolytriazole (Nalco 1336) on a ~ continuous basis to Ismail portions of the ERCW and RCW systems for copper corrosion control. Nalco 133~ contains 42.8 percent tolytriazo!e. Tolytriazo!e !evel will not exceed 0.25 ppm at effluent discharges Outfall 101 and Outfall 113. Raw Water MicrObil lOgiCal/MacrofOUling Treatment Microbiological conitrol. Microbiological and macrofouling refers to the undesirable accumulation of microorganisms, plants, algae, and aquatic animals on submerged structures and PiPin~ systems . WBN currently injects on a continuous basis the oxidizing biocide BCDMH (H- 901 G) for microbiological and macrofouling control in the ERCW and 1 RCW systems . Co ~tinuous oxidation is necessary to ensure plant safety as TVA has recently observed yrar-round veliger (mussel larvae) infestations. H-90 1G puts 57 percent of its active haloge'l ingredient into solution as bromine and chlorine. Chlorine, or Total Residual Oxidant (1RO) is monitored five (5) days per w eek at Outfall 101 and Outfall 113 in accordance with ermit requirements to ensure discharge limits of 0.10 ppm or 0.1 58 mgl/ daily maximu (respectively) am met. As an alternative to H-901G, WBN has the option to feed liquid bleach in the form of sodium hypochlorite. Uqui bleach, containing 10.2 percent available chlorine , can also be fed on a continuous basis. Monitoring for chlorine levels in the effluent would remain the same as for H-901G. An option to feed a iodetergent (73551) to increase the efficacy of either H-901 G or liquid bleach with microbi~logical control has been retained by WBN. The 73551 biodetergent consists of a 20 per~nt blend of non-ionic surfactants and is fed for 30 minutes one to exceed 2.0 ppm to re three times per we~~ to the ERCW and RCW systems. The active surfactant level will not effluent discharges Outfall 101 and Outfall 113. 48 IFinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 W BN de-chlorinates as required using sodium bisulfite (Nalco 7408) to e~sure the current discharge limit of 0.1 ppm TRO is not exceeded at effluent discharges OJtfall 101 or 0.1 58 mg/l daily maximum at Outfall 113. Nalco 7408 consists of 45 percent sodium bisulfite and is fed at a ratio of approximately 4 ppm product for every 1.0 ppm of TRo!. The sodium bisulfite level will not exceed 10 ppm at effluent discharges Outfall 101 a1d Outfall 113. Macrofouling Control. When river temperatures are greater than or equal to 60°F, WBN terminates oxidizing biocides treatment and performs a periodic (minimum of 4 times per train Iper year) non-oxidizing biocide treatment of the raw water systems. A train is the cluster of equipment which must be operational to perform a certain function. WBN uses a non-oxidizing biocide (H150M, Clamtrol) to limit Asiatic cla~ and zebra mussel populations in the raw water system , the presence of which can significarhly affect ERCW and RCW system performance. H150M is a quaternary amine (quat) whi1 ch consists of 25 percent dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride and 25 percent dimethyl ethyl benzyl ammonium chloride. H150M is used to treat the A and B trains of ERCVVj and the RCW systems a minimum of four times per year. Spectrus NX11 04 (quat), and Clamtrol are used for short-term (4-6 hour), low concentration applications for cross-tie (pipihg which joins the A train to the B train) treatments. I In order to limit the active H150M residual to no more than 0.05 ppm at effluent discharges Outfall 101 and Outfall 113, bentonite clay (Coagulant Aid-35) is fed into the Unit 1 cooling tower basin prior to effluent discharge to the river via NPDES outfalls Outfall 101 or Outfall 113. Coagulant Aid-35 is fed at a ratio of 5 parts to 1 part H150M during leaCh mollusk treatment. Totai clay ievel is not to eXCeed 10 ppm at effluent discharges Outta!! 101 and Outfall 113. The effectiveness of detoxification is confirmed with twice dJily sampling for the active ing redient in the discharge during the treatment period. Cooling Tower Treatments WBN currently adds Towerbrom 960 to the cooling tower basin on a peri(])dic basis for microbiological control for CCW. Towerbrom 960 is an oxidizing biocide' lcontainin g 57 percent available halogen, and generates bromine and chlorine solutions when dissolved in w ater. WBN" also has the option to feed liquid bleach in place of Towerblilom 960. This treatment is performed with the diffusers and the SCCW system isolated (closed). To ensure the current discharge limit of 0.1 ppm TRO is not exceeded at effl~ ent discharges Outfall 10 1 or 0.1 58 mgll daily maximum at Outfall 11 3, the chemically treated w ater is not released to the rive r until the discharge concentration of chlorine is belo~ the NPDES . pe rm it limit. To enhance the effectiveness of this program, WBN has req~ ested the option to feed Biodetergent 7355 1 with Towerbrom 960. W BN de-chlorin at es as needed using 0: sodiun: b~su lfite (N a lc~ 7408) to ensure the current d isch a rg~ limit 0. 1 ppm T~O is not exceeaea at effluent discharges Outfa ll 101 or 0.1 58 mg!1 da:ly maximum at Outfall 113. Nalco 7408 is ratio-fed at a rate of 4 ppm product for every 1.0 ppm of c lorine. Additional Chemicals Used in WBN Processes In addition to the raw water additives for biocide and corrosion tieatment chemicals discussed above, other chemical additives are used in plant processes. hese chemicals may be found in trace quantities at the various NPDES discharge points Outfall 101, Outfall 102, IMP 103, IMP 107, Outfall 11 2) due to cooling tower blowdo n (CTBD) to the Yard Holding Pond (yHP) or Outfall 101 , leakage, and system maintenaryce activities (see Figure 2.1). Since the potential discharge of these chemicals is through fhe CTBD line, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 49

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Outfall 11 3 does n01 receive these discharges. The summary of potential chemicals discharged by NPDES outfall number is shown in Table 3* 10. Table 3-10. pot~ntial Chemical Discharge to NPDES Outfalls atWBN

  .-. 'O utfall ' '     ' f " ': ' '-' ', -.. ' ;."
                                                        }:<\ ::~:/?::~~;J. ;'.' :'~,~~:,~~~fui~~" - '
                 , ', Qujlfall."Descrlption ' ,',                                                     "
  , NlImb'er .    -   - ,I' '-    ' ' " C', ", ' : ' ,-                                                 :I:,'i;\ '; ';' ;'~ :i ,

Ammonium Hydroxide, Ammonium Chloride, Alpha Cellulose, Boric Acid , Sodium Tetraborate, Bromine, Chlorine, Copolymer Dispersant, Ethylene Glycol, Hydrazine, Laboratory Chemical Wastes, Lithium, Molybdate, Monoethanolamine, 101 Diffuser Discharge Mol/uscicide H150M, Oil and Grease, Phosphates, p hosphate Cleaning Agents, Paint Compounds, Sodium Hydroxide, Surfactant - Dimethylamide and Alcohol, Tolyltriazole, Zinc Sulfate, Zinc Acetate Dihydrate, LCS-60 102 YHP Overflow Weir Alternate discharge path for Outfall 101 Ammonium Hydroxide, Ammonium Chloride, Boric Acid, Sodium Tetraborate, Bromine, Chlorine, Copolymer Dispersant, Ethylene Glycol, Hydrazine, Laboratory Chemical Wastes, 103 LVWTP Molybdate, Monoethanolamine, Mol/uscicide H150M, Oil and Grease, Phosphates, Phosphate Cleaning Agents, Paint Compounds, Sodium Hydroxide, Surfactant - Dimethylamide and Alcohol, Tolyltriazole, Zinc Su lfate Metals* Iron and Copper, Acids and Caustics, Ammonium Hydroxide, Ammonium Chloride, Boric Acid, Sodium Tetraborate, Bromine, Chlorine, Copolymer Dispersant, Hydrazine, Laboratory Chemical Wastes, Molybdate, 107 LP and ULP Monoethanolamine, Molluscicide H1 50M, Oil and Grease, Phosphates, Phosphate Cleaning Agents, Sodium , Sodium Hydroxide, Surfactant - Dimethylamide and Alcohol, Tolyltriazole, Zinc Sulfate Se Nage Treatment Chlorine, Organic Matter, Laboratory Chemical 111 Plant Wastes, Paint Compounds Chlorine, Organic Matter, Paint Compounds, 112 RJOff Ho!ding Pond Potable Water (Coofing Tower at Training Center), High Pressure Fire Protection flushes, I Superior SWS 4550 Primary System c hlmical Additions The Primary Systems are generally located in the radiologically controlled areas of the plant and support the Re ctor Coofing System (RCS). These systems include the Component Cooling Water Syst m eCCS) and the Ice Condenser. RCS Corrosion an pH Control. At plant startup lithium hydroxide is added to the ReS via components in the uxiliary Building to establish the initial pH and corrosion control. After 50 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chaptei 3 the reactor becomes critical, lithium is a byproduct of a neutron-boron rel ction and no further lithium hydroxide additions are required. A boric acid concentrati6n is established in the ReS at startup to control neutron flux and is limited based upon core[deSign. This concentration is reduced for approximately one month after restart from a refueling outage. For approximately the next month the concentration is increased and theh over the course of the operating cycle the concentration steadily decreases. Hydrogen pbroxide is added during a refueling outage to enhance primary system cleanup to reduce t1adiation exposure to maintenance personnel and ensure water clarity. Hydrazine is added stOichiometrically prior to heat-up from a refueling outage to scavenge oxygen and minimize system corrosion . The ReS is a closed system, therefore any leakage or letdow1 1n from the ReS system would be processed through the liquid radiological waste system. RCS Corrosion Control and Radioactive Dose Reduction. WBN receiveJ state approval in October 2006 to add low concentrations of Zinc Acetate Dihydrate to the[ReS. Industry experience has shown zinc additions yield a 20 to 30 percent reduction in plant dose rates and reduce primary water stress corrosion cracking in plant materials. Zinc would also reduce the corrosion rate and release of corrosion products to the coola~t from the metal surfaces of replacement or new steam generators. WBN initiated injecti@n at 20 grams per day via components in the Auxiliary Building and maintained this feed ra~e until a zinc residual was observed in RCS samples. As the residual built in and the crud layer absorption of zinc slowed, WBN lowered the feed rate to maintain 5 ppb ~inc in the RCS . Since the RCS is a closed system, any leakage or letdown from the ReS system would be processed through the liquid radiological waste system. A history of ZinC!: Acetate Dihydrate and other chemical treatment are shown in Table 3-11. I I Table 3-11. History of Other Chemical Treatment of Raw Water at 'l'rBN 2006-Present

'::~ ChemicaF>: <;

• sta~tfYear ;':,>: :;:;End :yeaf '*~ *: i~ I ;';. :;J-/::$y~te.m ; ~. ,:. ,

Zinc Acetate 2006 Present I RCS 1 Dihydrate I Training Center Superior SWS 4550 2006 Present Gooling Tower 1 RCS = Reactor Coolant System Component Cooling Water Corrosion and pH control. Sodium molybdate, tolyltriazole, sodium hydroxide are added to this system in the Auxiliary Building to c3ntro' pH and corrosion. Leakage from this system would be processed through the ra;dwaste system while complete system draining is routed to the Turbine Buiiding Station Isump (TBSS). The TBSS is normally routed to the discharge to the Low Volume Waste Treatment Pond (LVWTP), but can be routed to the Lined Pond (LP), the Unlined Pond (lIJ LP), or the YHP. Ice Condenser. Sodium tetraborate is used in the Ice Condenser for emj3rgency boration. The Ice Condenser is located in the Reactor Building and the components to mix and initially freeze the tetraborate solution are located in the Addition al Equi~me nt Building. Ice melt bypasses the radwaste demineralizer beds, is routed to a radwaste discharge tank, and is discharged through the radwaste system. Ethylene glycol is used in the ice condenser chiller packages. Leakage with concentrations less than10 p rcent is discharged to the ULP for degradation, while greater than or equal to 10 percent is collected in drums and shipped to a vendor to be recycled. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 51

Completion and Operaiion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Secondary System Chemical Additions The main Secondary Systems are the Condensate System, the Main Feedwater System and the Main Steaml System. The purpose of the Secondary Systems is to heat and pressurize cooler water to produce feed water for the steam generators. The Main Steam System then routes kteam from the steam generators to the plant turbines for power generation. The Cohdensate System receives exhausted steam from the turbine discharge to repeat the cycle. Corrosion and DepO'~Jt Treatment. Hydrazine, ammonia, ammonia chloride, boric acid, and monoethanolamine (ETA) are injected into the Condensate System at the turbine building for secondary chemistry control. Hydrazine functions as a dissolved oxygen scavenger while ammonia and lETA are added for pH control and corrosion control. Ammonia chloride is injected as necessary for molar ratio control to aid in reduction of stress corrosion cracking in the steam generators. Boric acid is also injected at the turbine building for reduction or prevention of stress corrosion cracking in the steam generators. The reduction of stress corrosion dracking assists in the maintenance of steam generator integrity thereby realizing their desig~ lifespan. Up to 300 pounds of modified alpha cellulose may be added to the condenser intake channel to temporarily plug pinhole tube leaks in the condenser. Other Plant Systems I Chemicals are also added to other plant systems and include Chilled Water Systems, Turbine Building Heating System, Auxiliary Boilers, and Diesel Jacket Cooling Systems.

• Hydrazine a~d ammonia are added to the Chilled Water Systems, Turbine Building Heating System, and Auxiliary Boilers for pH and corrosion control:
• LCS-60 is added I

to the diesel jacket cooling water for corrosion control and consists of sodium nitrite, sodium tetraborate and tolytriazole. These chemicals ar~ incidental discharges that are are controlled via BMPs. Discharges occur via leakage 0)1maintenance activities and are discharged to the LP , ULP, LVWTP, or YHP. . Superior SWS 455q is added to the Training Center Cooling Tower Water System to neutralize the chemIcal deposits in the Training Center Cooling Tower and inhibit corrosion. Any blowdown d iscrrge is routed to the Runoff Holding Pond (RH P) and Outfall 112. Environmental Copsequences of Chemical Additions to Raw Water Under the preferredl alternative, TVA would complete the construction ofWBN Unit 2 and the plant would operate at its full capacity as originally designed. Prior to construction activity, WBN would develop an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of an application for a Ger eral NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity although it is expected that most of the construction work would occur inside constructed Duildings, and all of the work is expected to occur within the existing plant site footprint. !operation of Unit 2 along with Unit 1 would result in an increase of raw w ater intake usage ~t the iPS by an estimated 33 percent compared to sole operation of Unit 1, with a corre~POnd ing increase of ERCW and RCW raw water chemical additives by an estimated 33 pe cent. This increase is within original design basis for operation of Units 1 and 2. Since an dditional existing cooling tower would be placed in service, Towerbrom 960 treatment for CfW treatment would increase by an estimated 100 percent. 52 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Ch apter 3 The current NPDES permit contains provisions requiring authorization of the B/CTP and the use of the water treatment chemicals described above are expected to continue in use if and when WBN Unit 2 starts up. TVA would use the same protocols for Unit 2 as used with Unit 1 to show permit compliance with the treatment plans using mass b~lance calculations where possible. In addition, detoxification of non-oxidizing biocides would be confirmed with twice-daily sampling for the active ingredient in the effluent during th~ treatment period. The state retains the authority to require WBN to conduct additional moniltoring to ensure that Unit 2 operation does not have an adverse affect on NPDES effluent limitations or other permit conditions. In the event the state determines that additional monitoring should be conducted, the results would need to be evaluated and submitted to the state per the conditions set forth. Potential changes in plant discharges are not expected to be significant as compliance with applicable regulatory safeguards and internal assessments would ensure that resulting effects to water quality are insignificant. 3.1.3. Groundwater The 1995 FSER updated the groundwater information in the 1972 FES, and the descriptive information about groundwater systems in the vicinity of WBN provided i~ that update is still accurate. In August 2002, tritium was detected in one of the on-site environmental monitoring locations at levels that were just at the detectable level. At that time, TVA notified the NRC and State of Tennessee environmental and radiologicall representatives. To address this issue, in December 2002, TVA installed four new environmental monitoring locations on the plant site as a modification to the Radiological Environm~ntal Monitoring Program. Since that time TVA has been closely monitoring in-ground tritium and reporting thes8 results in the WBN Annua! Radio!ogica! Environmental Operating ~I eports to NRC and the state of Tennessee. Samples taken January 2003 through December 2004 indicated the presence of low levels of tritium in three of the four monitoring locations, which are maintained fbr environmental monitoring purposes only. The sources of this tritium were leakage from Ian underground radioactive effluent piping and leakage from a bellows for the Unit 2 fuel transfer tube. In order to stop the tritium ingress into the groundwater, the radioactive effl~ent piping was replaced with a new 4-inch pipe. In addition, the Unit 2 fuel transfer tubel was sealed, and the fu el transfer canal was coated. These activities were completed by November 2005. Results from two of the new individual sample locations, taken in Februa~ 2005 and June 2005, were greater th an the NRC 30-day reporting level of 30 ,000 picocJries per titer (pCi/L). Further inspections revealed no leakage in underground radioactive effluent piping. TVA's investigation determin ed that the source of the increased tritium I~vels was a result of the previou s effluent piping leak, which had been repaired. The highest amount of tritium detected was approximately 550,000 pCi!L. I Some residual tritium will remain in the groundwater until the tritium either decays or is diluted. Eventually, this groundwater will migrate into the river where th~se degraded tritium levels will be even further reduced and therefore pose no public hfalth hazard. TVA continues to monitor wells monthly to verify past repairs and detect any ~ew sources of contaminated groundwater. Routine reports are made to the NRC and tre state. Completion of WBN Unit 2 would not impact groundwater resources in t~e vicinity ofWBN. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 53

Completion and Operrtion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 3.2. Aquatic Ecology The characteristics 1 o f the WBN site's aquatic environment and biota were described in the 1972 FES (TVA 19?2) with updated information described in the NRC 1995 FES (NRC 1995a) and the TV1 1998 FEA for the WBN SCCW Project (TVA 1998a). This information was based on site-specific data combined with general knowledge of Tennessee River tailwater habitats a~ d associated aquatic biota. Extensive supplemental information specific to WBN is available from reports detailing results of the TVA Vital Signs Monitoring Program (TVA, unp:ublished data). These cited reports and data were examined and determined to continue to represent current environmental conditions adequately in the Watts Bar Dam tailwaters and upper Chickamauga Reservoir. They were used for the present FSEIS as a basis for a review of the aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the WBN site. Plankton Recent studies indicate that the majority of planktonic organisms (including fish eggs, larval fish, microinvertebrates, algae, etc.) in the vicinity of WBN originate in the Watts Bar Reservoir and pass through the turbines at Watts Bar Dam. Plankton density varies greatly from day to day. Sampling surveys (1973-1985) indicate that plankton populations decreased rapidly ~s distance from Watts Bar Dam increased due to the swift-flowing, riveri ne nature of thk upper portions of Chickamauga Reservoir. As water enters the reservoir pool of Chickamauga Reservoir (25-30 miles downstream ofWBN), velocities decrease and plan Wton densities gradually increase to !evels comparable to those in the Watts Bar Dam forebay (TVA 1986). Though there are nl data on phytoplankton densities in the vicinity of the WBN site, comparisons betwe1 en preoperational (1976-1985) and operational (1996-1997) densiti es of fish eggs and larva! fish show similar patterns (Appendix C, Table C-1) (TVA 1998d). An entrainment study conducted during the spring and summer of 1975 estimated the average loss of fish larvae in the vicinity of WBF as a result of water diversion to the plant was 0.24 percent of the total population (TVA 1976b). In the TVA FEA for ~he SSCW, TVA evaluated one-unit operation and concluded that the proposed project would result in loss of fish eggs and larvae through entrainment at approximately the 9ame rate as previously studied in 1976 (TVA 1998a). Similar results were reported in the 2001 fish monitoring program for the SCCW and it was concluded that no sign ificant impaat to ichthyoplankton popul ations from WBN SCCW operation would occur (Baxter et aI. 12001). These entrain ment rates indicate the operation of both WBN Unit 1 and Unit 2 would have little or no effect on larval fish and egg population s in Chickamauga Res~rvoir because the WBN con denser cooling water system (CCW) is commensurate wit~ a closed cycle cooling system. Invas ive and Noni~vasive Aquatic Plants Aquatic plants piesrnt in Chickamauga Reservoir include the invasive species Eurasian water milfoil (Myrio~hYllum spicatum), spinyleat naiad (Naj as minor), and the native southern naiad (Najas guada/upensis) (TVA 1994a). Excessive aquatic plant coverage can cause reservoir-use conflicts in areas around industrial water intakes, public access and recreation sites, ant! lakeshore developments. These effects have not been seen in the vicinity of WBN bedause the WBN site is located in the riverine tailwater area of the reservoir downstre~m of Watts Bar Dam. Aquatic plants have difficulty establishing dense growths in this are'1 even during years of peak coverage due to current velocity. As a result, aquatic plan, densities in the reservoir near WBN have not reached nuisance levels, and no control measures have been taken in the vicinity of the plant. Peak aquatic plant 54 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 coverage in Chickamauga Reservoir occurs in shallow, overbank lakelike habitat far downstream of WBN. Combined operation of WBN Units 1 and 2 would not have effects on the occurrence of invasive or noninvasive aquatic plants. I Aquatic Communities Before 1978, fisheries biologists thought the taifwaters of Watts Bar Dam contained favorable spawning habitat for several species including sauger (Stizost~dion canadense), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomiew), white bass (Morone chrysops) and possibly yellow perch (Perea flavescens). However, the evaluation of information lin the 1978 NRC FES discounted this theory. Since 1978, additional studies have confirmed that the reach between the Watts Bar Dam and the WBN site is a staging area, not an area of significant spawning activity for these species (NRC 1995a). TVA began a program to systematically monitor the ecological conditions of its reservoirs in 1990 , though no samples were taken on the Watts Bar or Chickamauga Reservoirs until 1993. Previously, reservoir studies had been confined to assessments to meet specific needs as they arose. Reservoir (and stream) monitoring programs were combined with TVA's fish tissue and bacteriological studies to form an integrated Vital Signs Monitoring Program. Part of the monitoring consisted of the reservoir fish assemblage index (RFAI), a method of assessing the quality of the fish community. Since the institution of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program, the quality of the fish community in the vicinity of the WBN site has remained relatively constant with an average rating of "good" (see Appendix C, Tables C-2 and C-3). I Another aspect of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program is the benthic index, which assesses the quality of benthic communities in the reservoirs (including upstream ihfiow areas such as that around WBN). The tailwaters of Watts Bar Dam support a variet~ of benthic organisms including several large mussel beds. One of these beds has been documented along the right-descending shoreline immediately downstream from the mouth of Yellow Creek. To protect these beds, the state has established a mussel sanct~ary extending 10 miles from TRM 520 to TRM 529.9. Since the institution of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program, th e quality of the benthic community in the vicinity of the WBN site has remained relatively constant. The riverine tailwater reach downstream of Watts B9r Dam and WBN rated "good" in 2001 and the rating has increased to "excellent" in 2003-2005 (Appendix C, Tables C-4 and C-5). I Under the proposed action, no construction activities would occur within pOO feet of the reservoir, and all construction activities would be subject to appropriate BMPs to ensure that there are no impacts to surface water quality. NPDES discharge li~its as outlined in the 1995 NRC FES and in this document would not be revised. No discharges exceeding current NPDES limits would occur during operation of WBN Units 1 and 2. The amount of cooling water required for operation of both WBN Unit 1 and WBN Unit 21would result in increases in cooling water intake and discharge volumes, but thermal discharge rates ,/,{ould remain below maximum allowed levels outlined in the 1978 NRC FES (ske section 3.1). Because ail construction work would be conducted using appropriate m1ps, and no additional discharge-related impacts would occur, there would be no effjct on aquatic animals or their habitats in the vicinity of WBN. Because intake flows w"(uld not be increased above levels outlined in the 1978 NRC FES, fish entrainment rates would not exceed maximum levels previously evaluated in that FES for operation df both WBN Units 1 and2. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 55

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Invasive and Exotic Aquatic Animals At the time the 19721FES was issued, the Asiatic clam (Corbicula f/uminea) was the only benthic nuisance sPrcies known to occur in Chickamauga Reservoir. Subsequently, the zebra mussel (Dreisfena po/ymorpha) has become established in the Watts Bar Dam tailwater area. The planktonic larvae of zebra mussels can be drawn into raw-water piping systems, and attachl to pipe surfaces. Multiple layers of adult zebra mussels can accumulate resulting in partial to total blockage of pipes and grates. This can cause damage to pipes and facilities requiring facility outage time to remove the blockage. Currently, WBN has implemented the use ofClamtrol (WBN uses H150M), a nonoxidizing molluscide, within the facility to inhibit biofouling by Asiatic clams and zebra mussels. However, this control method is restricted to the facility itself and concentrations of molluscide released into the reservoir are too low to have any effect on native mussel beds (NRC 1995a). 3.3. Terrest~ial Ecology 3.3.1. Plants The terrestrial plant Ic ommunities were assessed during the initial environmental review for the construction of \lVBN Units 1 and 2 (TVA 1972). Major plant commun ity types are described and statistical values were calculated from data obtained from vegetation plot analyses from each lterrestrial community. In addition, importance values along with frequency, density, basal area and volume for all tree species occurring on the Watts Bar reservation are presented. In the 1976 Environmental Information Report for WBN Units 1 and 2, the major community types are listed as oak-hickory forest, oak-gum forest, yellow pine-hardwood forest, Viiginia pine fOiest, sumac shrJb community, early old-field community, horsew~ed-type community, fescue meadow community, and a marsh community (TVA 19;76a). Of the 967 acres acres identified for building WBN, 210 wooded acres were to remai1n undisturbed (approximately 80 percent of the existing woodlands). More than 70 percent of the plant area was already disturbed in the form of cultivated or old fields. The terrestrial plant1communities of the WBN site have changed very little over the past 34 years . The majority ofthe project area (over 70 percent) is composed of herbaceous vegetation types found in old fields, gravel parking areas, roadside rights-of-way and various other disturbed sites. Approximately 30 percent of the site is still fo rested with the following forested vegetation classes: deciduous forest and everg reen-deciduous forest. The deciduous forest can be characterized as two separate community types, oak-hickory forest and bottomlahd hardwood forest. Invasive species including Japanese stilt grass, Japanese honeysu(];kle, multiflora rose, and Russian olive occur on WBN Reservation. Jf Some disturbance existing plant communities may occur If construction of W BN Unit 2 recommences althdugh most construction activities are expected to occur in already constructed buildin~s or within the previously disturbed plant footprint. Because no uncommon terrestrial communities or otherwise unusual vegetation occurs on the lands to be disturbed under It he proposed action, impacts to the terrestrial ecology of the region are expected to be insi@nificant as a result of the proposed actions. No new infestations of exotic invasive Pla1t species are expected as a resu It of the Action Alternative. 56 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 3.3.2. Wildlife The terrestrial ecology at the WBN facility has changed little from those described in earlier environmental reviews. Habitats surrounding the facilities consist of mowed grass, fields of short vegetation, and ditches that are intermittently wet. The project site, which is highly developed, includes parking areas and ball fields in addition to these habitats. Wildlife using these areas, primarily adjacent to the disturbed area footprint, include locally abundant species that are tolerant of human activity and highly modified habitats. Species such as eastern meadowlark, American goldfinch, eastern bluebird, and song sparrow were observed at or adjacent to the proposed project site. Spotted sandpiper and killdeer were observed in or near the settling ponds at the facility; most of these ponds are lined with riprap and provide poor habitat for shorebirds. However, species including double-crested cormorants, mallards, Canada geese, black vultures, rock pigeons, and white-tailed deer were noted near the ponds. An osprey nest was also observed on a nearby structure. Due to the overall lack of wildlife habitat at the project site and the limited amount of additional habitat disturbance anticipated, the proposed project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to terrestrial animal resources within the disturbed area footprint (Figure 1-2) or in the adjacent areas. Wildlife in the project area is locally abundant and no rare or uncommon habitats exist at the site. 3.4. Threatened and Endangered Species As discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, most of the aquatic and site disturbance required for completion of WBN Unit 2 has already occurred. The following sections provide an update of the federally listed and state-listed species found in the vicinity of the W8N site and the potential for impacts from the proposed action. 3.4.1. Aquatic Animals Four mussel species federally listed as endangered, dromedary pearlymussel, pink mucket, rough pigtoe, and fanshell, are known to occur in mussel beds in the vicinity of WBN (Appendix C, Table C-6) . To protect these beds, the state has established a mussel sanctuary extending 10 miles from T RM 520 to TRM 529.9 (Appendix C, Table C-7) (TVA 1998b). Figure 3-4 shows the location of the mussel sanctuary relative to W BN. The snail darter, federally listed as threatened, is also known to occur occasionally in this reach of the T ennessee River. Th e majority of the snail darter population in the area is confined to Sewee Creek, a tributary to the Tennessee River, which enters the river at TRM 524.6. The larvae OT snail darters are pelagic and can drift substantia! distances (miles) d!.lf!ng early life stages. Spawning of snail darters has not been documented in the main stem of the Tennessee River downstream of W atts Bar Dam, and no snail darter larvae have been collected during entrainment sampling. Two mussel species considered sensitive by the State of Tennessee; pyramid pigtoe and Tennessee clubshell, and one state-listed threatened fish species; blue s ucker, are also known from this reach ofthe Tennessee River (Appendix C, Table C-6). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 57

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2

                                                     ..       RsvetMi~$

ilia TVA Watts, Bd{ NUiC/lltar-Plarn. Propsrt1 o State Mussel S3nclktal)/ I'll. A Figure 3-4. Location of Mussel Sanctuary in Chickamauga Reservoir Below Watts Bar Dam 58 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Under the proposed action, work would be conducted on WBN Unit 2 in order to bring it to full operational capacity. No construction activities would occur within 500 feet of the reservoir, and all construction activities would be subject to appropriate BMPs to ensure that there are no impacts to surface water quality. NPDES discharge limits as outlined in the 1995 NRC FES would not be revised. No discharges exceeding current NPDES limits would occur during operation of WBN Units 1 and 2. The amount of cooling water required for operation of both WBN Unit 1 and WBN Unit 2 would result in increases in cooling water intake and discharge volumes up to the original two-unit design. Thermal discharge rates would remain below maximum allowed levels outlined in the 1978 NRC FES. The steam generator blowdown (SGDB) contains low levels of ammonia, which is injected in the turbine building to control corrosion. The highest concentration of ammonia measured in the SGDB during the past four years was 4.2 mgll (or 4.2 ppm). The maximum SGBD discharge for Units 1 and 2 would be 524 gallons per minute (gpm) through the diffusers at outfall 101 and would require 3500 cfs ofminimum riverflow. Based on the hydrothermal analysis in Section 3.1 and previous diffuser studies (Hadjerioua, et.al. 2003), in the worst case conditions, ammonia concentrations would be fully mixed prior to reaching the stream bottom in the 240-feet wide by 240-feet-long assigned mixing zone. SGDB is diverted to the yard holding pond with cooling tower blowdown when the minimum river flow of 3500 cfs is not ~vailable, unless it has already been diverted to the condensate system. When the minimum riverflow of 3500 cfs is available, the YHP discharges through outfall 101 . The YHP has an emergency overflow that discharges through outfall 102. In general, the operation of Watts Bar Dam and the WBN blowdown system are very carefully coordinated so that there are no unexpected overflows from the yard holding pond. (see Section 2.2.2). No events with overflow from the YHP occurred during the hydrothermal analysis described in Section 3.1, therefore under operating conditions, releases from Outfaii 102 are not expected. Therefore, there would be no effect to any federally listed as endangered or threatened mussels. Because all construction work would be conducted using appropriate BMPs, bnd no additional discharge-related impacts would occur, there would be no effect on state-listed or federally listed aquatic animals or their habitats in the vicinity of WBN. Because intake flows would not be increased above levels outlined in the 1978 NRC FES, fish entrainment rates would not exceed maximum levels previously evaluated in that FES for operation of both WBN Units 1 and

2. Because snail darter larvae have not been encountered in entrainment sampling at WBN ,

th ere is no potential for snail darter larvae to be entrained at the COOling water intake for WBN even under the increased withdrawal rates required to support operation of both WBN Units 1 and 2. 3.4.2. Plants Historically. one plant species, spider lily, Hymenocaflis occidentalis (now H. carolinensis), was identified as being 9 proposed rare and endangered pecies by the USFWS in the original FES crv A 1972). This designation was made prior to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the species was not listed as threatened or endangered under this act nor is it given any special status within the state of Tennessee. In addition, field surveys in 1994 failed to find any populations of spider lilies in the vicinity of WBN (TVA 1995a; 1995b). The FEA for the WBN Unit 1 Replacement of Steam Generators documents six Tennessee state-listed plant species known from within 5 miles of WBN, and no sensitive plant species or habitat to support these species were found during field reviews (TVA 2005a). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 59

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 The six Tennessee state-listed plant species known from within 5 miles of WBN are shown in Table 3-12. There are no known federally listed as threatened or endangered plant species within Rhea County, ITennessee. No designated critical habitat for plant species are known from within 5 miles of WBN or Rhea County.

            .                    I Table 3*12.              State-Listed Plant Species Reported From Within 5 Miles of the Proposed Project in Rhea County, Tennessee
          ,.*.** .;.'*'~"::o;:,~?~~~:~~~~~f5::ji;':::;?"{i'f'<;~;::':,~~i~~~ft%'!~~~(~;.;",:;;:',:;;::~,~~~i~=:t~ri~~X.*.,;,

Appalachian bugbane Cimicifuga rubrifolia THR (83) Heavy sedge Carex gravida 8PCO (81) Northern bush honeysuckle DierviJJa /onicera THR (82) Prairie golqenrod Solidago ptarmicoides END (8182) 81ender blazing star Liatris cylindracea THR (82) Spreading false foxglove Aureo/aria patu/a THR (S3) Status abbreviations: END=Endangered, SPCO=Species of special concern , THR = Threatened, 81 = critically imperiled with 5 or fewer occurrences; 82 = imperiled with 6 to 20 occurrences, 83;:;: Rare or uncommon with 21 to 100 occurrences No occurrences of state-listed or federally listed plant species are known on or immediately adjacent to the area to be disturbed under the proposed Action Alternative. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive plant species are expected. 3.4.3. Wildlife Earlier reviews indicated that federally listed as threatened or endangered gray bats (Myotis gr;sescens) and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocepha/us) were reported within 5 miles of the project. Small numbers (less than 500) of gray bats continue to roost in a cave approximately 3.3 miles from the project. Bald eagles nest on Chickamauga and Watts Bar Reservoirs approximately 1.8 ahd 4.7 miles, respectively, from the project site. Gray bats and bald eagles forage over th e Tennessee River in the vicinity. Several heron colonies have been reported from the vicinity since the late 1980s. Many of these colonies were destroyed during recent pine beetle infestations. The closest active colony is located 4 miles north of WBN. Hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) , listed as in need of management by the State of Tennessee, have been reported from the upper reaches of Sewee Creek, approximately 2,5 miles from the projer t site. The species may continue to inhabit streams in the vicinity. Completion of WBNI Unit 2 is not expected to result in impacts to any federally listed or stat6-listed as threatened or endangered species of terrestri al animals or their habitats. No suitable habitat for gray bats or bald eagles exists on or adjacent to the project site. Construction and operation of WBN Unit 2 would not result in impacts to bald eagles and gray bats in the region. 60 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 3.5. Wetlands Wetland communities were assessed during the initial environmental review for the construction of WBN Units 1 and 2 (TVA 1972), and were also assessed for the construction of various other operational components of the site (TVA 1995a; TVA 1995b; TVA 2005a). Forested wetlands are present on the southwest portion of the site, and emergent wetlands have developed within ash disposal sites and in containment ponds located in the southwest portion of the site. Scattered areas of fringe emergent wetlands are present along the shoreline of the WBN site, and there are small areas of forested, scrub-shrub, emergent wetlands associated with streams on the plant site. A field survey for wetlands conducted on October 30, 2006, indicated a forested wetland is present adjacent to the project footprint. This wetland is associated with an unnamed stream between the road and the rail line just outside of the northeast corner of the project footprint. The area is approximately 1 acre in size; dominant vegetation includes tag alder, sycamore, and black willow. The remainder of the site is composed of upland plant communities, gravel parking areas, and developed areas. Since there are no plans to disturb the above-mentioned forested wetland, no impacts to wetlands would occur as the result of construction activities related to the completion of WBN Unit 2. If project plans are modified and impacts to this wetland are unavoidable, mitigation may be required as a condition of state and/or federal wetland protection regulations (Section 404, Clean Water Act, and Aquatic Resources Alterations Permit). Mitigation may consist of off-site mitigation in the form of wetland creation or purchase of credits in a wetland mitigation bank. Overall impacts to wetlands in the project area would be insignificant due to the small size and limited ecological function of the wetland. 3.S. Natural Areas Changes (since the 1978 NRC FES; NRC 1995b; and TVA 1998a) in natural areas and the environmental impact on natural areas within 3 miles of WBN are assessed below for the purpose of updating previous documentation to current conditions. Three of five natural areas currently listed in the Natural Heritage database and within 3 miles of WBN were revi ewed in previous documents. These areas are Yell ow Creek unit of the Chickamauga State Wildlife Management Area (WMA), the Chickamauga Reservoir State Mussel Sanctuary, and the Chickamauga Shoreline TVA Habitat Protection Area (HPA). TVA 1998a found no direct or indirect effects to Yellow Creek WMA or the TVA HPA. NRC 1995b, which reviewed the 1978 NRC FES, noted no significant ch anges in, and therefore no significant impacts to, the aquatic environment in the vicinity of WBN . Additionaliy, no impacts to the mussel sanctuary (an area designated by the State of Tennessee to be a biological preserve for mussel species) are anticipated from the proposed action (Stephanie Chance, TVA, personal communication, November ;4, 2006). No significant changes in area Oi management objectives of the WMA and TVA HPA have occurred since they were last revi ewed, and therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to these areas are anticipated from the proposed action. Two additional natural areas within 3 miles of WBN include Meigs County Park, a 240-acre public recreation area approximately 1.5 miles north of the site, and Yuchi Wildlife Refuge at Smith Bend, a 2600-acre haven for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. This refuge, managed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, is approximately 2.2 miles south of the site. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 61

Completio n and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 distance from the site to these two areas is sufficient such that no direct or ind irect impacts are anticipated. 3.7. Cultural Resources As part of the extensive history of environmental review of constructing and operating WBN , TVA has considered the potential impact on historic and archaeological resources associated with each undertaking. It was determined during the initial environmental review that two archaeological sites (40RH6 and 40RH7) would be adversely affected by construction of the plant. Based on this finding, TVA proceeded with data recovery of these sites (Calabrese 1976; Schroed l 1978). One historic cemetery (Leuty Cemetery) was located on the property prior to plant construction. Two graves were removed in 1974 and placed in Ewing Cemetery. Subsequent environmental reviews conducted resulted in a "no-effect finding" for archaeological resources. In the 1998 review of the WBN SCCW project (TVA 1998a), TVA determined that WBF was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). However, it was determined that this property would not be adversely affected. Four archaeological sites are located within the WBN property (40RH6, 40RH7, 40RH8, and 40RH64). The first three sites were recorded as part of the Watts Bar Basin survey in 1936. The latter was recorded later during a post-inundation Chickamauga Reservoir shoreline survey. While a portion ofthese sites was excavated , the sites remain elig ible for listing on the NRHP with a potential for significant archaeological deposits and features to be present. Sites 40RH8 and 40RH64 are both considered potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. While a reconnaissance survey was conducted on the plant property prior to its construction, archaeological survey techniques have significantly improved since that time. Based on what we already know, undisturbed areas outside the current project's area of potentiai effect (APE) have a high potential for archaeological resources to be present. Any future ground-disturbing activity in these areas would have to be reviewed. A majority of the APE for this project has been extensively disturbed. Completing WBN Unit 2 would result in some additional ground-disturbing activities but largely would be restricted to the existing disturbed portion of the plant property. A field visit conducted confirmed the prior disturbance in these areas. Project plans submitted include a larger footprint surrounding the plant that has been identified as the "distu ~ba n ce area." A portion of this footprint east of the cooling towers (the avoidance area shown on Figure 3-5) includes parts of archaeological site 40RH6 and it is unknown if this site contains significant archaeological depOSits. Although this site is within the area identified as potentially to be disturbed, current plans actually would not disturb it. If those plans change and this area would be disturbed, an archaeological survey of the affected area would be conducted to determine the significance of the site and if determined to be archaeologically sig nificant, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid adversely impacting identified resources. This would include coordination with the SHPO. 62 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3

                                   --~ ...,.~ ,

Figure 3*5. Archaeological Avoidance Area Within the Area of Potential Effect Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 63

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 As planned , archaeological resources within the APE at WBN should not be adversely affected by this action. TVA is coordinating with the SHPO for concurrence with this finding. 3.8. Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Land Use 3.B.1. Population The 1972 FES on WBN Units 1 and 2 estimated the 1970 population within 10 miles of the site to be 10,515. Rhea County, in which the plant is located, and Meigs County which is located just east of the site across the river, were both slow growing, with a total net population growth of 400 between 1960 and 1970. This information was updated and expanded for the 1978 NRC FES. While the 1972 FES projected population by the year 2000 to be 11,995 within 10 miles of the site and 1,028,345 within 50 miles, the 1978 NRC FES had slightly lower projections of 10,770 within 10 miles and 950,461 within 50 miles. In 1995, NRC and TVA provided estimates for 1990 and projections for 2040 (1995 NRC FES, and 1995 FSER). For 1990, population within 10 miles was estimated to be 15,842, and within 50 miles, 862,465. Projections for 2040 were a total population of 17,854 within 10 miles and 1,066,580 within 50 miles. Based on the 2000 Census of Population, the population for 2000 is estimated to be 16,392 within 10 miles and 1,064 ,513 within 50 miles, indicating that the area around the site has been growing faster than projected. Based on these trends, the population in 2040 is projected to be about 29,300 within 10 miles and 1,519,000 within 50 miles, a much higher growth rate than in earlier projections. Since the earlier reports were prepared both Rhea and Meigs Counties, as well as most of the surrounding counties, have seen a substantial increase in population growth rates. Rhea County increased by only about 0.4 percent fiOm 1980 to 1990, but by 16.7 percent from 1990 to 2000. Meigs County experienced a similar increase in growth rate, from 8.1 percent between 1980 and 1990 to 38.0 percent between 1990 and 2000. Fast-growing areas in Meigs and Rhea Counties include much of the area near the Tennessee River, on both sides, and the area to the east toward Athens, Tennessee. Increases from 1990 to 2000 in surrounding counties within the 50-mile range varied from 4.5 percent in Anderson County to 34.7 percent in Cumberland County. Population estimates for 2005 show continuing growth in the area and specifically in Rhea and Meigs Counties, but at a somewhat slower rate than during the 1990s. During construction, population would increase due to the infiux of workers. At peak construction employment, the total construction and design employment could be as high as 3000; however, many of these are engineers, nonmanual craft, and other workers who likely would not relocate to the site. TVA is conducting a mOie detailed study of constiUction requirements, which w ill provide a more precise estimate. For this analysis, a conservative estimate is made by assuming that the peak on-site w orkforce would be 2200. Based on previous experience at the site, it is assumed th at 40 percent of these would move into the area. Given this assumption , the totaf number of movers would be 880. The remaining 60 percent or more of the workers would either be local residents or would commute from the surrounding area, including the Chattanooga and Knoxville areas. Impacts of this increase in population should be similar to those described in the earlier documents referenced above. 64 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Based on experience during construction at Unit 1 from 1982 to 1986, about two-thirds of the in-moving workers would move into Rhea and Meigs Counties due to their proximity to the site. Most of the others would locate in readily accessible locations such as McMinn and Roane Counties, and a small number to Knox or Hamilton Counties and other nearby areas. Actual locations would, of course, depend on the availability of housing or of sites for recreational vehicles (RVs) and trailers. The widespread distribution of the residential location of workers, including those who move into the area, would lessen the impacts. Overall, this influx should be similar to what occurred during the mid-1980s with earlier construction at the site, except that the number of workers is expected to be slightly lower than during much of the earlier construction. 3.8.2. Employment and Income The earlier studies noted that the immediate vicinity of the plant, Rhea and Meigs Counties, had been experiencing employment growth, in particular industrialization. The latest employment data suggest that these counties have been able to retain their industrial competitive edge. While the nation, the state, and almost all of the counties within t he 50 mile area around the plant experienced substantial decreases in manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2005, Meigs County had a small increase (from 697 to 741) and Rhea County a very sma" increase (from 4701 to 4711). The average decrease for all the counties within the 50-mile area was 20.7 percent, while the state decreased by 23.3 percent and the nation by 22.5 percent. Private employment other than farm and manufacturing generally had Significant increases throughout the area, as in the state and in the nation. The 1995 NRC FES noted that real income in Meigs and Rhea Counties continued to grow. This trend has continued since that time, with per capita personal income in 2005 in Meigs County, 51.3 percent higher than in 1995, and in Rhea County, 40.2 percent higher. In contrast, the Consumer Price Index increased by 28.1 percent during this time. The growth rate of income in the 50-mile area was 44.4 percent. Most of these rates, however, are lower than the state and national averages of 46 .3 and 49.4 percent, respectively. Much of the income received by these workers on the WBN Unit 2 project would be spent in the area, especially by those who move families into the area and those who are already residents. This would increase income of businesses in the area, especially those oriented directly to consumers, and could lead to a small temporary increase in employment. After construction is completed, there would still be some increase in income and employment in the area from operation of Unit 2, although the size of the increase would be much smaller. 3.8.3. Low-Income and Minority Populations In Rhea and Meigs Counties in 2000, the minority population was 5.4 and 2.7 percent, respectively, of the total popu lation. Within 10 miles of the site, the average was 3.5 percent and within 50 miles, 11.5 percent. Minority population in the area of Rhea County immediately around the site in 2000 was 2.7 percent of total population (Census Tract 9751, Block Group 2) and was 4.5 percent in the area of Meigs County immediately across the Tennessee River (Census Tract 9601, Block GiOUp 2). In both block groups, the minority population is somewhat geographically distributed, not highly concentrated in one location. All of these averages are well below the state average of 20.8 percent and the national average of 30.9 percent. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 65

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 According to the 2000 Census of Population, the poverty level in Rhea County is 14.7 percent and in Meigs County, 18.3 percent. These rates are higher than both the statewide rate of 13.5 and the national rate of 12.4 percent. The county rates show decreases from rates 10 years earlier of 19.0 and 22.3 percent; the total of persons below the poverty level decreased from 4476 to 4042 in Rhea County and increased from 1761 to 2000 in Meigs County. The most recent estimates, for the year 2004, show a poverty level in Rhea County of 16.2 percent and in Meigs County, 17.5 percent; given the confidence levels of the estimates, little or no change seems to be indicated since the 2000 Census. Poverty levels within the 1O-mile area around the plant are slightly higher than both the state and national levels, with a poverty rate estimated to be about 15.1 percent among those who live within 10 miles of the site and 11.8 percent within 50 miles. Based on the 2000 Census of Population, the poverty level in the area immediately around the site (Rhea County, Census Tract 9751, Block Group 2) is 18.1. This was a decrease from 19.0 percent 10 years earlier, although the number of persons below the poverty level increased from 237 to 282. In the area immediately across the river (Meigs County, Census Tract 9601, Block Group 2) the poverty level is 21 .7 percent. This was an increase from 19.2 percent 10 years earlier and an increase in the number of persons below poverty from 184 to 333. Within the 10-mile area around the site, the poverty level decreased from 16.2 percent in 1989 to 15.1 percent in 1999, increasing from about 3300 persons to about 3800. This decrease (1. 1 percentage points) was greater than the national decrease of 0.7 percentage points, but less than the statewide decrease of 2.2 percentage points. Thus, the poverty levels in the area around the site have been declining, as have the rates statewide and nationally, while the number of persons in poverty has continued to increase in some of the areas around the site as it has statewide and nationally. However, the overall poverty level in the area is still above the state and national averages and also above the level for the 50-miie area around the site. The low minority population share, along with the diffused nature of potential negative impacts, makes it unlikely that there would be disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations. However, such impacts are pOSSible, particularly impacts arising from housing needs and increased traffic during the construction period . TVA would work with local representatives and officials to help reduce impacts from these sources by providing more detailed information about the antiCipated workforce . A mitigating action could be identification of the area as an impact area under the existing state tax code (see Section 3.8.7). This would allow more of the tax equivalent payments that TVA annually makes to Tennessee to be allocated to these counties. 3.8.4. Housing and Community Services Both Rhea and Meigs Counties have experienced notable increases in the number of housing units in recent years. This increase from 1990 to 2000 w as 2204 housing units, 21 .3 percent, in Rhea Counly and 1499 units, 40.6 percent in Meigs County. Both counties experienced a higher rate of increase than the state as a whole, which increased by 20.4 percent. This growth may result in more difficulty in finding sites for temporary housing, such as RVs and trailers. However, th e temporary influx of workers during construction would be spread out among not only Rhea and Meigs Counties, but nearby counties also, especially those within 30 to 35 miles away. In addition, many of the workers would be commuting from their existing homes in this area or slightly farther away, espbcially the Chattanooga and Knoxville areas. The result would be some increase in temporary housing needs, including apartments and facilities for trailers and RVs. To the extent that the pattern from construction in the 1980s is followed, Rhea and Meigs likely would see 66 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 close to 600 temporary workers locating in those two counties; of these, about three-fou rths would bring families with them. At that time, families on the average had about 1.3 children, making an average family size of 3.3. Families, especially those with children, would be more likely to look for houses or apartments while workers moving alone may be more likely to bring trailers or RVs with them or to rent trailers or small apartments. Many, especially those whose work is likely to continue through most of the construction period, are likely to look for houses to purchase. The result of this increased demand for temporary housing and for locations for RVs and trailers would be noticeable, especially in Rhea and Meigs Counties. TVA would work with local representatives and officials to help reduce impacts by providing more detailed information about the anticipated workforce. A mitigating action could be identification of the area as an impact area under the existing state tax code (see Section 3.8.7). Community services such as health services, water and sewer, and fire and police protection would also be impacted. While Rhea and Meigs Counties likely would feel the greatest impact, nearby counties would also be impacted. These impacts should be similar to those that occurred earlier with construction of Unit 1 at the site, which were projected to have no adverse effects. After construction is completed, there would be an increase of approximately 150 in permanent employment at the site; this increase would be small enough that the community could accommodate it with no noticeable impacts. 3.8.5. Schools As noted above, Rhea and Meigs Counties most likely would be the residential location of roughly two-thirds of the workers who move into the general area to work at the site. If the location patterns and mover characteristics of workers during construction of Unit 1 in the 1980s is followed , there would be an increase of approximately 660 school-age children in the broader area around the site, of which an estimated 434 likely would reside in Rhea and Meigs Counties. Total public school enrollment in these two counties is approximately 6800. There is some capacity for certain grade levels in some of the schools. However, the systems overall are at or near capacity, and in some cases over capacity, such as at Rhea County High School and in some lower grade levels in Rhea County. The schools in these counties have been experiencing a steady growth in enrollment fo r several years, and this growth is expected to continue. Additional growth due to an influx of construction

• workers would increase the overcrowding already being experienced. TVA would work with local representatives and officials to help reduce impacts by providing more detailed information about the anticipated workforce. A mitigating action could be identification of the area as an impact area under the existing state tax code (see Section 3.8.7).

3.8.6. Land Use Land use in the area a round the site was discussed in earlier studies, particularly in the TVA 1972 FES. Since that time, the same general pattern of land use and iand use change has continu ed, with significant increases in fand used for housing and for commercial purposes, along with ongoing decreases in open space and land used for farming. Completion and operation of Unit 2 are not likely to have a major impact on this trend, although it might accelerate it slightly. As discussed above, the number of con struction workers and their families that would locate in the area during the construction period is expected to be less than 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 67

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 3.8. 7. Local Government Revenues Under Section 13 of the TVA Act, TVA makes tax equivalent payments to the State of Tennessee, with the amount determined 50 percent by the book value of TVA property in the state and 50 percent by the value of TVA power sales in the state. In turn, the state redistributes 48.5 percent of the increase in payments to local governments. Payments to counties are based on relative population (30 percent of the total), total acreage in the county (30 percent), and TVA-owned acreage in the county (10 percent). The remaining 30 percent is paid to cities, distributed on the basis of population. In 2006, tax equivalent payments to Rhea County were $724,050 and to Meigs County, $484,465. Completion of WBN Unit 2 would increase book value of TVA property in the state and would, therefore, increase tax equivalent payments to the state. This increase would be distributed in part to local governments as described above, resulting in a small increase in payments to Rhea and Meigs Counties. During construction, Tennessee law (Tennessee Code Annotated [TCA] , §67-9-101) provides for allocation of additional payments to impacted local governments from the TVA tax equivalent payments. These additional payments would be made to the local governments, upon designation by TVA of these areas as impacted areas, and would continue throughout the construction period . Payments would continue to be made in decreasing amounts for three years afterward. The actual amount paid would be determined by the state comptroller of the treasury, based on the provisions of TCA §67 102(b). The additional payments from state allocation of TVA tax equivalent payments to these local governments during construction could be used to address some of the impacts on public services discussed above. In addition, there would be additional tax revenue associated with expendituies made in the area for materials associated with the proposed plant completion as well as sales tax revenue associated with purchases by individuals employed during construction and subsequently during operation. The magnitude of these increases could vary greatly, depending on the amount of local purchases for construction and on the relocation and buying decisions of workers employed at the site. 3.8.8. Cumulative Effects No cumulative socioeconomic effects were identified in earlier WBN-related environmental reviews. The maj or change in the area's socioeconomic environment since those earlier documents were prepared is the more rapid population growth the area has seen and is expected to continue to experience, especially in the areas along th e Tennessee River in Rh ea and Meigs Counties (Section 3.8.1). Much of this area is sparsely populated and capable of supporting additional growth. Along with this population growth, the area economy is diverse and growing; however, this growth has resulted in some impact to communiiy services, most notably in increased overcrowding in certain public school . The increase from the infiux of v/orkers during construction of WBN Unit 2 would temporarily add to these impacts, especially to the school systems in Rhea and Meigs Counties. TVA is currently updating the draft land plan and draft environmental impact statement (TVA 2005d) for Watts Bar Reservoir. TVA plans to issue an amended DEIS for the W atts Bar Reservoir Land Management Plan in the summer of 2007. In the event that nearby TVA land is allocated for industrial or recreational developme nt in the revised land plan, potential cumUlative effects from subsequent development in conjunction with construction 68 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 or operation of WBN Unit 2 would be addressed when proposals for development are reviewed. The extent of the impact overall and on individual school systems and schools is largely dependent on where in-moving workers locate their residences. The recent growth that has occurred, along with the expected continuation of this growth, could result in location patterns different in some ways from the patterns associated with earlier construction at the site. For example, some of the in-coming workers might locate farther away from the site than they would prefer. This could have the effect of decreasing the number locating in Rhea and Meigs Counties, or parts of these counties, and increasing the number in some nearby counties. Improved roadways in the area, as contrasted to earlier construction periods, may also make location at greater distances relatively more attractive, increasing the tendency to locate farther from the site. In addition to schools, other community seNices could be impacted by the temporary influx of construction workers in conjunction with the current growth pattern. These impacts are likely to be less noticeable than the school impacts. Additional road traffic at peak times, given the combination of construction workers and the growth of permanent population, could cause a noticeable impact at some locations. There could also be noticeable impacts to other community seNices such as medical facilities and public safety. The extent of all these cumulative impacts would depend greatly on the residential locations of the in-moving workers. As noted above, TVA is conducting a labor study, the results of which will be provided to officials in the impacted counties to help with local planning to accommodate the anticipated impacts In addition , TVA would work with the local communities to facilitate planning for these potential impacts. 3.9. Floodplains and Flood Risk In the TVA 1972 FES for WBN Units 1 and 2, a letter was included to Mr. Gartrell, with the U.S. Department of the Interior, regarding siting of these units. The letter states: "Plant Siting--The Geological SUNey is reviewing geologic and hydrologic data relevant to WBN Units 1 and 2, as supplied by TVA in a preliminary safety analysis report (PSAR) to the AEC. This review pertains to geologic and hydrologic aspects of the site such as earthquake effects, foundation conditions, and flooding potentiaL" The PSAR became the FSAR on June 30, 1976, with the submittal of amendment 23 (TVA 1976c). The FSAR contains information related to potential fl ooding of the Watts Bar site from the Tennessee River and local probable maximum precipitation 4 (PMP) site drainage and is still current. Section 3.7 Floodplains and Flood Risk of the FEA for the WBN Unit 1 Replacement ofthe Steam Generators describes the current conditions at WBN (TVA 2005a). WBN is located on th e right bank of Chickamauga ReseNoir between TRM 528.0 and 528.6 in Rhea County, Tennessee. The area potentially impacted by this project would extend from about TRM 528.4 to 529.0. The proposed project area could possibly be flooded from the Tenn essee River and iocai PiviP site drainage. 4 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 ofthe complicated processes and interrelationships in storms, PMP values are identified as estimates. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 69

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 The 100-year floodplain for the Tennessee River would be the area below elevation 697.3 feet above mean sea level (msl) at TRM 528.4 and elevation 697.6-foot msl at TRM 529.0. The Tennessee River TVA flood risk profile (FRP) elevation would be elevation 701.1-feet msl at TRM 528.4 and 701.4 at TRM 529.0. The FRP is used to control residential and commercial development on TVA lands and flood damageable development for TVA projects. In this area, the FRP elevations are equal to the 500-year flood elevations. Under current conditions, the estimated Tennessee River Probable Maximum Floods (PMF) level would be elevation 734.9-feet msl at WBN. Consequent wave run-up above the flood level would be 2.0 feet, which would produce a maximum flood level of elevation 736.9-feet msl (TVA 2004d) . Based on site topography, much of the proposed project area would be inundated at this elevation. It has previously been determined that the critical elevation for PMP site drainage should be no higher than elevation 729.0-feet msl. The floodplains and flood risk assessment involves ensuring that facilities would be sited to provide a reasonable level of protection from flood ing. In doing this, the requirements of Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) would be fulfilled. Due to the fact that the proposed project could potentially impact flood elevations at several buildings at a nuclear generating facility, the NRC requires a flood risk evaluation of possible impacts from the PMF and PMP site drainage for all alternatives. The following proposed activities could be impacted by flood conditions: material handling buildings, materials storage building, a multipurpose building, a new construction access facility, temporary outage building, and an in-processing center would be constructed ; temporary craft trailers would be added; and temporary parking and laydown areas would be developed. A!! proposed facilities would be located outside the limits of the Tennessee River 100- and 500-year floodplains, but many of the proposed structures would be located on ground below the Tennessee River PMF elevation of 734.9-feet msl. For th ose structures located below the Tennessee River PMF, an acceptable level of flood risk would be provided because the probability of flooding would be extremely low, and flooding of these structures would not impact the safe operation of the plant. None of the proposed activities would result in changes to the Tennessee River PMF elevation. All existing safety-related facilities, systems, and equipment are housed in structures that would provide protection from flooding for all flood conditions up to plant grade at elevation 728-feet msl. Other rainfall floods would exceed plant grade elevation 728-feet msl and require plant shutdown . However, flood warni ng criteria and forecasting techniques have been developed to assure th at there will always be adeq uate time to shut the plant down and be ready for floodwaters above plant grade (TVA 2004d). The placement of temporary and permanent structures both inside and outside the security fence would be required to complete Unit 2. The tentative locations of the proposed new structures are shown on the site plan (Figure 1-2). The building numbers in the following analysis correspond to the legend of Figure 1-2. The material handling buildings (2), materials storage building (4), and in-processing center (32) would be located outside of the 5 The Probable Maximum Flood is defined as the most severe flood that can reasonably be predicted to occur at a site as result of hydrometeorological conditions. It assumes an occurrence of PMP critically centered on the watershed and a sequence of related meteorologic and hydrologic factors typical of extreme storms. 70 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Ch apter 3 security fence. These structures would not be located within critical areas for PM P site drainage and would not adversely impact PMP site drainage elevations. The new multipurpose building (28) and temporary craft trailers (29) are both within the area defined as "Area East of Main Plant" in the site drainage calculation that were developed for the Watts Bar FSAR (TVA 2004d). The original site analysis determined the elevation resulting from the site PMP would be less than the critical elevation of 729.0. This was based on a flow path from north to south along the east side the turbines and turbine building and through the switchyard. The new multipurpose building (28) and temporary craft trailers (29) are being designed not to exceed the footprint of the buildings that have been removed from this area (Richard King, TVA, personal communication, December 2006). Therefore, the new structures would not impact previously determined PMP elevations. The proposed new construction access facility (31) would be located adjacent to the existing control building and auxiliary (reactor) building and would not impact flood elevations. The temporary outage building (33) would not be an obstruction as shown on the current site plan. Construction of the temporary parking areas (3) could result in minor changes to the existing topography, but PMP drainage from these areas does not flow toward the plant and, therefore, no adverse impacts would be expected. An area on the west side of the plant south of the Unit 2 material handling building that has in the past been used for temporary parking should be designated as a no parking area. This area is located within the PMP drainage "ditch" and any cars parked in the area could adversely impact PMP drainage elevations. Although there is no indication that development would take place in the switchyard area (30), this area has been identified as critical for PMP drainage. Therefore, any structural modifications that are proposed in the switchyard should be reviewed prior to construction to ensure they would not adversely impact PMP drainage elevations. Based on the current design and site plan, the proposed project would be consistent with Executive Order 11988, and there would be no anticipated adverse flood-related impacts. Any changes to the tentative site plan would be reviewed to determine the potential for flood related impacts. 3.10. Seismic Effects The 1972 FES described the maximum historical Modified Mercalli Intensity (a scale of earthquake effects that ranges from Roman numeral I through XII) experienced at WBN from local quakes and the origins of this ground motion. The 1995 FSE R described the safe shutdown earthquake for WBN and its basis and discussed seismic analyses of W BN using a site-specific earthquake model and a review level earthquake (TVA 1995b). The W BN FSAR (TVA 2004d) provldes a thorough description of the geo!ogy and sei smicity in the vicinity of W BN in Section 2.5. Th e basic conclusions of the 1995 FSER and the 1972 FES with respect to the regional seismology of W BN and its seismic design remain valid. There are two items that require updating. First, the largest earthquake in the southern Appalachians since the 1972 FES is now the April 29, 2003 , Fort Payne, Alabama, earthquake, which had a moment magnitude of 4.6 and Nuttli body wave magnitude of 4.9. The Fort Payne earthquake's magnitude is still lower than the design basis earthquake, which has a body wave magnitude of 5.8; therefore, the occurrence of the 2003 Fort Payne earthquake has no Significant impact on previous findings. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 71

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Second, preliminary results of the Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE) for WBN were discussed in the 1995 FSER. The final results of this study were completed and transmitted to NRC in February 1998 (TVA 1998e). The study included an examination of seismic effects and concluded that the seismic capacity of WBN for a Review Level Earthquake exceeds 0.3g 6 , the minimum level required by NRC. Therefore, no seismic design change recommendations resulted from the IPEEE seismic evaluation . 3.11. Climatology and Meteorology The 1972 FES contains a discussion of the climatology and meteorology for the Watts Bar site. The 1995 FSER provides a description of the Watts Bar on-site meteorological program and a review of the previous discussion. The conclusion was that the reg ional climate description in the 1972 FES remained valid. Some of the information was updated based on more recent data. It also concluded that the 20-year data period update (1974-1993) in local meteorology was more representative than the one year of data used previously. The severe weather information in the 1972 FES was judged to be valid except for an update to the tornado data. Regional Climatology The regional climate description in the 1972 FES remains accurate as discussed in this section. This conclusion is based on information contained in the Local Climatological Data Annual Summary Comparative Data for Chattanooga, Tennessee, for 2005 (U .S. Department of Commerce 2005) and in the Climatography of the United States No. 81 (U.S. Department of Commerce 2003). Temperature data for the 1971-2000 period of record for Chattanooga, Tennessee, indicate an average annual temperature of 60.0°F, with monthly averages ranging from 39.4°F in January to 79.6°F in July. These temperatures are slightly warmer than data for the 1961-1990 period of record used in the 1995 FSER. The extreme temperatures, maximum rainfall in 24 hours, and maximum snowfall in 24 hours at Chattanooga are the same for the 1971-2000 period as for the 1961-1990 period. Wind speed data from Chattanooga for the 1971-2000 period of record indicate an average wind speed of 5.9 miles per hour. This is slightly lower th an data for the 1961-1990 period of record. Local Meteorology The one year of data collected from the temporary WBN meteorological facility is supplemented with more representative data from the 20-year period from 1986-2005. These data were collected from the perm anent meteorological facility. On an annual basis, the most frequent wind directions at 10 meters are south-southwest and southwest at 16.0 percent and 8.4 percent, respectively. This reflects a small shift from easterly to westerly directions from the on-site data from 1974-1 993 used in th ..... 1995 FSER. The annua! average wind speed decreased from 4.1 miles per hour to 3.7 miles per hour at the 10-meter level in the more recent 20-year data period. In addition, the annual frequency of calm s, defined as wind speeds less than 0.6 milh, increased from 3.0 percent to 3.4 percent. The impact of these changes on dispersion values is discussed below under the heading dispersion. 6 Percent "g" is the force of gravity (an acceleration of 9.78 metersfseconcr). When there is an earthquake, the forces caused by the shaking can be measured as a percentage of the force of gravity, or percent g. 72 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Severe Weather Based on Section 2.3.1.3 of the WBN FSAR (TVA 2004d), the severe weather information in the 1972 FES remains accurate, except for the following update. During the period from 1916-2005, only one tornado has been reported in Rhea County. The FSAR estimate of the probability of a tornado striking the site is 1.48E-4 with a recurrence interval of 6755 years. This is based on tornado data from 1950 through 1986. Extension of the tornado database end date from 1986 to 2005 increases the estimate of the probability of a tornado striking the site to 2.7 E-4 with a recurrence interval of 3703 years. During the period from 1950-2005, 44 tornadoes were identified within a 30-nautical-mile radius of Watts Bar (approximately 2827 square miles). The mean tornado path was 0.96 square miles, and the annual tornado frequency was 0.80. Dispersion Section 5.10 of the 1995 FSER presents the estimated annual airborne doses as calculated by the Watts Bar Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual (TVA 1994b). It uses the 20-year period of meteorological data from 1974-1993. Use of the later 20-year data period discussed in under local meteorology, above, results in an increase of the maximum dispersion value from 1.09E-5 to 1.43E-5 second/cubic meters and shifts the critical downwind sector from southeast to east-southeast. The impact of this increase is discussed in Section 3.1 3. Air Quality Two oil-fired boilers used for building heat and startup steam emit small amounts of air pollutants as addressed in the 1972 FES. These emissions are controlled to meet applicable regu latory requirements, and resulting impacts are insignificant. 3.12. Nuclear Plant Safety and Security 3.12.1. Severe Accident Analysis TVA maintains a probabi listic safety assessment model to use in evaluating the most significant risks of radiological re lease from WBN fuel into the reactor and fro m the reactor into the containment structure. In 1995, both TVA and NRC concluded that, except for a few procedu ral changes implemented as part of the WBN operation, none of the severe accident mitigation design alternatives were beneficial to mitigating the risk of severe accidents further. 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 re lease of radioactive m aterial to the environment. The NRC categorizes accidents as either design basis or severe. Design basis accidents are those for which the risk is great enough that NRC req uires plant design and construction to prevent unacceptable accident consequences. Severe accidents are those that NRC considers too unlikely to w arrant normal design control . Since 1995, TVA has implemented the industry-required design and corresponding design and corresponding mitigating action changes as required by NRC for continued operation of WBN Unit 1 and would implement them for operation of Unit 2. The design changes have already been implemented in the WBN Unit 1 probabilistic safety assessment model. The analysis is based on the WBN Unit 1 probabilistiC safety assessment model, which is considered applicable for Unit 2 operations because of its similarity to Unit 1. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 73

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 An analysis was performed for this FSEIS to estimate the human health impacts from potential accidents at WBN in the event that Unit 2 became operational (Karimi 2007). Only severe reactor accident scenarios leading to core damage and containment bypass or containment failure are presented here. Accident scenarios that do not lead to containment bypass or containment failure are not presented because the public and environmental consequences would be significantly less. The MACCS2 computer code (Version 1.13.1) was used to perform probabilistic analyses of radiological impacts. The generic input parameters given with the MACCS2 computer code that were used in NRC's severe accident analysis (NUREG-1150) formed the basis for the analysis. These generic data values were supplemented with parameters specific to WBN and the surrounding area. Site-specific data included population distribution, economic parameters, and agricultural product. Plant-specific release data included nuclide release, release duration, release energy (thermal content), release frequency, and release category (i.e., early release, late release). The behavior of the population during a release (evacuation parameters) was based on declaration of a general emergency and the emergency planning zone (EPZ) evacuation time. 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. The consequences of a beyond-design-basis accident, with mean meteorological conditions, 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 Table 3-13. The analysis assumed that a site emergency would have been declared early in the accident sequence and that all nonessential site person nel would have evacuated t'1e site in accordance \vfth site emergency procedures before any radiologica! releases to the environment occurred. In addition, emergency action guidelines would have been implemented to initiate evacuation of 99.5 percent of the public with in 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the plant. The location of the maximally exposed off-site individual mayor may not be at the site boundary for these accident sequences because emergency action guidelines would have been implemented and the population would be evacuating from the path of the rad iological plume released by the accident. Table 3-13. Sev ere Accident Annu al Risks 1.8 ~ 10-7 10 i - Eariy Containmeni failure (3.4 x 10-7) 2.2 x 10-5 2.0 x 10-8 1.1 x 10-10 (I - Containment Bypass (1.4 x 10.6) 2.2 X 10-5 1.3 X 10-8 8.2 X 10-7 4.9 X 10-7 11 III - Late Containment Failure (3.0 x 10.6) 4.6 X 10-7 2.8 X 10-10 1.3 X 10- 7.8 x 10-a Includes the likelihood of occurrence of each release category b Increased likelihood of cancer fatality per year The results presented in this table indicate that the highest risk to the maximally exposed off-site individual is one fatality every 38 million years (or 2.6 x 10-8 per year) and the 74 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 highest risk to an average individual member of the public is one fatality every 2 billion years (or 4.9 x 10-10 per year). Overall, the risk results presented above are small. Completion and operation of WBN Unit 2 would not change the risks evaluated here because the likelihood of an accident that could affect both units and lead to radioactive releases beyond those analyzed here would be extremely low. This is consistent with the conclusions of NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GElS) (NRC 1996a). Accidents that could affect multi-unit sites are initiated by external events. Severe accidents initiated by external events as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and fires traditionally have not been discussed in quantitative terms in final environmental statements and were not considered in the GElS. In the GElS, however, NRC staff did evaluate existing impact assessments performed by NRC and the industry at 44 nuclear plants in the United States and concluded that the risk from beyond-design-basis earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is small. Additionally, the staff concluded that the risks from other external events are adequately addressed by a generic consideration of internally initiated severe accidents. 3.12.2. Terrorism Some nongovernmental entities and members of the public have expressed concern about the risks posed by nuclear generating faci lities in light of the threat of terrorism. Because WBN is already an active nuclear generating facility, the risks posed by adding a second generating unit are not the same as the risks that may be associated with locating a nuclear generating facility at a new location. The risk posed by a terrorist attack already exists at thi s site. Regardless, TVA believes that the possibility of a terrorist attack affecting operation of WBN Unit 2 or the combined operation of both WBN units is very remote and th at 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 its nuclear plant sites, including WBN, by hostile forces seeking to gain access to plant nuclear reactors or other sensitive facilities or materials. TVA contract 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 gai n entry into sensitive facilities, and even less likely that th ey could do thi s quickly enough to prevent operato rs 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 aw areness, but this threat has been carefully studied. The Nuclear Energy Institute (N EI) commissioned the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to conduct an impact analysis of a large jet airline 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. The EPRI analysis was peer reviewed when it was finished. Using conservative analyses, EPRI concluded that there would be no release of radionuclides from any of these facilities or containers. 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 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 75

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 earthquakes, extreme overpressures, and hurricane force winds. Using computer models, 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 results of this analysis are summarized in an NEI paper titled "Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant's Structural Strength" (NEI 2002). (For security reasons, the EPRI analysis has not been publicly released.) 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 aircraft that go beyond any other area of our critical infrastructure. In addition to a/l the measures the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies have put in place to make such attacks extremely improbable (air marshals, hardened cockpit doors, passenger searches, etc.), NRC has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with NORADINORTHCOM to provide real-time information to potentially impacted sites by any aircraft diversion. As NRC has said repeatedly, our research showed that in most (the vast majority of) cases an aircraft attack would not result in anything more than a very expensive industrial accident in which no radiation release would occur. In those few cases where a radiation release might occur, there would be no challenge to the emergency planning basis currently in effect to deal with aI/ beyond-design-basis events, whether generated by mother nature, or equipment failure, or terrorists (f\JRC 2007). Notwithstanding the very remote risk of a terrorist attack affecting WBN 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 guidance. The security measures TVA has taken at WBN 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. In the ve-ry remote likelihood that a terrorist attack did successfully breach the physical and other safeguards at W SN resulting in the release of radionuclides, the consequences of such a release are reasonably captured by the discussion of the impacts of severe acc:dents discussed abcve in th!s section . 3.13. Radiological Effects T his section discusses the potential expected radiological dose exposure of the public during normal ope rations of W BN Units 1 and 2. Based on operational data from WBN Unit 1 , TVA expects W BN Unit 2 dose data to be of the same magnitude as those projected in its 1972 FES for a single unit. TVA has determined that the doses to the public resulting from the discharge of radioactive effluents from WBN would likely be less than two percent of the NRC guidelines given in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, and that there would be no new or 76 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 different effects on the surrounding environment due to these releases than from th ose discussed in the FES. NRC addressed potential radiological effects in detail in its SEIS, at pp. 5-11 to 5~21 (NRC 1995b). TVA's assessment of potential impact agrees with NRCs. The dose values used in the Draft SEIS assessment were based on calculations that used meteorological data from January 1974 to Deqember 1993. TVA has recalculated the dose values using meteorological data from January 1986 to December 2005 for the FSEIS. The revised values do not differ materially from those presented in the DSEIS. Radiological Impacts on Humans Radionuclides in Liquid Effluents The exposure pathways to humans that were used in the 1972 FES analysis remain valid. The pathways considered are illustrated in Figure 3-6. Several of the pathways included in the 1972 FES analysis are not considered in the current analysis of the impact of the release of radioactivity in liquid effluents in the area around WBN site. These pathways are doses received from swimming in and boating on the Tennessee River. These pathways are no longer considered because they have been found to be several orders of magnitude lower than the dose received from shoreline recreation. The exclusion of these external dose pathways for the analysis does not significantly change the calculated dose commitments to individuals or populations since essentially all of the total body dose due to the reiease of radioactive materiai is accounted for by fish and water ingestion. Doses to terrestrial vertebrates from the consumption of aquatic plants, and doses to aquatic plants , aquatic invertebrates, and fish have not been reassessed in the current analysis of the impact of radioactivity in liquid effluents because doses to these organisms are less than or equal to the doses to humans (TVA 1972). Current analyses of potential doses to members of the pubiic due to reieases of radioactivity in liquid effluents are calculated using the models presented in NUREG-0133 (NRC 1996b) and Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1 (NRC 1977). These models are essentially those used in the 1972 FES, and are based on the International Commission of Radiological Protection Publication 2. Changes in the model assumptions since the release of the 1972 FES include: The calculation of doses to additional organs (kidney and lung). River water use (ingestion, fish harvest), and recreational use data have been updated using more recent information (Tables 3-14 and 3-15). Decay time between the sou rce and consumption is handled as describe in Regulatory Guide 1.1 09 (NRC 1977). Only those doses within a 50-mile radius of WBN are considered in the population dose. The population data are updated and projected through the year 2040. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 77

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2

i. NVIRDNMI!NTAL. aXlla.URI! PATHWAYS DP 'M AN GUll TD A.LIIA* *

• OF RADtaAcTIV. NATERIAL TD THB ATMQ_PH8RB AND LA,K **

                                     ~...J<~ .:~' ~~:';,.                              : ,~...,
                               ~-------{'/t:~" ., .~";:":' .;/;~'~:.~; \.:..:/ ............~.-.-----.~-.---~~

D'i'l lted 1ly AtmDs,** ,e AirbJrae Rel'.'ts

                                                                                                    ~

U PII..' Expas.re L7

t. iilahi ReS"lsIS Diluted 8y :Lake IUIAIU

                                                                                                               *n *
                                                              '1,* *.~ * .-
                                                            ' 0                        t:\
                                   ~       ___             _ _ "ldB, Man \ \

Cansu~r- ~ S**r.line Expesur,

               ......"'!II',' S                                                                    ~      .

J Driak.illg Water

                                                                      ~....,--.-;It fis" V.g.           n U,take Fr. m Soil               lL.....-_~~_--J.

Figure 3-6. Pathways to Man Due to Releases of Radioactive Material 78 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Table 3-14. Public Water Supplies Within a 50-Mile Radius Downstream of WBN

                                       ~0:~~f~?II¥~~:~l~.i,~ :.:~ ,:,.;~;j~~1 !~l~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~j;~~~:M~~f:~+F:* j Dayton, Tennessee                                504                                     19,170 Soddy-Daisy/Falling Water Utility 487                                     11,452 District East Side Utility, Tennessee                     473                                     49,700 Chattanooga, Tennessee                          465                                     237,048 Table 3-15. Estimated Recreational Use of Tennessee River Within a 50-Mile Radius Downstream of WBN Chickamauga Reservoir (from 100 510        484         22,101                    1,297,880 percent mixing point to SQN)

Chickamauga Reservoir (from SQN to 484 471 9,889 7,421 ,905 ChickamauQa Dam) Nickajack Reservoir (from Chickamauga Dam to WBN 50-mile 471 460 1,799 284,000 radius) 1Tennessee River Mile Transfer coefficients , consumption rates, and bioaccumulation factors used are those presented in the documents listed above, or more recent data, if available. The models and input variable used are those presented in the Watts Bar Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual (TVA 1994b), which was approved by the NRC on July 26, 1994 . The estimated liquid radioactive releases used in the analysis are given in Table 3-16. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 79

Completion and Operation of W atts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Table 3*16. WBN Total Annual Discharge-Liquid Waste Processing System for Two-Unit Operation Br-84 1.65E-04 S.23E-04 6.88E-04 1.38E-03 1-131 2.63E-02 1.14E+OO 1.1 6E+OO 2.33E+OO 1-132 1.32E-D2 1.08E-01 1.21 E-01 2.43E-01 1-133 5.29E-02 8.57E-01 9.10E-01 1.82E+OO 1-134 6.2SE-03 2.S5E-02 3.28E-02 6.55E-02 1-135 4.7SE-02 4.22E-01 4.70E-01 9.39E-01 Rb-88 6.89E-03 7 .84E-04 7.68E-03 1.54E-02 Cs-134 2.93E-02 1.S8E-01 1.98E-01 3.95E-01 Cs-136 2.55E-03 1.72E-02 1.98E-02 3.96E-02 Cs-137 4.03E-02 2.21E-01 2.S1 E-01 5.23E-01 Na-24 1.8SE-02 O.OE+OO 1.86E-02 3.72E-02 Cr-51 7.03E-03 9.27E-02 9.98E-02 2.00E-01 Mn-54 4.99E-03 5.10E-02 5.59E-02 1.12E-01 Fe-55 B.09E-03 O.OE+OO 8.09E-03 1.S2E-02 Fe-59 2.42E-03 9.05E-03 1.1SE-02 2.29E-02 Co-58 2.20E-02 1.44E-01 1.6SE-01 3.31 E-01 Co-60 1.44E-02 1.72E-02 3.16E-02 6.32E-02 Zn-65 3.82E-04 O.OE+OO 3.B2E-04 7.65E-04 Sr-89 1.92E-04 4.33E-03 4.52E-03 9.03E-03 Sr-90 2.20E-05 3.88E-04 4 .10E-04 8.19E-04 Sr-9 1 2.84E-04 2.18E-03 2.47E-03 4.94E-03 Y-91m 1.68E-04 O.OE+OO 1.68E-04 3.37E-04 Y-91 9.00E-05 3.00E-04 3.90E-04 7.80E-04 Y-93 1.27E-03 O.OE+OO 1.27E-03 2.54E-03 Zr-95 1.39E-03 1.20E-02 1.34E-02 2.68E-02 Nb-95 2.10E-03 8 .98E-03 1.1 1E-02 2.22E-02 Mo-99 4.20E-03 9.95E-02 1.04E-01 2.07E-01 Tc-99m 3.35E-03 O.OE+OO 3.35E-03 6.70E-03 Ru-103 5.88E-03 O.OE+OO 5.88E-03 1.1 8E-02 Ru-10S 7.63E-02 O.OE+OO 7. 63E-02 i .53E-0 1 Te-129m 1.41 E-04 O.OE+OO 1.41 E-04 2.82E-04 Te-1 29 7.30E-04 O. OE+OO 7.30E-04 1.4SE-03 Te-131m 8.05E-04 O.OE+OO 8.05E-04 I 1.61 E-03 Te-131 2.03E-04 O.OE+OO 2.03E-04 4.06E-04 Te-132 1.11 E-03 2.93E-02 3.05E-02 6 .09E-02 8 a-1 40 *i .021.::-02 3.48E-O*1 3.58E-01 7.1 6E-0 1 La-140 1.62E-02 4. 98E-01 5.1 4E-01 1.03E+OO Ce-141 3.41E-04 O.OE+OO 3.41 E-04 6.81E-04 Ce-143 1.S3E-03 O.OE+OO 1.53E-03 3.0SE-03 80 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Table 3*16 (continued)

            *.*."*.***:*.;:~'~.~!~~t',;*;~i::W~ ,:*~:*~:i~~~tf~!~:; ~i~Wf~gl~J~~~;;J~ .:~';: ;i; ~~=;:;J;) :~~: ~~,i¥~~~iK; Ce-144                     6.B4E-03         1.26E-01               1.33E-01          2.66E-01 Np-239                     1.37E-03         O.OE+OO                1.37E-03          2.75E-03 H-3                        1.2SE+03         O.OE+OO               1.2SE+03           2.S1E+03 H-3 (TPC)                 3.33E+03          O.OE+OO               3.33E+03           4.S8E+03 Totals w/o H-3                         4.38E-01                               4.84E+OO           9.68E+OO Totalsw H-3                           1.25E+03                                1.2SE+03           2.S2E+03 3

Total w H-3 (TPC ) 3.33E+03 3.33E+03 4.S9E+03 1 Liquid Radwaste 2 S1eam Genera10r Blowdown 3 Tritium Production Core (single unit) A companion figure, illustrating the release points for radioactive plant liquid effluents from WBN is presented in Figure 3-7. A simplified diagram of the WBN radioactive liquid waste (radwaste) system is shown in Figure 3-8. The liquid radwaste system is designed to control and minimize release of the subject radionuclides. A tabulation of the resulting calculated doses for Unit 2 without TPC is given in Table 3-17 . Doses for adults, teens, children, and infants are in millirem (mrem). Population doses are in man-rem. The estimated annual liquid releases and resulting doses as presented by the TVA 1972 FES, the WBN Unit 1 FSAR, Unit 2, Unit 1 and 2 totals, and recent historical data from WBN Unit 1 (as submitted in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Reports to the NRC) with the guidelines given by NRC in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I are compared in Table 3-18. These guidelines are designed to assure that releases of radioactive material from nuclear power reactors to unrestricted areas during normal conditions, including expected occurrences, are kept as low as practicable. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 81

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2

                                                                                ~ . .-.= ~ .*.-~ - .,... ---- ~~

i TtJi~~~

                                                                                ),                ~'9

, Wr,p

             ~~~~ *(~n'~

tlI.:Jw.l(Ml1 LK't ~ D I L F ~ .;"g T~ ~r:-::""", 01'".->0'

                                                                                                                   --~-

f; ~ Mn.IH"" ,~J,nOIH',.oM*"I.Ii~I1;'!1 . ~. -

                -:.'],

w .

                                                                ----~ - ' ..-.-

GPM = Gallons per Minute Figure 3-7. Plant Liquid Effluent Pathways and Release Points 82 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 eves -_l~ O 'il~m Mon'ilcr T~lfIk ~ is.OOO 1Il_. "

                                                                                                            '   - j
                                                           ~ l~'-'"~~-~:~:-

Re~II;~a\ljIt:Ii1l1 9 'ilnd R~l4J AtlXiliary 9uUdirrg F!lOor . ~.~"., CI~/!!(\;jtl I Dl~il'l!. eves ~ T-$Ilik~ S~t4lm t_.....; Co'~T~ f-l . . 100 'gp~

                                                                            \~,OOQg<Ji:
                                                                    ~. _ _ V_ .. __ ** .... :... .:~.~

Wa.~te CQl\4>9n~9 Tank .1t 3

                                                                             , $I)tl9 i101 .
                                                                      -COOli~ 1&10'&11' a~\

Figure 3-8. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Liquid Radwaste System Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 83

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Table 3*17. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Doses From Liquid Effluents per Unit for Year 2040

         '.:,.. :::;
                         . . '/. .:' .
                      .. :;.                              y .. ,:.. ., :~.

-;:~.> '. :. ' . ,. '\/:;:;;;}Y(: ({ ;:;;':':;;;"': "" "" ';'~i:;;'Hi

                                                                                                                    ,.:, ":".'?:',              :i "" ~,":; ;/;:\;;~~r          ,!;:: ;::',()::' *.c. {//:i:;:~F:e:;:*:,:* :J:{\;::~:".:+;:'

2 ADULT TB1 Bone GIT Thyroid Liver Kidney Lung Skin 0.72 0.56 0,132 0.88 0.96 0.352 0.136 0,031 TEEN TB Bone GIT Thyroid Liver Kidney Lung Skin 0.44 0.6 0.104 0.8 1 0.356 0.152 0.031 CHILD TB Bone GIT Thyroid Liver Kidney Lung Skin 0.188 0.76 0.06 0 .92 0.88 0.312 0.128 0.031 INFANT T8 Bone GIT Thyroid Liver Kid ney Lung Skin 0.032 0.036 0.033 0.264 0.036 0.034 0.032 0.031

         <;> ' " :/?( , ..'< ..,. ...::.......\                                      ' :.-,

X:.'!~:  ;;* ' <: ::" )f;,:'

r*:' *:.<,. 'tr.r:nart,T.em*

                                                                                                  '.,'.. '. ,.,,' :. '. ':. :* *:f                        ;;,, ...: .::;V;'::i;';'f::('
                                                                                                                                                                     ,'. . :.. , ,. .',-:,:::, ," ..'.: c'".,. . . '.i,\: ' : .': .>'.:' ..;",:.. .. "'.~.. ::..... ;."
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,<            ; ,.:,

POP3 DO S E T8 Bone GIT Thyroid Liver Kidney LunQ Skin 1.14 1.24 1 10.8 1,5 0.98 0.73 0.222 TB Bone GIT Thyroid Liver Kidney Lung Skin POP DOSE 2040 1.619 1.761 1.420 15.336 2.130 1.392 1.037 0.315 1 Total body 2 Gastro intestinal tract 3Population Table 3-18. Comparison of Est imated Annual Liquid Releases and Res ulting Doses p~r Unit at WBN Activity Released (ei) 1 3.2E-01 4.84 4.84 9.68 2 .2E*01 10 Total Body Dose (mrem)3 1.7E-02 7.2E-01 7.2E-01 1.44E+OO 3.1 E-02 3 Maximum Organ Dose (mrem)3 5.SE-02 1.0 E+OO 1.0E+OO 2.0E+OO 4.25E-02 10 1 Ci = Curies 2 N/A = Not Applicable 3 mrem = millirem 84 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Several conclusions can be drawn from the data in Table 3-18:

• The Unit 2 estimates, even though based on very conservative (worst-case) assumptions, .

indicate that estimated doses would continue to meet the per unit dose guideline given in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

• Recent WBN operational data for liquid effluents indicated that actual releases and resulting dose estimates to the public are a small fraction of the Appendix I guidelines (averaging about two percent or less). Based on these conclusions, the analyses of radiological impact to humans from liquid releases in the TVA FES continue to be valid, and operation of WBN Unit 2 would not materially change the result.

Radionuclides in Gaseous Effluents The exposure pathways used in the current analyses of the impact of radioactive material released in gaseous effluents are expanded from those used in the 1972 FES. The pathways considered are illustrated in Figure 3~6 . These pathways include external doses due to noble gases, and internal doses from particulates due to inhalation, and the ingestion of milk, meat, and vegetables from the area around WBN. Changes in the model assumptions since the publication of the TVA FES include: the calculation of internal doses to additional organs (bone, liver, total body, gastrointestinal tract, kidney, and lung); actual land use survey results are used (shown in Table 3-19) ; and the population data are projected through the year 2040. Current analyses of potential doses to members of the public due to releases of radioactivity in gaseous effluents are calculated using the models presented in NUREG-0133 (NRC 1996b) and Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1 (NRC 1977). These models are those used in the TVA FES, and are based on the International Commission of Radiological Protection Publication 2. Transfer coefficients, consumption rates, and bioaccumulation factors used are those presented in the documents listed above, or more recent data, if available. The models and input variable used are those presented in the WBN Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual, which was approved by the NRC on July 26, 1994. The estimated gaseous radioactive releases used in the analysis are given in Table 3-20. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 85

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Table 3-19. Receptors from Actual Land Use Survey Results Used for Potential Gaseous Releases From WBN Unit 2

                 , ,~::;~i*

• I :~:*./*;t,,):;j'~;'~~~'{~1J<i+:~j;:~; : ~~~~~~~f:'i ;1rl~t:lti.

1 Nearest Residence N 2134 2 Nearest Residence NNE 3600 3 Nearest Residence NE 3353 4 Nearest Residence ENE 2414 5 Nearest Residence E 3139 6 Nearest Residence ESE 4416 7 Nearest Residence SE 1372 8 Nearest Residence SSE 1524 9 Nearest Residence S 1585 10 Nearest Residence SSW 1979 11 Nearest Residence SW 4230 12 Nearest Residence WSW 1829 13 Nearest Residence W 2896 14 Nearest Residence WNW 1646 15 Nearest Residence NW 3048 16 Nearest Residence NNW 4389 17 Nearest Garden N 7644 18 Nearest Garden NNE 6173 19 Nearest Garden NE 3829 20 Nearest Garden ENE 4831 21 Nearest Garden E 8005 22 Nearest Garden ESE 4758 23 Nearest Garden SE 4633 24 Nearest Garden SSE 2043 25 Nearest Garden S 4973 26 Nearest Garden SSW 2286 27 Nearest Garden SW 8100 28 Nearest Garden WSW 4667 29 Nearest Garden W 5150 30 Nearest Garden WNW 5793 31 Nearest Garden NW 3170 32 Nearest Garden NNW 4698 33 Milk Cow ESE 6096 34 Milk Cow ESE 6706 35 Milk Cow SSW 2286 36 Milk Cow SSW 3353 37 Milk Cow NW 8100 86 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapte r 3 Table 3-20. WBN Total Annual Gaseous Discharge Per Operating Unit (curies/year/reactor) Kr-85m 1.99E+01 4.S3E+00 1.23E+00 2.S7E+01 Kr-85 6 .90E+02 7.0SE+OO 1.8SE+OO 6.99E+02 Kr-87 1.09E+01 4.27E+OO 1.09E+00 1.63E+01 Kr-88 2.83E+01 7.9SE+OO 2.13E+OO 3.84E+01 Xe-131m 1.17E+03 1.73E+01 4.53E+OO 1.19E+03 Xe-133m 4 .63E+01 1.90E+OO S.21E-01 4.87E+01 Xe-133 3.12E+03 6 .70E+01 1.77E+01 3.20E+03 Xe-13Sm 3 .85E+OO 3 .68E+OO 9.80E-01 B.51E+OO xXe-135 1.S5E+02 2.40E+01 6.46E+OO 1.8SE+02 Xe-137 3.18E-01 9.67E-01 2.S8E-01 1.S4E+OO Xe-138 3.32E+OO 3.42E+00 9.0SE-01 7.SSE+OO Ar-41 3.40E+01 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3.40E+01 Br-84 6.OOE-OS S.01E-02 4 .81E-04 S.06E-02 1-131 I 7.29E-03 1.39E-01 7.08E-03 1.S3E-01 1-132 1.60E-03 6.56E-01 1.70E-02 6 .7SE-01 1-133 3 .5SE-03 4 .3SE-01 2.03E-02 4.59E-01 1- 134 1.66E-03 1.0SE+OO 1.47E-02 1.08E+OO 1-135 3.1SE-03 8.101::-01 3 .13E-02 8.44E-01 H-3 1.37E+02 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1.37E+02 H-3 (TPC) 3.70E+02 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3.70E+02 Cr-51 9.21 E-05 5.00E-04 O.OOE+OO 5.92 E-04 Mn-54 S.30E-OS 3.78E-04 O.OOE+OO 4 .31E-04 Co-57 8 .20E-06 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 8.20E-06 Co-S8 2.S0E-04 2.29E-02 O.OOE+OO 2 .32E-02 Co-60 2.S1E-05 8.71E-03 O.OOE+OO B.74E-03 Fe-59 2.70E-05 5.00E-05 O.OOE+OO 7.70E-OS Sr-89 1.30E-04 2 .85E-03 O.OOE+OO 2.98E-03 Sr-90 S.22E-OS 1.09E-03 O.OOE+OO 1.1 4E-03 Zr-95 4.80E-08 1.00E-03 O.OOE+OO 1.00E-03 Nb-9S 1.80E-OS 2.43E-03 O.OOE+OO 2.4SE-03 Ru103 1.60E-OS 6.10E-05 O.OOE+OO 7.70E-OS Ru-106 2 .70E-08 7. S0E-05 O.OOE+OO 7. S0E-OS Sb-125 O.OOE+OO 6.09E-05 I O.OOE+OO 6 .09E-05 Cs-134 2.53E-OS 2 .24E-03 I O.OOE+OO 2.27E-03 C s- 136 3.21E-05 4 .80E-05 O.OOE+OO 8 .01E-OS C s-137 5.S8E-OS 3 .42E-03 O.OOE+OO 3.48E-03 8 a-140 4 .00E-04 O.OOE+OO 4. 00E-04 Ce-141 1.30E-OS 2.64E-OS O.OOE+OO 3.94E-OS C-14 2.80E+OO 4.50E+OO O.OOE+OO 7.30E+OO A companion figure, illustrating the release pOints for radioactive gaseous effluents from WBN is presented in Figure 3-9. Final Supplemental Environmental impact Statement 87

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2

                                       '\
                                           ~

j!!:.Re'~"'326J

                                           ~

Condenser Auxiljary Sef'\lice VacuUrtl Building Building Ex;haust Vent vent {one per (common) (common) l..Jnft) 11.2.Re-,~;~~~ * ...".J........

                                           !------~' ~ - ----------'

CQn~aJomen"t ~ i Ptlrge t System  !

                        ~one per uni_) j
                                                                        !I!II!IiIIIIII' Sh~Sd Building Vent (one par unrt)

Figure 3*9. Watts Bar Nuclear Piant Gaseous Effluent Release Points 88 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 A tabulation of the resulting calculated gaseous doses to individuals per operational unit is given in Table 3-21. Table 3-21. WBN Doses From Gaseous Effluent For Unit 2 Without Tritium Production for Year 2040 Effluent Pathway Guideline 1 Location Dose Maximum Exposed Noble Gases y Air dose 10 mrad 0.801 mrad/year Individual 2 Maximum Exposed

                     ~ Air dose              20 mrad                        2          2.710 mrad/year Individual Total body              5mrem               Maximum Residence3 .4 0.571 mrem/year lodinesl          Skin                    10 mrem 3

Maximum Residence .4 1.540 mrem/year Particulate Thyroid (critical organ) 15 mrem Maximum Real Pathwa/ 2.715 mrem/year Breakdown of Iodine/Particu late Doses (mrem/yr) Cow Milk with Feeding Factor of 0.65 2.44 Inhalation 0.1 74 Ground Contamination 0.0405 Submersion 0.0603 2 Beef Ingestion 0.00 Total 2.7148 1Guidelines are defined in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.

  ;Maximum exposure point is at 1250 meters in th e ESE sector.

Dose from air submersion . 4Maximum exposed residence is at 1372 meters in the SE sector. 5Maximum exposed individual is an infant at 3353 meters in the SSW sector. The estimated annual airborne releases and resulting doses as presented by the 1972 FES, the WBN Unit 1 FSAR, Unit 2, Unit 1 and 2 totals, and recent historical data from WBN Unit 1 (as submitted in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Reports to the NRC) with NRC guidelines given in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I are compared in Table 3-22. These guidelines are designed to assure that releases of radioactive material from nuclear power reactors to unrestricted areas during normal conditions, including expected occurrences, are kept as low as practicable. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 89

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Table 3-22. Comparison of Estimated Annual Airborne Releases and Resulting Doses Particulate Activity (Cj1) 3.0E-01 7.6E+QO 4.70E-02 7.6E+OO 9.29E-OS 10 Noble Gas Activity (Ci1) 7 .0E+03 1.4E+04 4.84E+03 4.84E+03 2.7E-03 N/A2 External Dose (mrad 3 ) 6.6E+OO 6.2E+OO 3.5E+OO 9.7E+OO 3.69E-01 10 Organ Dose 3.SE+OO 2.82E+OO 1.38E+01 8.3E-02 (mrem4 ) (inhalation 1.1E+01 (all (all (all 15 and milk (all pathways) pathways) pathways) pathways) only) 1 Ci = Curies 2 N/A = Not Applicable 3 mrad = millirad 4 mrem = millirem Two conclusions can be drawn from the data in Table 3-20:

• The Unit 2 FSAR estimates, even though based on very conservative (worst-case) assumptions, indicate that estimated doses continue to meet the per unit dose guidelines given in 10 CFR Pari 50, Appendix i.
• Historical WBN operational data for airborne effluents indicate that actual releases and resulting dose estimates (external and organ) to the public are a small fraction of the Appendix I guideline (averaging about 1 percent or less).

Based on these conclusions, the analyses of radiological impact from airborne release in the 1972 FES continue to be valid, and operation of WBN Unit 2 would not materially change the results. Population Doses TVA has estimated the radiological impact from the normal operation of WBN Unit 2 using a 50-mile regional population projection for the year 2040 of 1,523,385 . The estimated population doses as presented by the 1972 FES, the WBN Unit 1 FSAR , Unit 2, Unit 1 and Unit 2 totals, and recent historical data from WBN (as submitted in the Annu al Radioactive Effluent Reports to the NRC) are presented in Table 3-23. Table 3-23. Estimated Population Doses From Operation of Watts Bar Nuciear Piant

~tf~~'~, ...*. '~~~'}h~~~i~~m"1¥i~1~!7"u~t!I~~'" ;~f! .

3.1 E+01 12.8E+OO 2.362E+01 3.64E+01 3.38E-01 N/A 90 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Releases to Sanitary Sewers Releases to sanitary sewage systems from WBN would continue to be sampled for radioactivity. Any identified radioactivity will be evaluated for its source. If the source of the radioactivity is determined to be from plant operation, the sewage would not be released to the sewer system, but will be treated as radioactive waste. 3.14. Radioactive Waste The 1995 FSER described changes in plans for the radioactive water treatment systems, which had occurred since the 1970s (TVA 1995b). Many of the systems described in that document were based on TVA's experience from SQN, which are comparable to the systems in use at WBN Unit 1. The updates in this section are based on TVA's operating experience at WBN Unit 1. Since hazardous waste handling equipment is either shared between units or would be similar, the processing of radioactive waste produced by the operation of Unit 2 would be performed in the same manner as Unit 1. Only minor changes have been made to the radioactive waste treatment system at WBN Unit 1 since 1995, and these changes do not alter the conclusions previously reached. Liquid Radioactive W aste Treatment Systems The 1995 FSER discussed attributes such as separation and processing of tritiated and nontritiated liquids, laboratory sample processing, and processing of waste from regeneration of condensate polishing demineralizer and spent resin. Since 1995, the boric acid evaporators and condensate demineralizerwaste evaporator (CDWE) system have been deactivated and the functions have been replaced with the mobile waste demineralizer system described in the 1995 FSER. These changes are shown in Figure 3-10 for tritiated water and Figure 3-11 for nOiitiitiated water (revised from Figure 4-1, TV,fl, 1995b). The conclusion in the FSER that any releases from these systems would meet the requirements of the NPDES permit, 10 CFR 20, Appendix B; 10 CFR 50, Appendix I; and 40 CFR 190, as applicable, remain valid, and operation of WBN Unit 2 would not change this conclusion. Gaseous Radioactive Wast e Treat ment Systems T he gaseous waste processing system is designed to remove fission product gases from the nuclear steam supply system and to permit operation with periodic discharges of small quantities of fission gasses through th e monitored plant vent. No changes to equipment or operation have occurred and , therefore , the conclusions remain valid. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 91

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 lIQUID RADWASTE PROCESSING SYSTEM

                                      ;

l I 1 IJ:llf A £~r~ , IU:kCitlR lILClr.J ~ ((lIeH 'J!\I!T) ~

                                      ;

I f I t ( 11.1))( II L~G- ) [ CF'S - CON r ,q 'Nt,lf,; ftl :':-'1 T $-1,J~f' R:8 ; ~_ HJFiS - RtM~rliR- 9LO(,; HC'!()A' oJ. f.'iP tlRft.I~ FOI..-:K.tT fmr Ii: I n::; RfACTOR BLDG FLC'<1R do ( Qtj] P v RA I n Stlt.lp* ft;Ci)T - r.~t."Cf.O~ COOtAtH ORAlli' rANK F['~ TFf1 n~ TfO' fmJ H'M t~T DRAlN 51JtJ.f' t otT G\.'(:'S Hi' j HAT f /} tlRA 1 N- COLL EC TOR i MiK CH(lAi(:Al Y()U.l~E CON r~OL S'YS ~EM t,I'Hl} MOBiif \l,l,:Sif GEM[~ER;.t [im

    ?                       ~'l.M~

M~ M:JNl TOR TAN K {eves ) F ~ f [1.. TE:R (nCT CASK !}[CON-TMJi[NAnO},i tOlt.£cmR TANK Figure 3*10. Liquid Radwaste Processing System - Simplified Flow Diagram for Tritiated Water 92 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 LIQUID RADWASTE PROCESSING SYSTEM AS fro$. ~ AUXIUAR:'1' BlJltO!:NG fLOOR ;of( Eql,Hf'Mt'NT {lRAlti SUUf' ArB ff[}S ~ A001llO"A1. EQPTB(J1LOING HOOR 4. EOOIPf£Fii DRAIM SUMP CDT ,.. CHEt.A:ICAl DRArN H tcK If'l$ 'i -lAtiN!}RY AHO HOi SHOI'£R UHt( FDCT - FLOOR ORAIH COtLEC TOR T~N~

   ~WD          - weilL WASH D£MINE'lUl.:ER ."Sl£             TAN~

COCT - CAS;\ DECONTJ,M3NAiiON COli.I.£CT~ lA~l( MI - ~IU fOR "r MH( ~CVCS) F - 'I n.. T~:R I S - "$ rR'It" ~ /tf;;R P - PltW' Figure 3*11. Liquid Radwaste Processing System - Simplified Flow Diagram for Nontritiated Water Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 93

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Solid Radioactive Wastes Radioactive waste (radwaste) generated from the operation of WBN Unit 2 would be handled in the same manner as radwaste from Unit 1. The solid radwaste disposal system (SRDS) processes and packages the dry and wet solid radioactive waste produced through power generation for off site shipment and disposal. The dry active waste (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. The wet active wastes (WAW) consist of spent resins and filters. 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 DAWand WAW. Classes Band C are normally WAW. The SRDS is a shared system between Units 1 and 2. The sharing does not inhibit the safe shutdown of one unit while the other unit is experiencing an accident. Some minor changes to the SRDS have occurred since 1995. The 1995 FSER discusses solidification of resins and evaporator concentrates using cement and vermiculite. Evaporator concentrates are no longer generated at WBN due to the deactivation of the CDWE (see Liquid Radioactive Waste'Treatment Systems, above). Handling of resins has not changed. In 1995, 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. This facility was not constructed. TVA has continued to ship all WAW (Classes A, 8, and C) to the Barnwell facility and will do so through 2008 when that facility is scheduled to close. All DAW is currently shipped to a processor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for compaction and then by the processor to Clive, Utah, for disposal. Following 2008, Class A WAWwiJl also be shipped to Clive, Utah. Class B and C waste wiii be shipped either to SQN, which is iicensed to receive and store jow-ievei radwaste from WBN, or to another licensed Class Band C radwaste disposal facility. WBN also has the option of compacting DAW on site. The shipping distances to these facilities are comparable or shorter than those analyzed in previous environmental reviews. Transportation of Solid Waste In the 1995 FSER, TVA used records documenting radioactive effluents and the results of off-site radiological monitoring at SQN to confirm the 1972 FES conclusion that insignificant environmental risk would result from the transportation of low-level waste to off-site disposal grounds is still valid. The exposures in Table 4-1 of the 1972 FSER were calculated from an estimated 43 shipments and 15,119 cubic feet of waste from SQN. WBN now has over 10 years of radwaste shipment records. During a one-year period ranging from May 2005-May 2006, th ere were eight sh ipments from WBN , for a total of 5120 cubic feet of waste. The addition of a second unit at WBN would result in a total of 16 shipments per year and 11,060 cubic feet of w aste (Table 3-24). These figures represent 37.2 percent and 73.1 percent of the values presented in the 1995 FSER , and therefore, it can be expected that exposures to the truck driver and to the public would a lso range from 37.2 percent and 73.1 percent of the exposure estimated in the 1995 FSER. The 1995 FSER confirmed the conclusion in the 1972 FES that the environmental risk from transportation of low-Ieve! wa ste to off-site disposal grounds would be insignificant. Given that the number and size of shipments per year are less than previously projected, this conclusion is not changed . 94 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 Table 3-24. Maximum Anticipated Two-Unit Annual Solid Radwaste to be Processed Compactable and Noncom actable Trash Contaminated Oil Total 3.15. Spent Fuel Storage The 1972 FES assumed that spent fuel would be shipped to the reprocessing plant in Barnwell, South Carolina. The 1993 review of the FES noted that reprocessing was no longer likely, and that TVA then "expected to store spent fuel on-site until the DOE completed the construction of storage or permanent disposal facilities in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982" (TVA 1993a). The revised plan was for TVA to provide additional storage capacity on site, if needed, until a licensed DOE facility became available. On-site storage of spent fu el was mentioned in the 1995 FES, but not in the 1995 FSER. Th e need to expand on-site spent fuel storage at TVA nuclear plants was addressed when DOE prepared the CLWR FEIS (DOE 1999). This FE IS analyzed spent fuel storage needs at BFN Units 1 , 2, and 3, SON Units 1 and 2, and WBN Unit 1 and inciuded a thorough rev iew of the e nvironmental effects of constructing and operating an on-site independent spent fuels storage installation (ISFSI). T he present FSEIS incorporates by reference the spent fuel storage impact analysis in the CLWR FEIS and updates the analysis to include operati on of W8N Unit 2. Operation of a second unit at Watts Bar would increase the number of spent fuel assemblies generated at th e site. For the purpose of this FSEIS , it is assumed that the additional spent fuel generated by the operation of a second un it would be accommodated at the site in a dry cask ISFSI. This generic ISFSI would be designed to store the number of additional spent nuclear fuel assemblies required for 40-year, two-unit operation at th e reactor site. T he additional fuel generated by the operation of Unit 2 would accelerate th e schedule for on-site dry cask spent fu el storage expansion at W BN. To date, no ISFSI has been constructed at W BN . Under the current schedule for Unit 1, an ISFSI would be needed by 201 8. Assuming WBN Unit 2 would begin operation in 2012, the ISFSI would be needed by 2015. The CLWR FEIS assessed th e number of dry storage casks needed to accommodate tritium production at WBN Unit 1 based on 24-pressurized water reactor spent nuclear fuel assembly capacity of four of the ISFSI cask designs in the United States at the time. Table 3-25 below updates Table 5-48 in the CLWR FEIS for WBN Unit 1 and adds data for Unit 2 to provide an estimated total number of casks that wouid be needed for 40 years of operation if WBN Unit 2 were completed . Although SON has received licensing approval to use casks that can contain 32 spent fuel assemblies, this evaluation uses the more conservative 24-fuel assembly cask design capacity. Note that the data for WBN Unit 2 reflects the difference between a unit producing tritium (Unit 1) and one that would not produce tritium (Unit 2). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 95

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Table 3-25. Data for Number of ISFSI Casks Determination ~: ,g~~.j~~.t.~~:~~~r;; ';:r:*(;~,*.:,}f:;"::?;11~i'*:*. ,n~lE.ft;,;:,?Xt1;~*:i'~l*'.;tl~!;f;y:~r~fSf:i';~~:~;fi:;:X*fH1;;l ;;~~~~.n~~:i! 1;,~~;~fti(~~:': Operating cycle length 18 months 18 months Fresh fuel assemblies per cycle - no tritium 80 80 Fresh fuel assemblies per cycle - maximum tritium 136 N/A Increase in fresh fuel assemblies due to tritium 56 N/A 1 Number of operating cycles in 40 years 27 27 Number of additional fuel assemblies for tritium 1512 N/A Number of ISFSI dry casks needed to store fuel assemblies due to tritium production activities 63 a Number of fuel assemblies for 40 year operation 2160 2160 Number of ISFSI dry casks needed to store fuel assemblies for 27 90 spent fuel pool (SFP) capacity shortfall, 23 Number of ISFSI dry casks needed to store fuel for each unit. b 90 90 Total number of ISFSI dry casks required for WBN site, two-unit 180 operation 1 Forty years of operation covers 26 refueling outages and 27 operating cycles. Spent fuel is discharged 27 times from each unit 2 Number is based on 24 fuel assembly cask designs. 3 SFP capacity shortfall is based on existing SFP usable capacity of 1363 storage cells. The number of casks tabulated above for Unit 1 SFP capacity shortfall has been reduced from level projected in the CLWR FEIS to reflect actual tritium generation rates of fuel assemblies being less than originally estimated (56). A number of ISFSI dry storage designs have been licensed by the NRC and are in operation in th e United States, including facilities at TVA's SQ N and BFN . Licensed designs include the metal casks and concrete casks. The majority of these operating ISFS ls 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 vertica l 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, since the Ho!tec 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 ISFSI deSign has been addressed . As stated above, although the multipurpose canister (MPC)-32 is being used at SON , this update has taken a more conservative approach using the MPC-24, since 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 96 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Ch apter 3 vendors and processes currently used at WBN and provide analysis of the effects of completing WBN Unit 2 on spent fuel storage construction and operation. 3.15.1, Construction Impacts The CLWR FEIS describes a NUHOMS-24P horizontal spent fuel storage module. Currently, HI-STORM vertical storage modules are used at SON. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the same type of storage modules would be used at WBN. The modules used at SON consist of cylindrical structure 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. The spent fuel storage site described for WBN Unit 1 in the CLWR FEIS was proposed to contain 63 spent nuclear fuel casks (see Table 3-25) . Using the SON ISFSI as a basis for calculating an appropriately sized pad, an area of approximately 55,800 square feet would be needed to store the 180 casks required to support a two-unit operation at WBN for 40 years. Assuming a proportionate ratio of area required for construction disturbance, nuisance fencing, and transport activities, a projected net disturbed area of approximately 2.2 acres would be required. The differences between constructions of an ISFSI for Unit 1 alone as compared to an ISFSI that would serve two units are shown in Table 3-26. Construction and installation of the HI-STORM modules would be simiiar to that described in the CLWR FEIS for the NUHOMS-24P, as would be the environmental effects. There is ample room at the WBN site to locate a storage facility. Table 3-26. ISFSI Construction for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 as Compared to Constii.iction of Soth Units 1 and 2

.* : ** *. ; 7~~!f:~r~~.I ::.;;*:?.I *:. ,.: ...cri~~~W~~~~:~:~~t~j:Si;-;r::~~~';i':' ::;~:j,~t;g~:*~};~\{\~~~~~~f~~\?-,-;}~jt;i;'< :l External appearance                63 Horizontal storage modules                     180 Vertical cylindrical storage Rectangular cubes 19 x 9.7 feet                   modules (casks) placed on a concrete constructed on three concrete cask               cask foundation pad of an foundation pads approximately 116.4 x            approximate area of 55,800 square 38 feet                                           feet and 2 feet thick. Each cask would be a nominal 12 feet in diameter and 21 feet tall.

Health and safety (only Dose rate: 0.5 mrem per hour Dose Rate: 0.5 mrem per hour construction work performed subsequent to Total dose during construction : 47.25 Total dose during constru ction: 135 the loading of any person-rem person-rem storage modules with spent fuel may result in w orker exposures from direct and skyshine radiation in the viCi nity of the loaded horizontal storage modules) Size of disturbed area ISFSI footprint 1.3 acres ISFSI footprint: 1.3 acres Disturbed: 5.3 acres Disturbed: 2.2 acres Materials (approximate) Concrete: 10,618 tons Concrete: 27 ,675 tons Steel: 1,208 tons Steel: 31 50 tons 1DOE 1999 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 97

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 3.15.2. Operational Impacts The NUHOMS horizontal storage module dry cask system described in the CLWR FEIS was designed and licensed to remove up to 24 kilowatts (kW) of decay heat safely from spent fuel by natural air convection. The Holtec HI-STORM dry cask storage system currently in use at SON 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°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 (Bosch 1976). 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 is equivalent to the heat released to the atmosphere from approximately 15 average cars. SON 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 th roug h the cooling vents results in a projected temperature of approximately 221°F. 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 would be equivalent to the heat released to the atmosphere from approximately 20 average cars. If approved, this type of cask could be used at WBN. The CLWR FEIS concluded that the heat emitted from the WBN ISFSI would have no effect on the environment or climate because of its small magnitude. Although an ISFSI large enough to accommodate two-unit spent fuel storage would emit somewhat more heat, th e amount is still negligible. The heat emitted by the fu lly loaded, largest projected ISFSI, even at the maximum design-licensed decay heat level for each cask of 28 kW, would be approximately 5000 kW (i.e., 180 casks x 28 kW =5040 kW or 5.04 MW), as compared to 2000 kW for the system analyzed in 1999. This increase of 3000 kW of heat added to the atmosphere is not large enough to change th e conclusion that this amount of heat is about 0.1 percent the heat released to the environment from any of th e proposed nuclear power plants-on the order of 2,400,000 kW for each operating nuclear reactor. The actu al decay heat from spent nuclear fuel in the ISFSI should be lower than 5000 kW and w ould decay with time due to the natural decay of fission products in th e spent nuclear fuel. As stated in the CLWR FEIS, the incremental loading of the ISFSI over a 40-year period would not generate the fulllSFSI 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 site total of 7200 kW would represent about 0.15 percent of the heat released to the enviro nment from any of the proposed nuclear power plants. Therefore, for the proposed 40-kW cask design, no noticeable effects on the environment or climate would be expected. The differences between the operation of an ISFSI for Unit 1 alone as compared to an ISFSI that would serve two units are shown in Table 3-27. TVA has concluded that due to the small magnitude of the total potential dose, the radiation dose to workers from ISFSI 98 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 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*27. ISFSI Operation for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 as Compared to Operation of Both Units 1 and 2 Equivalent to heat emitted into the atmosphere Effects of operation Equivalent to heat emitted into the atmosphere by approximately 15 average size cars, or 20 of the heat by approximately 2-6 averaged-sized cars. cars if the higher maximum heat load cask dissipation system proposed at SON is used. Transfer cask decontamination water Transfer cask decontamination water Facility water use consumption of less than 946 cubic feet. consumption of less than 2703 cubic feet. Worker exposure: As the result of daily Worker exposure: As the result of daily inspection of casks, during a 40-year life cycle, inspection of casks, during a 40-year life cycle, workers would be exposed to 58.8 person-rem. workers would be exposed to 168 person-rem . Radiological impact from routine Public exposure: The regulatory limit for public Public exposure: The reg ulatory lim it for publ ic operation exposure is 25 mrem per year. Doses received exposure is 25 mrem per year. Doses received by a member of the public living in the vicinity of by a member of the public living in the vi Cinity of the ISFSI would be well below the regulatory the ISF81 would be well below the regulatory requirements. requirements. Cask loading and decontamination operation Cask loading and decontamination operation Radwaste and generates less than 126 cubic feet of low-level generates less than 360 cubic feet of low-level source terms radioactive waste. radioactive waste. Small (approximately 0.1 percent of the nuclear Climatological Sma!! (less than 0.1 percent of the nuclear power plant's heat emission to the atmosphere, impact power plant's heat emission to the atmosphere) or approximately .15 percent if 40 kW cask are used) The horizontal storage module surface is not Impact of runoff from The storage cask surface is not contaminated. contaminated. No contaminated runoff is ope ration No contaminated runoff is expected. expected. 3.15.3. Pos tulated Accidents Th e CLWR FEI S analyzed the postulated accidents th at could occur at an ISFSI and concluded th at 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 fo r use at W BN for a two-unit operation would be of similar or better design than those analyzed in the mid-1990s, and any accident doses resulting from such a postu lated event w ould be consistent with doses previously determined. 3.16. Trans portation of Radioactive Materials The effects of transporting nuclear fuels and radioactive wastes are addressed in the 1972 FES. The 1995 FSER addressed the transportation of spent fu els and radioactive "'oIaste. The transportation of radioactive w aste and spent fuel are addressed briefly in Section 3. 14 and 3.15 of this document. The 1972 FES analYSis was based on the annual shipment of about 100 tons of natural uranium. Analysis was based on 30 years of plant operation with annual refueling. As the FES explained, relatively low levels of radiation are emitted from Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 99

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 unirradiated new fuel assemblies. Therefore, the only exposu re to people from the routine shipment of new fuel would be in direct view and 10 the individual truck drivers assigned. The exposure in the cab of the fuel transport truck was estimated to be 0.1 mrem per hour, and exposure to transportation personnel was estimated to be less than 1 mrem per shipment. This level would not cause any adverse effects. The FES also discussed accident potential , concluding that there would be no significant environmental risks from radiation resulting from an accident involving a shipment of new fuel (TVA 1972). In the review of the FES, TVA concluded that the analysis of new fuel shipments in the 1972 FES was still valid at that time (TVA 1993a). When TVA applied for an operating license for WBN Unit 1, plans were for 40 years of operations, with refueling to occur every 18 months. The 1995 NRC FES stated that the proposed changes would result in a slight reduction in fuel usage as compared to the original application and that the changes would not alter the conclusion that the dose and potential health effects would be small compared to the effects of natural radiation doses (NRC 1995a). Currently, 54 tons of new fuel is shipped annually to WBN Unit 1. If WBN Unit 2 were completed, fo r two-unit operation , there would be four reloads in three years, which would work out to 107 tons shipped annually. The 1972 FES indicated that fuel would most likely be shipped by truck, although transport by barge or rail was also considered. An estimated 10 shipments per year were expected, with up to seven shipping containers per load, each containing two fuel assemblies or a maximum of 14 assemblies per truck shipment. The FES discussed six shipping routes. Currently, TVA receives seven shipments per reload with a maximum number of assemblies per truck of 12, packed in six shipping containers. Westinghouse is developing new shipping containers and will only be able to ship 10 assemblies per truck in 10 shipping containers. They expect to be required to start using the new containers in 2009. The Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Plants (AEC 1972) and Supplement 1 (NRC 1975) evaluated the environment al effects of transportation of fuel and waste for light water reactors and found the impacts to be s mall. Th ese analyses provided the basis for Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52, which summarizes th e environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from a reference reactor. Both normal conditions of transport and accidents are addressed in the table. Subparagraph 10 CFR 5 1.52(a)(5) requires that unirradiated fuel be shipped t o the reactor site by truck. A condition that the truck shipments not exceed 73,000 pounds as governed by fedeial or state gross vehicle weight restrictions is included in Table S-4 . New fuel assemblies would be transported to W BN Units 1 and 2 by truck from a fuel f abrication facility, in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation and NRC regulations. The in itial fuel loading for Unit 2 would cons ist of 193 fuel assemblies. Every 18 months, refueling would require an average of 80 fuel assemblies. The fu el assemblies, which are fabricated at a fuel fabrication plant, w ould be shipped by truck to W BN shortly before they are required. Truck shipments would not exceed the applicable federal or state gross vehicle weight. If WBN Unit 2 were completed, TVA would comply with all NRC, state, and fed eral requirements for transport of un irradiated fuel, as it does with fuel deliveries for Unit 1. The impacts of such deliveries on human health and the environment are expected to be minimal. 100 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 3 3.17. Decommissioning Post-operational impact considerations were addressed in the 1972 FES (TVA 1972) under short-term versus long-term productivity and irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. Decommissioning is also addressed in the 1995 NRC FES (NRC 1995a) and TVA's 1995 FSER (TVA 1995b). As these documents explain, at the end of the operating life of the WBN units, TVA would seek the termination of its operating license from NRC. Termination requires that the units be decommissioned, a process that ensures the units are safely removed from service and the site made safe for unrestricted use. Consistent with the 1995 FSER, TVA is not proposing a decommissioning plan now. A decommissioning plan would be developed for approval by NRC, with appropriate environmental reviews, when TVA applies for decommissioning of these units in the future. Methods The three NRC-approved methods of decommissioning nuclear power facilities described in the 1995 FSER are still viable alternatives. These are:

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 reacior pressure vessel and internals would be removed along with removal and 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 from the 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, rad ioactive structures, systems, and components are encased in a structurall y long-lived substa nce, 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 WBN is decommissioned, new, improved technologies, including use of robotics, will have been developed and approved by NRC. Cost In 1995, NRC estimated that it would cost up to $200 million to decommission a pressurized water reactor like WBN Units 1 and 2. NRC currently estimates that decommissioning Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 101

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 would cost up to $366 million in today's dollars. TVA maintains a nuclear decommissioning trust to provide money for the ultimate decommissioning of its nuclear power plants. The fund is invested in securities generally designed to achieve a return in line with overall equity market performance. In June 1994, this fund had accumulated $50 million. Since then, funds have been accumulated to cover the cost of decommissioning TVA's operating nuclear units. The assets of the decommissioning trust fund as of December 31, 2006, totaled $1004 million. This balance is greater than the present value of the estimated future nuclear decommissioning costs for TVA's operating nuclear units. The present value is calculated by escalating the decommissioning cost in today's dollars by 4 percent per year through decommissioning. This liability is then discounted at a 5 percent real rate of return. This equates into an estimated decommissioning liability present value of $699 million at calendar year end 2006. TVA monitors the assets of its nuclear decommissioning trust versus the present value of its liabilities and believes 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. At the time WBN Unit 2 commences operation, TVA would create a separate tru st account for the unit within the decommissioning trust fund and would make any necessary contributions to the fund to cover the costs of future decommissioning. Pot ential Impacts to the Environment Environmental issues associated with decommissioning were analyzed in the Generic Environmenta/lmpact Statement for Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996a; 1999). The generic environmental impact statement included a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to a" 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 NRC, 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 requ ire additional plant-specific review. Environmental analysis of the future decommissioning plan for WBN 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 environm ental reviews would be condu cted at the time a decommissioning plan for WBN is proposed. 102 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4 CHAPTER 4 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 4.1. NEPA Project Management Ruth M. Horton Position : Senior NEPA Specialist, NEPA Services, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: B.S., History Experience: 28 years in Public Policy and Planning, including 10 years in Environmental Impact Assessment Involvement: NEPA Compliance and Document Preparation Bruce L. Yeager Positron: NEPA Program Manager, NEPA Policy, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: M.S., Zoology (Ecology) ; B.S., Zoology (Aquatic Ecology) Experience: 31 years in Environmental Compliance for Water, Air, and Land Use Planning; Environmental Business Services Involvement: NEPA Policy Compliance and Document Preparation 4.2. Other Contributors Steven F. Amick Position: Specialist Engineer, Flood Risk and Data Management, River Operations Education/Experience: B.S., Civil Engineering with 30 years experience in the development floodplain data; Registered Professional Engineer Involvement: Floodplains and Flood Risk J oh n (80) T. Baxter Position: Senior Aquatic Biologist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: M.S. and B.S. , Zoology Experience: 17 years in Protected Aquatic Species Monitoring, Habitat Assessment, and Recovery; 7 years in Environmental Review Involvement: Aquatic EcologyfThreatened and Endangered Species Stephanie A. Chance Position: Biologist, Aquatic Endangered Species, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxvllle, Tennessee Education: M.S., Environmental Biology; B.S., Fisheries Bioiogy Experience: 7 years in Aquatic Biology; 3 years in Environmental Reviews I nvo/vement: Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 103

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Jim C hardos Position: Program Manager, Tritium Production, TVA Nuclear, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Spring City, Tennessee Education: B.S., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Executive MBA, Rutgers University Experience: 6 years in the U.S. Nuclear Submarine Service; 37 years in Nuclear Plant Project Management Involvement: Project Manager Patricia 8. Cox Position: Senior Botanist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: Ph.D., Botany (Plant Taxonomy and Anatomy); M.S. and B.S. , Biology Experience: 30 years in Plant Taxonomy at the Academic Level; 3 years with TVA Heritage Project Involvement: Terrestrial Ecology, Invasive Plant Species, and T hreatened and Endangered Species Eric J . Davis Position: Senior Financial Analyst, TVA Treasury - Finance, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: A.S., Business Administration, B.S., Economics and Finance, M.B.A., General Management, C.F.A., Chartered Financial Analyst Experience: 7 years in Treasury - Finance Involvement: Decommissioning James H. Eblen Position: Contract Economist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: PhD. , Economics; B.S. , Business Administration Experience: 39 years in Economic Analysis and Research Involvement: Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Michael A. Eiffe Position: Specialist, TVA River Operations, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: B.S., M.E., Civil and Environmental Engineering Experience: 27 years in w ater resource systems analysis Involvement: Surface Water Hydrothermal Analysis Herbert V. Garrett J r. Position: Project Manager, TVAN - Nuclear Generation Development and Business Support Education: B.S.M.E. Experience: 27 years in Nuclear Engineering Design Involveme nt: Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems 104 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4 T rav is Hill Henry Position: Terrestrial Zoologist Specialist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education : M.S., Zoology; B.S., Wildlife Biology Experience: 17 years in Zoology, Endangered Species, and NEPA Compliance Involvement: Terrestrial Ecology, Threatened and Endangered Species Paul N. Hopping Position: Technical Specialist, Reservoir Operations, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: Ph.D. Civil and Environmental Engineering; M.S. and B.S., Civil Engineering Experience: 23 years in Hydrothermal and Surface Water Analysis Involvement: Hydrothermal and Surface Water Analysis Clinton E. Jones Position: Aquatic Community Ecologist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: B.S. , Wildlife and Fisheries Science Experience: 15 years in Environmental Consultation and Fisheries Management Involvement: Aquatic Ecology and Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species William Keeler Position: Geographic Information System Specialist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: B.S., Communications, Geographic Information and Technology Certification Experience: 16 years experience in Geographic Information Systems Involvement: Mapping W. Richard King Position: Senior Project manager, TVA Facilities Management, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: Architectural design Experience: 39 years in Facilities Management and Master Planning Involvement: Site planning Perry D. Maddux Position: Project Manager, Nuclear Generation Development, Chattanooga, Tennessee Education: Bachelor of Chemical Engineering Experience: 24 years in Nuclear Design Activities Involvement: Spent Fuel Storage Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 105

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Zita I. Martin Position: Spent Fuel Program Manager, Nuclear Fuel Supply and Disposal, Chattanooga, Tennessee Education: B. S., Nuclear Engineering Experience: 27 years in Nuclear Fuel , including 15 years dealing with Spent Fuel Storage Involvement: Spent Fuel Storage Roger A. Milstead Position: Manager, TVA Flood Risk and Data Management, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: B.S., Civil Engineering; Registered Professional Engineer Experience: 30 years in Floodplain and Environmental Evaluations Involvement: Floodplains and Flood Risk Jason M. Mitchell Position: Natural Areas Biologist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: M.P.A. (Environmental Policy); B.S ., Wildlife and Fisheries Science Experience: 13 years in Natural Resource Planning and Ecological Assessment with Emphasis on Sensitive Resources Involvement: Natural Areas Jeffrey W. Munsey Position: Civil Engineer (Dam Safety), TVA River Operations, Knoxville, Tennessee Educati on: M.S. and B.S. , Geophysics Experience: 21 years in Geophysical and Geological Studies and Investigations, including Applications to Environmenta l Assessments Involvement: Seismology J erri L. Phillips Position: Chemistry/Environmental Technical Support, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Spring City, Tennessee Education: M.S., Environmental Science _ Experience: 9 years of Environmental Science experience, including Fresh/Salt Water Studies/Fieldwork Continentally and Abroad Involvement: Raw Water Chemical Additives Kim Pilarski Position: Wetlands Biologist Specialist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education : M.S., Geography Experience: 12 years in W atershed A ssessment and Wetland Regulation and Assessment Involvement: Wetlands 106 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4 Doyle E. Pittman Position: Program Manager, TVA Nuclear, Chattanooga, Tennessee Education: B.S. , Atmospheric Science Experience: 30 years in Meteorological Support for Nuclear Power Plants Involvement: Climatology and Meteorology Christopher D. Ungate Position: Senior Consultant, Sargent & lundy, Chattanooga, Tennessee Education: M.S. and B.S., Civil Engineering; M.B.A. Experience: 32 years in Engineering, Planning, and Management Involvement: Need for Power Analysis Edward (Ted) W. Wells III Position: Contract Archaeologist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee Education: M.A. and B.S. , Anthropology Experience: 8 years Cultural Resource Management Involvement: Cultural Resources Cheryl K. Whitaker Position: Health Physicist Radwaste, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Spring City, Tennessee Education: B.S., Radiation Protection Experience: 24 years in Radiation Protection , including 7 years in Radwaste Involvement: Radwaste Eddie Woods Position: Nuclear Chemist, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Spring City, Tennessee Education: B.S., Chemistry, M.B.A. Experience: 26 years in Nuclear Power Chemistry and Radiation Assessment Involvement: Radiological Effects Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 107

Chapter 5 CHAPTER 5 5.0 DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT AND FINAL SEIS 5.1. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Draft or Final SEIS Were Sent and to Whom E-links Were Provided Following is a list of agencies, organizations, officials, libraries and individuals to whom either published copies (bound or compact disc [CD]) of the DSEIS were provided, or Web links to an active TVA Web site from which the document can be accessed were sent. Those names with an asterix (*) received copies of both the FSEIS and DSEIS. Names of those who received only the FSEIS are listed at the end of this section . Agencies/Individuals Receiving the DSEIS (Hard Copy or CD) and E-mail Notification of FSEIS Availability Including Active E-Link to TVA Web Site Address for the Document Dr. Richard Allen Mr. Terry Cole History and Culture Office Cultural Resources Director Cherokee Nation Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Tahlequah, OK Durant, OK Mr. Tyler Howe Chief Gregory E. Pyle Historic Preservation Specialist Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Eastern Band of the Cherokee Durant, OK Indians Cherokee, NC Ms. Lillie Strange Environmental Director Mr. Russ Townsend Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Jena, LA Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians Ms. Joyce Bear Cherokee, NC Historic Preservation Officer Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Ms. Lisa Stapp Oklahoma Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Okmulgee, OK Officer United Keetoowah Band of Ms. Beryl 8 attise Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Tah!equah , OK Office r Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Ms. Virginia (Gingy) Nail Texas Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Livingston, TX The Chickasaw Nation Cultural Resources Department Ms. Augu stine Asbury Ada, OK Cultural Preservation Coordinator Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Wetumka , OK Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 109

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Ms. Evelyn Bucktrot Ms. Robin DuShane Mr. Gary Bucktrot Cultural Preservation Director Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Kialegee Tribal Town Oklahoma Wetumka, OK Seneca, MO Mr. Charles Coleman Chief Charles Enyart NAGPRA Representative Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Oklahoma Weleetka, OK Seneca, MO Ms. Karen Kaniatobe Mr. Ron Sparkman Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Chairman Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Shawnee Tribe Oklahoma Miami, OK Shawnee OK Ms. Rebecca Hawkins Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Shawnee Tribe Miami, OK Agenciesllndividuals Receiving the DSEIS and/or FSEIS (Hard Copy or CD) u.S. Congressional Staff Senator Lamar Alexander (Jeff Lewis - Staff)* Senator Bob Corker (Betsy Renalli - Staff)* Congressman Zach Wamp (Leigh McClure - Staff)*

u. S. (Federal) Officials Dr. Lee Barclay, Field Supervisor*

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cookeville, Tenn. Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance* Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. Mr. Ron Gatlin, Chief* Regul atory Branch U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Nashville, Tenn. Mr. Heinz Mueller, Chief* Office of Environmental Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Atlanta, GA 110 Fina! Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 5 State and Local Agencies Mr. Mike .Apple, Director* Pamala Myers* Division of Solid Waste Environmental Protection Tennessee Department of Specialist Environment and Conservation TDEC-Water Pollution Control Nashville, Tenn. Nashville, Tenn. Ms. Jennifer Bartlett* Edward M. Polk, Jr., P.E*, Tennessee Division of Archeology Manager Nashville, Tenn . TDEC DWPC, Permit Section Nashville, Tenn. Mr. Wilton Burnette* Tennessee Department of Mr. Reggie Reeves, Director* Economic and Community Division of Natural Areas Development TDEC Nashville, Tenn. Nashville, Tenn. Mr. Ed Cole, Chief,* Mr. Barry Stephens, Director* Environment and Planning Division of Air Pollution Control Tennessee Department of TDEC Transportation Nashville, Tenn. Nashville, Tenn . Mr. Robert Todd

• Mr. Paul Davis, Director* Tennessee Wildlife Resources Division of Water Pollution Contra! Agency TDEC Nashville, Tenn .

Nashville, Ten n. Mr. Richard Tune* Mr. Robert Foster, Director* Tennessee Historical Commission Division of Water Supply Nashville, Ten n. TDEC Nashville, Tenn. Commissioner James Fyke* TDEC Nashville, Tenn. State and Local Legislators and Officials State Senator Dewayne Bunch (Meigs, McMinn, and Bradley Counties, Tenny State Senator Tom Kilby (Rhea County, Tenn.)* State Representative Eric Watson (Meigs and Bradley Counties, Tenn.)* State Representative Jim Cobb (Rhea and Hamilton County, Tenn.)* Mayor Ken Jones, (Meigs County, Tenn.)* Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 111

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Mayor Billy Ray Patton (Rhea County, Tenny Mayor Kelly Reed (Spring City, Tenny Libraries Chattanooga- Hamilton County Bicentennial Library Chattanooga, Tenn. 37402 Knoxville Public Library I Lawson McGhee Library Knoxville, TN 37902 Lenoir City Public Library Lenoir City, Tenn. Loudon Public Library Loudon, Tenn. Meigs - Decatur Public Library Decatur, Tenn. Clyde W . Roddy Public Library Dayton , Tenn.

        ,Al.udrey Pack ~.~emorial Library Spring City, Tenn .

E. G. Fisher Public Library Athens, Tenn. Cleveland Public Library RECEIVE~ Cleveland , Tenn. AUG 1 8 2010 Perm;, SeCUOll 112 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 5 Persons Receiving E-mail Notification of DSEIS and FSEIS Document Availability Including Active E-Link to TVA Web Site Address for the Document u.s. Congressional Staff Mr. Todd Womack, staff of Senator Bob Corker Mr. Patrick Jaynes, staff of Senator Lamar Alexander Mr. David Leaverton, staff of Senator Lamar Alexander Mr. Jonathan Griswold, staff of Congressman Jimmy Duncan Ms. Beth Hickman, staff of Congressman Lincoln Davis State and Local Legislators and Officials State Senator Randy McNally (Loudon and Monroe Counties, Tenn.) State Senator Bo Watson (Hamilton County, Tenn.) State Senator Ward Crutchfield (Hamilton County, Tenn.) State Representative Kevin Brooks (Bradley County, Tenn.) State Representative Richard Floyd (Hamiiton County, Tenn.) State Representative Gerald McCormick (Hamilton County, Tenn.) State Representative JoAnne Favors (Hamilton, County) State Representative Tommie Brown (Hamilton , County) State Representative Vince Dean (Hamilton, County) State Representative Mike Bell (McMinn and Monroe Counties) State Representative Jimmy Matlock (Loudon and Monroe, Counties) State Representative Dennis Fergu son (Loudon County) Brad!ey County Mayor Gary Davis Hamilton County Mayor Claude Ramsey Loudon County Mayor Doyle Arp Knox County Mayor Mike Ragsdale McMinn County Mayor John Gentry Final Supplemental Environmental impact Statement 113

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Monroe County Mayor Allan Watson Roane County Mayor Mike Farmer Chattanooga City Mayor Ron Littlefield Knoxville City Mayor Bill Haslam Additional Persons Receiving the FSEIS Hard Copies or CDs Dennis Beissel Joe McCarthy Washington , DC Spring City, TN Cathy 8enog Linda Modica Graysville, TN Jonesborough, TN Howard Cohen Jerry Miller Knoxville, TN Sale Creek, TN Ken Jones Bob Nordyke Decatur, TN Dayton, TN Frances Lambert Jonesborough, TN E-mail Notification of Document AvaiJability Including Active E-Link to TVA Web Site Address for the Document Thomas Markham Terry Broyles Lookout Mountain, GA Spring City, TN Mac McMillan Andrew Eder Spring City, TN Knoxville, TN Zackery Rad Max Hackett Soddy Daisy, TN Dayton , TN Cliff Hightower Chattanooga, TN Post Card See Attachment A, Appendix D Response to Comments for a listing of those who sent TVA a copy of a form letter bye-mail. Ben McDonald Spring City, TN 114 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 5 5.2. DSEIS Press Release TVA Seeks Comments on Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Environmental Statement April 6, 2007 SPRING CITY, Tenn. TVA is reviewing potential environmental impacts of the possible completion and operation of Unit 2 at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant near Spring City and has made a draft supplemental environmental impact statement available for public comment. An open house on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement will be held April 17. The open house is scheduled from 4:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Rhea County High School in Evensville. TVA is currently conducting a detailed cost and scheduling study on the feasibility of completing Unit 2 to help meet growing demand for power and to maximize the use of an existing asset. Unit 2 was more than half complete when construction was halted in 1985. Under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, TVA prepared the draft supp!emental environmental impact statement to update environmental reports previously prepared for the construction of the unit. Along with the detailed engineering and feasibility study currently under way, the environmental review will help TVA decide whether to complete the second unit at the plant. Unit 1 at Watts Bar began commercial operation in 1996. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement is available here and . also in many loca l libraries. It will be available at the open house April 17. A ll written comments must be received by May 14. Comments may be submitted by mail to Ruth Horton, 400 Summit Hill Drive (WT-11 D), Knoxville , TN 37902 ; on the intern et; or fax to (865) 632-345 1. Any comments rece ived , including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and will be available for public inspection . ."v,.K I . ' ~~he IS l i1~"*iOr.'~ Cll ,I;:) la~g~s' :"Iub';c I e ll'" . II pO-r Vv o;;; 1-" V <:; , "'

                                                     "-'v'ld~p   CH...., ...

rI ;s

                                                                                , ....cmplo+oly
                                                                                  ..... , "v<v, sC\!ff:n   ~ ..
                                                                                                 " . . . , ..... n",'l
                                                                                                                   .... *nn
                                                                                                                          ,~.

TVA provides power to large industries and 158 power distributors that serve approximately 8.7 million consumers in seven southeastern states. TVA also manages the Tennessee River and its tributaries to provide multiple be nefits, including flood damage reduction , navigation, water quality and recreation. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 115

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 5.3, Information Open House Paid Advertisement fJriJ '. ii TVA WIU Hold an Open Hous9 on U!& OraU: SUppl.ment8i Environmental rmpact Statement tar the CompleUon of Unlt ~ at WaU'S Bar Nuclear Plant

     'S.*l,I",'
         f' "",If,i,;~!I't.j            J,1 inl')f'III"i,.'-H ')i!d~
                                ,iLij ",jl. irutlt"'fr.'ul !uii'i([ '1:11 <,,, **
                                                                                  }jj!U""     n    alL' ~""'J (.'i'llllt~' Jfil!h :;';;i;;.Jili' '11 1:ll',I'lIit*, ',blR. ",~J'.ll fil><: ,ina'.

,f.£ (Sri;;') flIt 11l¢' f-..... ~"~k <.'I:tf.I~(II*) "n  !.ft'l ~ ;.j W~~;, I:U;' :\:1I,'I.c;j;f ,1'1;."!

      , ', on    ~rr II;' ;(c.1                to  .l~'I' hf' :11)1 t it1K' (""I i :.~t:l V,fl' "t"; ,F . I1~, H; ll';,~ '~l'rI~ Ift_ i~,;H7: ,!uo1.i!"dl'n>.I"*" f">ll"'i ((>,:,..11.;, '"                                     'd.

1\~;\ "r~; lf;(llt ~1)1 IJr1~ (*U~:~JJu::HIi ;a.ftUl,W: tJu,* ~'II""r-t J.j.;.H:I~~lt

      .~:\:!:~ e.'~ ;lll:l1iH.I~~ntt 'H t~.fU~lh**H: 1 : ~ljl ~1 ~'" .J: n ~(*J:W" III.' uu;",:! }H';l~~ ~" fl ~I~,~t (i/H :1H..:m:I(" ~.HJ,,~ il.] :rn~'i; ~q' ~t~ 1.'4" {~I '.:.il
     ;>11 ~~ :"i1I1~ ii '~<'t. l'I!:'i1 l,~_~;\';I1I!,tt! ikw luHi:iin,pli'liO'lf:t!i'll ;;;1I""Hl li"'!';.;;n~,';I .. hl'[i.'.i i:? l'\-.<\.n f*~~"i. TilL! r.tJ1lI Vi liI:II,1 to!' 'F'nJlriM!'~ :.I' 1.iL'~j~f'IP.1 U",illl" d!iC' c ,\.i<;tiLl1: ;lrllihHn~ ~llId lnrr.l~ru!.'lm,['. ni<:flor' {}ru\~~ii:on, 1l4' flit' ~.I11lltu!

l:n.'~n.nll, .~*,itl'! ~., *./Ii"~ ,".,'1. 'lV.\ li...,~'!;Ih::.J 1)1~' ,,!~ ~i'l S'iJ~ t,)1j,,'>\1;>11~' tll~- ~r1>'i"' ",.-m"l!f;i! fl:l'","1'" !J*. ~ U:~f'!~' ('tr-ll".r('ll r..r rli,' "'~,'~lf!l. rHi" ",f 'II"" ,mil , ,\1,11'11: y,lIh ~h<,' ..-kf~ir;::>l rllJ:ifl<'~'rlnj; :10111 k",J"ihifilr ~1*j)lr,' L' I;ff""l1~' " ....li'I'YI .* t , (h f~ qill' ~II'f;>1 "'~It: ..... ".!I "'~I" 'I"'-;~ 'I!,,'!o~ v.1lc!l!~'r ii' /U', I~I \',">>pIt:I(" "'lir ;:. d!l: Ifriln ~t~ ~ '!i ,I;' f"TI",~,t1 ..wj (Tlol'.k ,;n '",iI"bf,* r-,-r 4 1~h: rHh, w .on ~.lr't'l M'. ,J~i(I;'. '1'(;""11:0. ",ifi, tnh:vu;1 ~,<'(:;<,.

     ~" i>ij h"':,."y;               tf. jiHI "~lU-fj,if ~~-I:H;'fiw*iU".p il*l4,*.j,i;.fj*~*Jc.""i.r/;-I:'{;h.li~JW.rJJ, ~/n-:Ijr;lt1.e."*,fnjr.fj/.J.:l;.J/ \"1" i.:'".in .;tf~1 t'"':II~ .;i: ,l:Jt~

I" ,,-\rYllilljl: if., f*lI',ua"I",,,.......(...'! f . .. .. r or ~'Jillr~ !.u.~'l-6,~1*X'f 19, l.;'-'I!k~ -,,1 ~h.: !1r;ltl ;\U'; wIH i~ "L*a~J.N.f.- "I lbi.' "-!lSn 1Io!JliI'~ ~I'"l {If:;- ,,;;1.., ilu.lJhk:Jt ll..:- r,;!l.......*i!)j.; IR.h!if lili~j,rib : ( IUU"'1I:HI};A "HIlII~n" ~_:"'ul:rt1 J\l<.:t:(lI<llU~'1I l.,f,rH)'

'::;'i ..~ ;.iH..-* !,;:~ :.! .~** Uht'... r f; .' t ....~*~~:-L~f.(~~!!:,o:::' nhf.:.!:""o;.

    ' _'-'I)!",r'nj':' l'nb1k tll...-.!!;)                                                                  .

tlH~lnn i"I~I~il: I.HK-:.1!';t 1:..c:':7IH!f 1,'uN "; l~ rJ,rr.' t: :l ~llll: 'li ~' '11~' t'J.ll~lt",, *l jJ1f ..:r*;~ i~;:.~f.(n~

    .'ml~,' )-' I',lLk " ',' Ololl'f'i)l UI'Y.u~; ;'~'rir~                            <,~~
    !-' ( * . 1;" h",.' l'lIltli, ' 1,lhun:... ~th~ l""

[ J,", J*.ln~t t".*uht ... ~ "hr ~ f!o

    'i.".~\ i.-~ .; ut:r r;;l.li;t~ *h~* ~rldyjnJ.! i,*..'l}.ttKIll.'\ ~n .l1 ~ df~~ ~ Eh: r;.IT l;~r~ r~~1('T"'.::: ~I~ I~ ;"1~H11~~~l.:;1~ '~I( IlU;lJ :~ -l~ ..\ It
   ",iJl-,nlt:' n~' , It(,'ii: :!. t.i- hY'*'h'il tw 'JY,\ JI';' Ur:.'f ; b.m :r.I"~ H . ~"r:-, ,,"'11\' ,*'lm;mi,',01..' rL'f:.' i\*,~ sJ, 1I,,~I~lii il1)l IlJO;"~
   ,;,!.;!}4'1 !l1:f,,..r,;r,! "':," 1: ", '0. ~H hroi.' ~W!' ~\-I{'t: H~'1'iH: hl~'H~q~ ...1r:"I ~",,'" -f~:I,"t"'lj ~H~'f v.                 u*i   1:.-[: .!'*-!*iI~i'~I.: '*...' r .,.'Ibhl: Hl"1-~:'" t hH'1.

I)j".:n i!';_J't' -,.;;~ l f~-' ~I".q,: I" ,:1Il: 1l"!HI~'lI!m l.~ Il;h("~ C.lOm~' Uijl,11 l<L1H,,:4 UII.: , dl(;':" "!o;"Jtni JioO'rW .;iI ~',J y l,,,,,, 1,:"'1' iii r~* ljh*.:,JI&.! .il gl'; IrKi*.t,* H.J.:JJd . ',.i.!.,j.6t r..;..Ht

• kj'i~"". 1."1"1 ~ "lm.1S: l4'i=:'!" 1::;1 J. ti~hli..J~' ~ ....

Han llKfl,l",r ,,1' lbr 11\1,'1...: l:l~'< ~p{',,' JH fJo:: . . \i**. r~r..l~ t~1'1 Illt.: prr~"fJ ll'<l;r,J :1;:1"Vi ;lI 'lr,l '" ,,, I.: 'r,l~" {lfi'!'" il,;/ii'

   "'~1 "!1       hnh.....-(~ ,:nlld;lJI~

r:,.nmr"., 'l' t.~Jt' t':"i: "HIM;ljt~I,~i vil~t.!l: ~' I n' f;' ~ r,.:"(i .1\"1J*.l.*~1,wintfl'I!;[.'",nt,*"q~*;"*,*_rj~",:_*.! 'i!f*!~tt.tr_~I/< :I'*n'uik,' ~.t I"'If!*J"Jt.r~t"'tb';(/~ f~ {i.tltf

   ~;.:.~ i:"'~J:JIt,t         rq R.ii, Hcli'tutd, !inti", .. NJ;PA lIi;roci1iIiJ;l;it
   .;l,!" :!-t;l!lumi H.J1 ~)r jl<: i, 't§.' 1* lin)
   ~-n1:,10 l. flit: , 'J,~ J-....I~H1 I   t*jit*.",H ~i ~ .. ~"" ~ I.)

116 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 5 5.4. Information Open House Handout Information Open House Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Rhea County High School April 17, 2007 Thank you for attending our information open house. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the opportunity for you to ask questions about the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and to make comments on TVA's analysis of the potential for environmental effects from completing Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2. TVA is reviewing potential environmental impacts of the proposed completion and operation of Unit 2 at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) near Spring City, Tennessee, and has made a draft SEIS available for public comment. Under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, TVA prepared the draft SEIS to update environmental reports previously prepared for the construction and operation of the unit. TVA will use information from both a detailed engineering and feasibility study currently underNay and the SEIS to make an informed decision about whether or not to complete and operate Unit 2. TVA encourages your comments on the draft SEIS. Please note that to be included in the official project record, comments must be received by TVA during the 45-day comment period. For ease of commenting, comments can be made today either oraiiy to the court reporter or in writing on the attached mail-back comment form. Comments can also be submitted through TVA's web site, www.tva.gov/environmentlreports/wattsbar2/.by e-mail tvawattsbar2@tva.com. by fax to 865-632-3451, or by surface mail to the address below. Comments must be rec eived no later than May 14,2007. Ruth Horton TVA NEPA Services 400 W est Summit Hill Drive (Wr-11 D) Knoxville, TN 37902. Proposed A ction TVA is proposing completion and operation of WBN Unit 2 to meet the need for additional baseload capacity on the TVA system and to maximize the use of an existing assets. The unit would be compl eted as originally designed, alongside its twin , Unit 1, which began commercial operation in 1996 . Only minimal new construction is proposed , and no expansion of the existing site footprint would be required. Previous environmental reviews and studies have been completed to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with completion and operation of WBN Unit 2. This draft document supplements, verifies, and updates the information and analyses in those reviews. No effects beyond those discussed in previous environmental reviews were identified. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 117

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Fact Sheet Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) is one of three licensed TVA nuclear power plant sites, and is located on 1700 acres at the northern end of Chickamauga Reservoir near Spring City, Tennessee. Unit 1 on the plant site currently operates a Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor with a capacity of 1167 megawatts-enough electricity to supply about 650,000 homes. Unit 2 could provide more than 1150 megawatts of electricity in 2013 . Construction on Unit 2 was halted in 1985 and TVA subsequently focused its efforts on completing Unit 1. Currently in construction deferred status, Unit 2 is estimated to be about 60 percent complete. Unit 2 is designed as a twin plant to the operating Unit 1 and would be completed and operated the same as Unit 1. TVA holds a valid construction permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the completion of WBN Unit 2. Completing Unit 2 would make use of existing buildings located on an operating nuclear plant site and would therefore would have less impact on the environment compared to new plant construction on a new site. No additional land would be needed to complete Unit 2. TVA estimates completion of Unit 2 would cost between $2 and $3 billion dollars. This dollar amount will be refined in the Detailed Scoping, Estimating, and Planning (DSEP) study currentiy underway. The draft SEIS estimates the peak construction and engineering workforce needed to complete Unit 2 would be roughly 2600, of which approximately 2200 would be on-site workers. Of these only 40 percent (900) workers would be expected to move into the area. The DSEP wi ll provide a more complete workforce estimate. Demand for electricity in the TVA power service area has grown at th e average rate of 2.4 percent per year for the past 15 years. Future growth in demand is estimated to be around 2 percent annually . TVA anticipates having to add baseload capacity to its system in the next decade to meet continued growth in demand for power. No decision has been made to build any new base-load generation beyond completing Browns Ferry Unit 1. Supplementa! EIS C ompletion Schedule Public Comment Period March 30 - May 14, 2007 Publie Seoping Meeting April 17, 2007 Issue Final SEIS June 22, 2007 Anticipated TVA Decision August 2007 118 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 5 COMMENTS: continued on back fold page along dotted line before mailing Watts Bar Unit 2 Compietion and Operation Comment Card ,------, Place Stamp Here

• FROM (please print clearly)

Name Mr.lMs.lMrs. Org anization: TO: Ruth Horton TVA NEPA Services Address 400 West Summit Hill Drive WT llD-K City Knoxville, TN 37902 State: Zip: Te!ephone: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 119

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclea r Plant Unit 2 COMMENTS continued: If you would like a copy ofthe Final SEIS, please check appropriate box: o I would like to be notified by TV A ,:ycbsite. 0 e-mail or o U.S. mail (select one) when the FSEIS if available on the E-mail address_ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ D I would like to receive a printed copy of the FSEIS by U.S. mail. D I would like to receive a copy of the FSEIS on compact disc by U.S. mail. 120 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 6 CHAPTER 6 6.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION 6.1. Literature Cited Atomic Energy Commission. 1972. The EiJvironmental SUNey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Plants. WASH-1238. Bosch, R. 1976. Automotive Handbook. Stuttgart, Germany: Robert Bosch GmbH Automotive Equipment Division, Department for Technical Publications. Baxter, D. S., K. D. Gardner, and G. D. Hickman. 2001. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Coaling Water System Fish Monitoring Program. Norris: Tennessee Valley Authority, Resource Stewardship. Calabrese, F.A. 1976. Excavations at 40RH6 Watts Bar Area, Rhea County, Tennessee. Chattanooga: University of Tennessee, Department of Sociology and Anthropology. Dynamic Solutions. 2007. RFP 103006 Report Rev1 Watts Bar Unit 2 Thermal Effluent Study, prepared for TVA by Dynamic solutions, LLC. February 9, 2007. Hadjerioua, B. and Lindquist, K. F. 2003. "Diffuser Design to Maximize Instantaneous Mixing of Elevated Ammonia Levels Discharged from KIF Ash Pond into the Intake Channel." Norris: Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory, WR2003 36-128. Jirka, Gerhard, H., R. L. Doneker, and S. W. Hinton. User's Manual for CORM/X: A Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface Waters. Office of Science and Tech nology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D. C.. September 1996. Karimi. R. 2007. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Severe Reactor Accident Analysis. Germantown, Maryland: Science Applications Intern ational Corporation . Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for TVA. Nuclear Energy Institute. 2002. Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant's Structural Strength. Schroedl, G. F. 1978. Excavations of the Leuty and McDonald Site Mounds. University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology, Knoxville Report of Investigations Number 22 and Tennessee Valley Authority Publications in Anthropology Number 15. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1972. Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. Chattanooga: Office of Health and Environmental Science. - - . 1976a. Environmental Information, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. Supplement to Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (TVA 1972) .. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 121

Completion and Opei ation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2

- - . 1976b. Estimates of Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Watts Bar Steam Plant, and Assessment of the Impact on the Fisheries Resources of Watts Bar Reservoir.
- - . 1976c. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Final Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 23.
- - . 1977a. Environmenlallnformation, Supplement No.1, Responses to NRC Questions for Operating License State Environmental Review, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
- - . 1977b. Effects of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant and Watts Bar Steam Plant Discharges on Chickamauga Lake Water Temperatures, Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water Management, Water Systems Development Branch, Report No. WM28         85-100, February 1977.
- - . 1977c. Results of Hydrothermal Model Test of the Multiport Diffuser System Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water Management, Water Systems Development Branch, Report No. 9-2013, May 1977.

- - . 1980a. Environmental Assessment for Low-Level Radwaste Management, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. - - . 1980b. Watts Bar Waste Heat Park, Rhea County Tennessee, Volumes 1 and 2. - - . 1986. Preoperational Assessment of Water Quality and Biological Resources of Chickamauga Reservoir, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 1973~1985. Chattanooga: Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Division of Air and Water Resources. - -. 1989. Proposed Incinerator for Burning Low-Level Radioactive Waste. - - . 1993a. Review of Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2. I - - . 1993b. Discharge Temperature Limit Evaluation For Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Report No. WR28-1-85-137 .. 1994a. Tennessee Valley Reservoir and Stream Quality - 1993. Summary of Vital Signs and Use Suitability Monitoring. Norris: Office of Water Management. 1994b. Watta Bar Off-Site Dose Calculation Manual. A 20-year Period of Meteorological Data From 1974-1 993. Approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Agency July 26, 1994. - - . 1995a. Energy Vision 2020 - Integrated Resource Management Plan and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. - - -. 1995b. Final Supplemental Environmental Review, Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Chattanooga: Tennessee Valley Authority. 122 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 6 1995c. Adoption of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 60 FR 35577. Adoption of NRC 1995a. - - . 1995d. Record of Decision - Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 1. - - - . 1997a. Lead Test Assembly Irradiation and Analysis, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Tennessee, and Hanford Site, Richland, Washington - Adoption of U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. EA-1210. - - . 1997b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water Project Thermal Plume Modeling, Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory, December, 1997. - _ . 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment Related to the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water Project. Knoxville: Office of Environmental Policy and Planning. - - - . 1998b. Aquatic Environmental Conditions in the Vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant During Two Years of Operation. Norris: Office of Water Management. - - . 1998c. Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEE) Final Report. - - . 1998d. 1997 Verification of Thermal Discharge For Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Report No. WR98-2-85-141. - - - . 1998e. Hydrodynamics and Water Temperature Modeling at Watts Bar SCCW Discharge Structure, Report No. WR98-1-85-142, Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory, November, 1998. - - . 1999a . Low Level Radioactive Waste Transport and Storage, Watts Bar and Sequoyah Nuclear Plants. - -. 1999b . July 1999 Verification Study of Thermal Discharge for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water System. Report No. WR99-2 143. - - - . 2000. Record of Decision and Adoption of the Deparlment of Energy Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor. - - . 2001. Hydrothermal Data For Watts Bar Nuclear Plant SCCW Outfall. Report No. WR2001 85-145. - - - . 2002 . Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Opening License Renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. - - . 2004a. Reservoir Operations Study Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 123

Completion and Operation of W atts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2

- - . 2004b. Proposed Modifications to Water Temperature Effluent Requirements for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfall 113. Report No. WR2004-3 149.
- - - . 2004c. Increase in Allowable UHS Temperature to 88°F, TVA Categorical Exclusion Checklist No. 4569, Closed February 20, 2004.
- - . 2004d. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Final Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 5.
- - . 2005a. Final Environmental Assessment, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Replacement of Steam Generators, Rhea County, Tennessee.
- - - . 2005b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant to Spring City Sewer Pipeline Project Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
- - - . 200Sc. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit TN0020168. Effective February 15, 2005, expires November 4, 2006 .

- - . 2005d. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Watts Bar ReselVoir Land Management Plan, Loudon, Meigs, Rhea, and Roane Counties, Tennessee. May 2005 . .. - - - . 200Se. Winter 2005 Compliance SUlVey for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfall 113 Passive Mixing Zone. Report No. WR200S-2-85-1S1. - - -. 2006a. Summer 2005 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfall 113 Passive Mixing Zone. Report No. WR2005-2-85-152. - - - . 2006b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - Unit 1 - Technical Specification (TS) Change TS-06-09, "Revision Of Ultimate Heat Sink (Uhs) Temperature ", TVA letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 8, 2006. - - -. 2007a. Discussions about WBN operation with two units, wherein TVA engi neers indicated that the average operation of the IPS is expected to be equivalent to about 4 ERCW pumps a nd 2 RCW pumps. J .S. Chardos, F.A. Koontz, P.N. Hopping, R.M. Horton, S.E. Woods , J.S. Thompson , and J.L. Phillips. June 7, 2007. - - . 2007b. Winter 2006 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfall 113 Passive Mixing Zone. - - . 2007 c. Summer 2006 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfafl113 Passive Mixing Zone. U .S. Departm ent of Commerce. 2003. Climatology of the U.S. , No. 81, Montf1ly Station Normals. National Climatic Data Center, CUM 81, September 8, 2003. - - -. 2005. Local Climatological Data Annual Summary Comparative Data for Chattanooga, Tennessee. National Cliniatic Data Center. U.S . Department of Energy. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor. 124 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1975. Environmental Survey of Transporlation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. NUREG-75/038. - - -. 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Parl50, Appendix I. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, October 1977. - -. 1978. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0498. Washington, D.C.: Office of Nuclear Reacto r Regulation . - -. 1995a. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0498. Washington, D.C.: Office of Nuclear Reacto r Regulation. - - . 1995b. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Supplement No.1. NUREG-0498, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391 Washington, D.C.: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. - - . 1996a. Generic En vironmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C. - - . 1996b. Preparation of Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for Nuclear Power Plants. NRC Report Number: NUREG-0133, Rev. 2. Prepared for Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001. Date Published: February 1996. - - - - . 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Main Report, Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volume 1. Washington, D.C. - -. 2007. Additional Comments on SECY-06-0219, Final Rulemaking to Revise 10 C.FR. 73.1, Design Basis Threat Requirements, Commissioner McGaffigan. January 29, 2007. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 125

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nucfear Plant Unit 2 6.2. Index accident.. ..... .............................. S-4, ii, iii, 5, 31,73,74,75,76,94, 99,100,121,168,171 ,1 87,189 airborne effluent ... .......... .................... .. ...... ...... .... ...... .. .. ....... .............. .. ................... .. ............. .... ....... 90 airborne release ........ ... .. .... .......... ...... ............... ..... ........ ......... ............ ...... ..... .......... ............. ....... 89, 90 airborne releases .. ......... .................................. ......................... ..... ...... ..... ...... ... ...... .............. ..... ....... 89 bald eagle ......... ..... .... ......... ..... ...... .................. ................. .... ....... .......... .......... .......... ......... 3, 28, 30, 60 bald eagles ..... ....... ... ....... .... .............. .............. .. ........................ .............................. .......... ....... 3, 30, 60 baseload capacity .. ..................................................................... ........ ... .. S-3, 1, 14,15,117,118,180 biocides ............. ...... ............. ..... .................. ...... .. ... ............... ..... ..... .................... ...... ....... 46, 47, 49, 53 blowdown .. ...... ........................................ ........ ix, 23, 24, 26,35,38,39, 49,52,59,81,131 , 202,210 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) ............... .. ....... .................................. vii,S, 9, 14,95, 96, 123, 188 capacity .. ... S-3, S-1 , v, 1, 5, 8, 11,13,14,15,16, 19,23, 24, 52,59,67,72,95, 96,118, 162,163, 165, 177, 188, 190, 192,205,211 capacity factor ..... .. ..... ..................... .......... ... ...... ..... .. ....... ..................... ... ... ...... ......... 8, 14,15,19,162 cask ... ................ ... .. ..... .. .. .. .. ........ ........ .......... .. ................. ... ... ... .. .......... iv, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 205, 206 Chickamauga ReseNoir ...... iv, v, 1, 28, 34, 38, 45, 46, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61 , 62, 69, 79, 118, 122, 131, 150,152,153,202 Commercial Light Water Reactor (CLWR) .... S-1 , vii, 7, 8, 33, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,123,124, 163,180, 187 condenser COOling water (CCW) ...... ......... ... .. S-2 , vii,S , 21 , 23, 24, 26, 29,49, 52, 54, 187, 202, 209 construction employment ............ .... .. .. ...... ...... .. ... .. ...................... ..... ............... ..... .... ......... ................ 64 cooling tower ........... .. ............ ... .. .... ..... 8, 20,2 1, 23,24, 34, 37,40,42, 49, 52,59,62, 131,174,210 cost of power .................................................... .. ........ ................... 1, 10, 11, 15, 17,19,1 79,187, 193 cumulative effect ... ................................. ... .. ... .. ............. .. .. ....................... ... 4, 8, 28, 29, 33, 45, 46, 68 decommissioning plan .................................................... .......... ...... ......... .. ............ ............... .... 101, 102 Department of Energy .. .. ................... .... ... .. .......... ......... ................................... .. S-1 , vii, 1,7,123,124 Department of Enei9Y (DOE) ...... ...... ... .. .S-l , S-4, vii, 1,5,7,8,95,99,123,124,177,180,187,191 design basis .............. .. ..... ................ .. ................. ..... ............ .... . 2, 3, 29, 30, 52, 71, 73,163,177,211 Detailed Scoping, Estimating. and Planning (DSEP) ......... S-3, 1, 5, vii. 1. 20, 31 , 118, 176, 178, 187 diffuser ............. .. ... .. ................ .. ....... .. .... .. 23, 26.34, 35,37,49, 50,59,121,122,1 31 , 132, 202.203 discharge ... S-2, S-3, iii, vii, ix, 23, 24, 26. 29, 30, 34, 35.37, 39, 40,41 ,42,44,45,46.48,49, 50. 51.52,53.55,59,76,80, 87, 91,98,1 21,122,123, 124, 131. 132, 133, 134, 163, 196.202,209, 210 discharge limit ........................................ .. ............ ......................... .. ................... .. 26, 46, 48, 49, 55, 59 discharges ........ ......... ... ..... ....... ... ...... ..... .. ... .... ...... .......... ........... ... .................. ........... 37,45. 55. 59,91 distributor ........... .. .... ... .. ....................................... .. ..... ...... ........... ..... .................. .... ........ 5, 12, 11 5, 178 distributors .... ...... .. .. ..... .... .... .. ... ..... .. .... ... ..... ..... .. ... ............ ............. ... .. ..... ................... ............... .... .... .. 5 dose .................. .. iii, iv, 51, 73. 74, 76, 77, 79, 81 , 84, 85. 89, 90, 97. 98, 99, 100, 101 ,1 22, 125, 211 doses .. .. ...................... .. .............................. ..... .......... ........ 73, 76, 77, 81 , 85. 89, 90, 98, 99, 100. 101 dry storage .............. ,.... .. ............................... ................ ........................... .. .......... .... ... ....... .. .. 75, 95, 96 earthquake ......... .... .......... ........ ......... .. .... .. .. ... .................. ..... .............. ... ... ... ...... 69, 71, 72, 75, 76, 177 economic growth ..... ............................... .... ...... .. .................... ... ................ ...... .... ........ .. .................. ... 12 effluent. S-2. iii, v, x, 23,24,29, 34, 35, 36, 39,40, 41 , 42, 43.44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 53, 76, 77,81, 82 ,

84. 85, 88, 89. 90, 94,1 21,1 24,1 25,1 31. 132, 133,1 34, 202,210 emission ......... .. ... ....... ........................................... 1, 10. 11, 14, 15,19,32,33,73.99,1 89, 191, 192 emissions .................................. .... ...... .................... ... ... ........ ......... .................................... 1, 19. 33, 73 entrainment. .. ... .. .................. " ................................ .. ............................... 54, 55, 57, 59, 122. 179,202 essential raw cooling water (ERCW) ......................... ........ ... .. .. ..... S-2, viii, 29,43, 47, 48, 49, 52, 124 far-field effect ........................ .. ................................................... .......... ........................ 34,45,1 31, 132 far-field effects ............ ................................................... .. ............................................. 34. 45, 131, 132 federally listed ......................................................................................... 3, 11, 28, 30. 57, 59, 60, 202 federally listed species ......... :.... .. .............. ......................................................................................... 11 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) .......................... viii, 5, 69. 71, 73. 81, 84. 89,90,122,124,177 Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................. , .............................. ................................... x, 10 126 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 6 fi sh passag e ...... ..... .. ......... .... .. .... ....... .... .. .... ... ...... ... .. .... ....... .. ..... ........... .. ..... ..... .. .. .. .. 43, 45, 132, 133 flood risk ......... ........ .... ................... ..... .. ..... .... ........ ......... ..... .. ........ ... .. .. ... .. .... .... ... .. ...... .... ....... .. .. ... ..... 70 fuel type ... .... ... ... ...... .. ... ... ....... .............. ... .. ... .. ....... ... .. ..... ............. ...... .......... ... .... .. ........... .... ........ 13, 16 gaseous .. ......... .. .... .... .... ...... ... ..................... ..... .... .......... .......... ......... .. ... .. ... iii, v, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91 gaseous effluent ....... ..... .... .... ... ... .... ..... .. ......... .... ......................... ... ..... .... .... .... ............ .... ............ 85, 87 generating capacity ...... ..... .. ... .................... ..... .. .. ............ .. .... .. .. ... .... .. .. ... .. ... ... ... .. .. .. .. ..... 5, 11, 14, 190 gray bats ..... .. .. ..................... .... ................ ........... .. .. ..... .. .. .. .... .. ..... ... .... ..... .... ... .. ... ... .... .. .... 3, 28, 3D, 60 groundwater ........ ..... ..... ..... ........... .. ........... .... .... ...... .... .. .... .. .... ............ .. .. ....... .. .. .... S-2, i, 9, 21, 3D, 53 hazardous waste .. .. ... ... ..... .. ... .. ........ ..... .. ... ..... ..... ................. .......... .. ..... ... .. ........ .... ......... .................. 91 heat dissipation .... .. ... ............. .. .. .. .. .... ..... ........ ............ ..... .. ......... 21 , 23, 26, 34, 37,99, 131,132, 134 heat load .... .. ... ... .. .. .. ................ .... .... ... ... ...... .... .. ..... .... ................ ... ...... .. ... ......... : ... ......... .. ..... 43, 98, 99 herons .... .. .. ..... ..... .. ... ..... ..... ......... ...... .... .. .... ... ... ... .. .... ...... .... ......... ... ... ......... .... .. ...... ... ... .. ... ...... ... 28, 60 housing ................ .. .. .... .... ... .. ............. ..... .. .. ...... .. .. .. .......... ............ .. .. .. 3, i, 31 , 65, 66,67,96,162,176 human health ............ .... .. ..... ...... .... .. ........ ......................... .... ..... ........... .... .... ..... ..... .. .... .... ...... .. . 74, 100 hydrothermal ..... 8-2, S-4, i, ii, iii, 26, 29, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 , 43,45, 46, 59, 104, 105, 122,1 23, 129,131, 133,1 34, 163,209 impingement ... ..... .. .... .............. .. .... ..... ... ...... ..... .... .. .... ...................... ... .... .......... ... ... ..... ... .. ... .......... ..202 inake fl ows .. ....... ........................... .. ......... ....... ...... .. .. ... ....... ... .. ... .. ........ ... .. .. ... ...... .. ..... 3, 24, 3D, 55, 59 income .... .. ..... ... .. ....... .... .... ........ .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ............... .. .. ........... .. ....... ....... 8-3, i, 31, 65,66,162,176 instream temperatures .... ......... .. ........ ..... .. ........ .. ... ... ............... .. ... .. .... .... .. .... .. 26, 35, 39,40, 132, 134 Integrated Resource Management Plan ................. ... ............. ... .............. .. .... .. ..... .. .. .S-1, viii, 6, 8, 122 Integrated Resource Management Plan {IRP) ... ..... .... .... .. ... ............ .. ....... .... .. ......... .. S-1, viii, 6, 8,122 IRP .... .. ... .... .. .. ... ......... ...... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ... .......... ... .. .. .... ..... viii, 8, 11, 14, 19, 162, 169, 170, 176,178, 188 liquid effluents .. ...... ... ............. ............ ... .. ..................... ......... .. .... .. ........ .. ... .. ... .... .. ... ..... .. .... .. 77, 81, 85 liquid radwaste .. ....... .. .... .... .... .. ....... ........ .. .. ...... ..... .. .. ...... ....... ..... ..... ... ..... ... .. ..... ..... ..... .... ...... ....... .... 81 load forecas t .. .... .. ... .............. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. ........................ .... .... ... ... .. .. .. ........... .......... .. ..... .. .. .... 11, 12, 15 low-level radwaste .................. .. ........ .. ... ... .. ..... ... ................. ... ...... .... ...... ......... .. ... ..... ... ... ................ .. .94 macrofouling ................. .... .. ....... .... ...... ..... ...... .. ... ..... .......... ........ .. ..... .... ....... ... ... .. ......... ...... .... ..... 48, 49 maximum flow ........ ... .. ..... ........... .. .. ... ....... ... .... .. ..... .. .... .... .. .. ........... .... ..... ..... .... ..... .. .... .. .... 23, 38, 203 Meigs County .... .. ....... .. .. .. .... ..................... .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. ... ... .... .................. ... 28, 61 , 64, 65, 66, 68, 111 microbiological. .. ... .... ............ .......... ..... .. ......... .... ..... .. ..... .......................... ....... ...... .. ...... ..... .. .. .... ..48, 49 minimum flow ..................... ...... .. ......... ...... .. ... .... .. .. ............. .. .. ......... ..... ......... ... ... ..... .. 26, 35, 202, 203 mixing zone .. .. .. ........................ .. ..... ......... .. . 26, 34, 35, 37, 38, 59,13 1, 132,133,1 34, 187, 210,211 m ussel sanctuary ................ .. .............. .... ........... ..... .. ... .... ...... .. ... .. ... ..... .. .... ... ....... .... ...... 10, 55, 57,61 mussels ... S-3, iv, v, viii, 10, 28, 30, 35, 43, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 154, 155, 156, 202 , 203, 2 10 near-field effects ........... .. ..... ..... ... ......... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ... ... .. .. ~ .. ..... .. .. ... ......... ........ .... .... .... ...... .......... 34, 131 nontritiated .. .... ... .. .............. .... ..... ..... ... ....... .. .. ...... ........... ... ........ .. ...... ...... ..... .. ... .... .... ...... .. .......v, 91, 93 N PDES perm it.. .. 2, 4 , 24, 26, 29, 33, 34, 35, 43, 46, 49, 53, 91, 131, 132, 133, 134, 175, 202, 210, 2 11 peak load ... .. ... ... ...... ..... .. ... .. ... ................ ... ...... .. ........ .. .... ... .. .. .... ........ ... ... .... .. ... .. .... .. .. ........ .. .. .. ... 15, 16 permit limits ........ ...... .... .. .. ..... .. .. .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. ... .. ........ .. .. ....... ... ....... .. .. ... ........ ..... .. .. .............. 2, 4, 29, 34 plume .. .... .... .... ...... .... ..... ..... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... ..... .. ..... .. ................. .. ..... ...... .. ... ........... 74,1 23, 132, 133, 134 pop ulation growth .......... .... .... ... .. .. .. .... ... .............. ........... .... .. .... .. ........ .. ........... ..... ....... 5, 12, 32, 64, 68 poverty level ... .... ... .... ...... .. ........ ... .................. .. .. .. ... .. ............... ..... ... ..... ... .... .. ....... .... ....... ................ ..66 pressurized water reactor ... ......... ...... .. ... .. .. ..... .............. ...... ......................... ,. ...... ............. .. 95, 96, 101 probabilistiC safety assessment ... ..... .. .. ...... .......... .. ... .. .. ............... .. .............. .... ... ... .. .. ... ..... .. .... ...... .. .73 radioactive waste treatment .... .. ........... ... .. ..... .... ..... ............. ... ...... ..... .... .. ........ ......... .. .... ... ............ ....91 radiolog ical effect ...... ..... ............... .. ............ .......... .. ... .... ... ........... ... .. .. ..... ... ... .. ....... .. .... .. .. 77, 182 , 21 1 rad iolog ical effects ... .... .. ... ... ... .... ..................... .. .. ... ... .... ..... ..... , .... ... .. ....... .. .. ... ...... ............ .. ............. ..77 radioiog ical impact.. ......... ................. .......................... ... ................................ .................. 74, 85, 9 0, 99 radiological impa cts ... .. ....... ... ................ .... ................ .. ...... ....................... ........ ....... ]............ ... .... ... ... .74 radiolog ical plume ...... ........................................................................ ...... ..... ........ ................. ........... 74 radiolog ical release ................................. ..................... ...... .. ......... ................. ..... .................. 73, 74, 99 radiological releases .. ..... ..... ........... ..... .............. ........ ........................... ... .... ...... ................................. 74 radiological waste .......... .............. .. ..... ......... ... .... ,....... ... ... .. ........ ...... .... .... .......... ................................ 51 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 127

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Un it 2 radionuclides .. .... ..... .............. .. ... .... ... ...... ..................... .. .............. ............... ....... 75, 76, 77, 81,85, 101 radwaste ........................... .. .. .............. iv, v, viii, ix, 6,10,51 , 81, 83, 92, 93, 94,95,99,107,1 22,173 raw water ............................... ................... ............... .. .. .................... 2,29,46,47,48, 49, 52, 202, 210 raw water chemical additives ...... ... ..... .. ......... ...... ........ ..... ..... ..................... ........... .... ..... ...... ..... ........ 52 reactor coolant system (ReS) ..... ............ ........................ ..... ................................................... ix, 50, 51 reprocessing plant ... ................... ..... ................................ .. ... ... .......... ... ....... ... .. .. .. ... ... ........... ... .......... 95 Reservoir Operations Study (ROS) ...... ......... S-1, ix, 7, 8, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42,45,123,134 Rhea County .... S-1, S-3, iii, 1,6,7,10,60,64,65,66,67,68,69.73,111,112,115,1'17, 121,122, 124, 178 safety .... S-4, ii, ix, 5, 8, 9, 10,27,31.48.69,70.73,76,97, 106. 162, 167, 169, 170, 171, 176. 177, 179.181,187 schools ......... ............. ... .. ............ ........ ..................... S-3, i, 10, 31,67,68,69,115,117,162,176. 178 security .............. .. .. .. .. ....... .. S-4. ii, 9, 31 , 70. 73, 75, 76, 101,161 ,1 62, 163, 169, 170,180,181,187 seismic ............................. ....................... ....................................... ... .. ............... 3, ii, 9, 31 , 71, 72. 177 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) ........ ... .. ......... ix, 7, 8, 19, 20, 79, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 123, 132 severe accident ........... ............................................... ... ............. .. ..... ... .......... ... ...... ....... .. 73, 74, 75, 76 shipment. ....... .... ......... .................... .... ........... ............... ... .................. ... ...... .... .. .. ....... .. .94, 99, 100. 206 shipments ... .. .. ... .......... .... .......................... ... ...... ............... ......... ............. .... ........ ..... .................. 94. 100 spentfuel. .. ... 4, 10.21,31 . 33. 95, 96, 97. 98, 99,162,1 63, 169,1 70, 171, 173, 180, 181, 182, 187, 192.205. 206 state-listed .......... ..... ............................................................... .. .. .. .. .. ..... ................ .3, 28, 30. 57, 59, 60 state-listed species .. ...... ..... .... .............. .... ................ ..... ....... .. ...... .............. ........... .............. ... ........... .57 steam generator ........................................................ 5, 21, 37, 39. 40. 41 , 42, 44, 45, 51 . 52, 59, 202 storage module ..... .... ......... ........ ...... ..... .............. ........ ....... ............ ... .......... .. ........ ..... .......... .. 97, 98, 99 storage modules ....... ...... .... .... .............. ............... ... ............. .. .. ................ ....... ... .... ..................... ........ 97 Supplemental Condensor Cooling Water (SCCW) .. S-2, iii. ix, 5, 8, 21,23, 24, 26, 29 , 34, 35. 37, 38, 39,40, 41.42, 43,44,45,46.49,54.62,123.131,132. 133, 134, 163,187,202, 209,210 surface water .... ..... ................................ ......................... ....... ....... ...... ..... .. 3, 4, 30. 33, 46, 55, 59, 182 surfactants ... .......... ..... ................. .. .......... ..... ........... .... ... ................. ................. ..... ... ....... ... ...... .. .. 46.48 tailwater ... .. .................. ... ... ........ .................. ................ ............... .... .... .. ... ......... ..... .. .. .. ... 54, 55, 56. 202 tax equivalent payments .. .. ................................... ................................................. 31 . 66. 68, 163. 176 tax revenue ............ .... .. ........ ............................ ....... ........ ............................... .. .... ...... ....... .68. 163. 176 temperature limits ........... .................. .. ..... ................... ............ ........ ....... 34 . 44, 45. 131, 132, 133. 134 terrorist. ........ .. ......... .... ...................................................... 4, 31 . 75. 76.1 62,1 63,1 68,170.1 80.189 thermal discharge ........ ............. .. ........ .. .. ..... ............. ....................... .. ........ ..... ...... 55, 59,1 31.132. 133 thermal effluent ....... .. ........... .................... ......... .................... 34, 36,37. 39, 40,44, 45.1 31.1 32,133 th reatened and endangered .. .. ........... .. ......................... .. ... .. .. ....... S-3, i, 9. 30, 57. 103, 104. 105.203 tiering ....... .. ... ........ .... ................. ... ......... ............................................. ....................... .... ..... ......... i. 5, 19 transmission .... .......... ......... ............. ........... .......... ........................................................ 9.20, 27, 28, 29 transportation ..................... .... .... S-4. ii, 9. 31, 33, 75. 94, 99. 100. 111, 121, 125. 163, 173, 181, 191 tritiated ..... ............... ........ ... ...... ... ............... ......................... ......... .. ........................................... v, 91, 92 turbine building ............. .......... ........ ....... ................................... ............... .... ............. .. 21 , 46, 52 . 59. 71 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ......................... .. .................................... .. x, 10. 59, 110, 202 Vital Signs Monitoring Program .. ................... .... ....... .... .................................... iv. 45, 54, 55. 153, 211 waste heat.. ............................. ............................. ....................................... 21, 23. 24, 34, 44,45, 174 water ilitake ...... ............. ........... ....................................................................... 2, 20. 21 . 29,54, 55. 59 Watts Bar Reservoir ............ .. ...... ...................................................... iv. 54, 60. 68. 122.124, 153. 202 workforce .............................................. .................... .. ........................... 5. 21,31. 64. 66, 67, 11 8, 176 128 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A APPENDIX A -

SUMMARY

OF PREVIOUS HYDROtHERMAL Iry'PACT STUDIES Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 129

Appendix A Summary of Previous Hydrothermal Impact Studies Numerous studies have been performed over the years to evaluate the impact of WBN heated effluent on the Tennessee River. The following provides a summary of key findings. 1972 Final Environmental Statement (FES) The 1972 FES contains an analysis of the WBN heat dissipation system with operation of both Unit 1 and Unit 2. The analysis focused on the discharge from the Outfall 101 diffusers, since Outfall 102 releases are infrequent and the SCCW system (Outfall 113) was not an option at that time. TVA determined that the controlling criterion for the discharge of the plant thermal effluent would be the limit for the maximum temperature rise in the receiving waters. A simple mass balance calculation under assumed worst-case conditions was presented to show that this criterion would not be violated. The analysis did not consider any specific reservoir operating policy for the river other than to assume that no thermal effluent would be released to the receiving waters when the discharge from WBH is less than 3500 cubic feet per second (cfs). The primary conclusions reached in the 1972 FES were that the operation of WBN Unit 1 and Unit 2 would not cause violations of the receiving water temperature limits for Outfall 101 (Le., near-field effects) and that the operation of WBN Unit 1 and Unit 2 are not expected to have any noticeable impact on Chickamauga Reservoir (Le., far-field effects). 1993 TVA Review of Final Environmental Statement The identification of potential impacts that changed or were likely to change from the original 1972 FES was addressed by TVA's 1993 review. In the review, none of the "changed or potentially changing" impacts were found to be related to the heat dissipation system . In fact, the 1993 review specifically stated that the original analysis and assumptions for cooling tower blowdown and heat dissipation were still valid for preserving the NPDES effluent limits for Outfall 101. The review, however, did provide preliminary information about the Outfall 101 mixing zone, describing it as extending I~ss than 100 meters downstream from the diffusers and influencing less than 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of the river at norma! summer elevati ons. 1993 Discharge Temperatu re Limit Evaluation for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant The plant NPDES permit of 1993 req uired TVA to conduct a study to determine appropriate daily average temperature limits fo r releases from Outfall 101 and Outfall 102. The report w as completed and submitted to the State of Tenn essee in December 1993 (TVA 1993b). In contrast to previ ous evaluations, the study included detailed model simulations of the combined hourly operation of the plant and the Tennessee River. Evaluations were pe rformed for the operation of both units at WBN and considered cases with and without the operation ofWBF, located 1.5 miles upstream. At that time, WBF was in a "mothballed" status, and given the uncertainty of its future, it was considered worthwhile to examine a w orst-case scenario including thermal discharges from both WBF and WBN. (Note: Since 1993 , W BF has been retired.) The simulations were performed for historical river conditions and historical meteorology for a 17-year period from January 1!976 through October 1993. Based on the model Simulations, a flow-weighted daily average temperature limit of 95°F (35°C) was recommended by TVA for Outfall 101. For Outfall 102, a limit pf 104°F (40°C) was recommended for any single grab sample. The recommendations were based on preserving instream water quality standards specified by the State of Tennessee (see Final Supplemental Environmentallmpac1 Statement 131

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Section 2.2.2). In the study, the instream temperatures were computed at the downstream end of mixing zones for each outfall. For Outfall 101 , the assumed mixing zone was 240 feet wide and extehds downstream 240 feet. For Outfall 102, the recommended mixing zone was 1000 feJt wide and 3000 feet downstream. Due to the length of the diffusers for Outfall 101 (e.g., less than one-fourth the width of the river), and the small effect from surface discharge for Outfall 102 (e.g., heated effluent resides in the surface layer of the river) , the 1993 study concluded that ample space exists for fish passage during all operating conditions of WBN. For far-field effects, the study examined the impact of the combined operation of WBF and WBN on water temperature at SON, located 43 miles downstream ofWBN. Using hydrology and meteorology corresponding to 1986 (a hot, dry year), the average increase in bottom river temperature was estimated to be of magnitude 0.4 FO (0.2 CO), which was considered not to be a significant impact. As a result of the 1993 study, the recommended temperature limits for Outfall 101 and Outfall 102 were incorporated in the plant NPDES permit, but were contingent upon verification studiesl by instream field measurements when the plant begins operation. 1997 Verification Studies of Thermal Discharge for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Verification studies ofthe thermal discharge from Outfall 101 were conducted in 1997, after WBN Unit 1 first b~gan operation (TVA 1998d). The NPDES permit identified three goals of the studies: to determine the three-dimensional configuration of the outfall plumes, to substantiate the dispersion modeling of the thermal effluent, and to assure conformance with the assigned mixing zones. To achieve these goals, two field surveys were performed, one to examine extreme springtime conditions for the maximum river temperature rise and one to examine extreme summer conditions for the maximum river temperature. In both surveys, the measured configuration of the plumes demonstrated that for the conditions tested, the thermal effluent is effectively mixed with the ambient river water. The computed values of the river temperature and river temperature rise at the downstream end of the mixing zone were in good agreement with the measured values, substantiating the method of dispersion modeling. The measurements indicated th at th e size of the mixing zone (240 feet w ide and 240 feet downstream) is sufficient to reduce th e temperature of the th ermal effluent below the NPDES limits, but recognized th at the outfall plume may sh ift laterally from side to side due to random mixing processes in the river. No studies were performed for Outfall 102 because there were no occasions where the emergency overflow from the yard holding pond was used. In the years since 1997, there have been occasions to do so. However, on these occasions, the overflow has not been thermally loaded, thus field studies have not been conducted. If and when releases from Outfall 102 occur "Yith one or both W BN units in service, TVA will be responsibie for performing thermal surveys of the effluent behavior in the river. As of this writing , such an event has not occurred. 1998 Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water Project Environmental Assessment (EA) The 1998 EA for the SCCW system (TVA 1998a) included rigorous computer modeling of the WBN heat dissipation system. In this process, the model developed for the discharge temperature limit evaluation of 1993 (TVA 1993b) was expanded to include the SCCW 132 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A system servicing Unit 1, as depicted in Section 2.2.2 (Figure 2-2). The primary conclusion from the modeling was that with the SCCW system, Unit 1 could operate in compliance with the river temperature limits for all the NPDES outfalls, 101, 102, and 113. Whereas this is true for normal operating conditions, the 1998 EA recognized that in one situation, exceeding the NPDES limit for the river temperature rate-of-change for Outfall 113 would be unavoidable. This situation includes the unexpected, abrupt loss of heat at Outfall 113 l due to a trip of the Unit 1 reactor occurring Simultaneously with conditions yielding a river temperature rise near, but yet below, the NPDES limit. Such an event would be extremely infrequent and has not occurred since the startup of the SCCW system in 1999. The modeling analyses for the 1998 EA were based on the operation ofWBN Unit 1 only and again used historical river conditions and historical meteorology for a 117-year period from January 1976 through October 1993. As a result of the analyses, a fixing zone spanning the full width of the river and extending downstream 1000 feet was adopted for Outfall 113. The modeling also indicated that the thermal effluent from Oilitfall I 11 3 would spread and mix primarily in the upper portion of the water column , protecting bottom habitat and again providing ample space for fish passage in the river. To ensure protection of the bottom habitat, a requirement was provided in the NPDES permit to restrict the maximum river bottom temperature outside a 150-foot square MRZ defined in the immediate vicinity of Outfa!l113. July 1999 Verification Study of Thermal Discharge for I Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water System I A verification study of the thermal discharge from Outfall 113 was conducted concurrently with the startup of the SCCWsystem in 1999 (TVA 1999b). The goals otthe 1999 verification study were similar to those conducted in 1997: to determine t~e three-dimensional configuration of the outfall plume, to substantiate the dispersion' modeling of the thermal effluent, and to assure conformance with assigned mixing zones. In addition, evaluations also were required to determine the best location for monitoring th e upstream ambient river temperature. Moreover, in a manner similar to 1997, data from the 1999 survey demonstrated that f or the conditions tested , the thermal effluent from Outfall 113 is effectively mixed with the ambient river water, and that computed values of the river temperature and river temperature rise were in good agreement with the rpeasured values. The measurements indicated th at the size of th e mixing zone (full width o~ river and extending 1000 feet downstream) is .sufficient to reduce the temperature of the SCCW thermal effluent below the NPDES limits. Temperatures at the boundarY of the MRZ also were well below the NPDES limit. Based on the 1999 sur.Jey, it was decided to measure the ambient river temperature for Outfall 11 3 at the discharge of the hydro plant at Watts Bar Dam. Hydrcthsrma! Data fo r Watts 8ar Nuclear Plant Outfa!l113 In addition to the 1999 verification study at startup, five other temperature surveys were conducted for Outfall 11 3 during the first year of operation of the SCCW system (TVA, 2001). The surveys provided data to better define the configuration of th~ outfall plume, particularly relative to the effect of water releases from WBH. The surveys were performed for conditions typical of the winter, spring, summer, and fall. The results revealed that for all the conditions, the thermal effluent from Outfall 113 is effectively mixed in Ithe river. Temperatures at the downstream end of the mixing zone were all contained within the NPDES limits and provided ample space for fish passage and protection of bottom habitat. For conditions where no flow is released from WBH, the plume from Outfall 113 tends to Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 133

Compleiion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 spread across the river and move primarily in the downstream direction . For conditions when there are on or more units in operation at WBH, the plume tends to reside largely in 1 the side of the rive ~ containing the SCCW discharge structure (Le., right side of the river, facing downstreamO. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement - Tennessee Valley Authority Reservoir Operations Study (ROS) In May 2004, the TVA adopted the preferred alternative of the ROS (TVA 2004a). As a part of ROS, rigorous computer modeling of the WBN heat dissipation system was performed to examine the impact of the preferred alternative on water temperatures in the Tennessee River at WBN. The modeling examined the reservoir operating policy of the preferred alternative for an eight-year period spanning 1987 to 1994, which encompassed a broad range of hydrologic conditions in the Tennessee Valley. The studies considered only Unit 1 at WBN, and found that the NPDES water temperature limits could be maintained via appropriate operation of the plant, such as curtailment of the SCCW system. By adopting the preferred alternative, TVA considers any resulting reductions in generation as a necessary and acceptable cost for protecting water quality in the Tennessee River. Proposed Modifications to Water Temperature Effluent Requirements for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfall 113 To better align the method of monitoring with the behavior of the effluent plume and to alleviate problems related to instream monitoring of the SCCW discharge, TVA proposed in 2004 that the shape of the Outfall 113 mixing zone vary for conditions with and without flow in the river (TVA 2004d). The modifications were incorporated in the plant NPDES permit, and as of this writing, are still in effect. The mixing zone for conditions ~'.tfth flo\N in the river is identified as the active mixing zone; whereas, that for conditions without flow in the river is identified as the passive mixing zone. For cases with flow in the river, tracking of the plume is provided by two instream temperature monitors at the downstream end of the active mixing zone.1 For cases without flow in the river, biannual instream temperature surveys, one in the summer and one in the winter, are performed to confirm the adequacy of the passive mixing zone and check the accuracy of a hydrothermal model that is used to determine mode of operation of the SCCW system. The configurations of the mixing zones for Outfall 11 3 are illustrated in Figure 3-2 . Compliance Surveys for Watts Bar Nuclea r Plant Outfall 113 Passive Mixing Zone Beginning in 2005, two compli ance surveys have been performed each year, summer and winter, for the Outfall 11 3 passive mixing zone (TVA 2005e, 2006, 2007b, 2007 c). All the surveys have confirmed the adequacy of both the passive mixing zone and the SCCW hydrothermal model. 134 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix 8 APPENDIX B - NPDES FLOW DIAGRAM Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 135

Appendix B Aht!C9 \l IR II!~Q' ' /I. " - A lter n ate F lo lU r~t h CCW - C onn _ o s-o r Cooli n g WOl te r C R II P - (~un~lt~Gtlo n Ru n off HufJ ill 9 P U/II) cr _ Cooling rc" w.r 23.699 EReW - ~ 'I1 . (9G r Ll;y Rill w Coo li n!J W~ t er HP F P - Hiyh Prusu r ", F ire Pratoo tia n .svs tom RCW - R aw Coo llnu Wator RSW - R<JW S ar vioo WottH SCCW - S IJpp ltl m 4 1Hfl I CCW W a lls Bar R~!.I! r vo l r 1--------- I ---------------- sccw OSN 11 3 SGBD** S tol m Generator I} /D\V Dow n Di sch arQ o TC - Trn i r,i no Canter VW f ro - Ve ndor W 81tH T r e~ lmc n t

129,000 P la nt WTP -Water Trlit"tlll&/dPbnl KE.Y..

    ............... Inll'tnn l it e nt Flu w
           .>      ChtHul GO::I I Ad dit iv e 4 5, 000 0.075 _     J   Ve n da r
                                                                                                                                                  -tP1              WTP IMP 103 0.2192 W attr
                                                                                                                                                                                        ,.hl ** Chlt'I'Ii"" Wa.!** (0,0003)
                                                                                                                                                                                        $ W Rgnoli(O.ODOI) f)/ um Rln~jng (0.000' ,

Orum DIII ~latlllrina lo.conl)

                                                                              !Jau.ld...B.JI.d..Yr:A.1i~                                                                                DlonIICI.lnln, COlllln l {D.OOO')                                                                                                                      Unn a m a d l' rl I'1I01'l LllbOl i 'OIY w.~, C"   (0,00(11 )

03N 112 Trib uta ry ii to. yt.llo. ..... U a d,Q,tc / ",. I' IOnl & f. ~ulpm . n! U mlnl; , "ia llk . , O. 1f, *' U.247

                                                                               " noJ S u mp . (0 ,0 0) (1)
                                                                                                                                                             ~                                                                                                                                                                                    e fa.., !.:

d

                                                                                         ' A'                                                                                                                                                 1...... _-_ **                IMP 1 G'T Te ss wi Me\.fCre.nlng WU. tIlS
                                                                                                                                                                            * *i:i~i):iOJ -* ** *** .... -*********.. **- ****- *-** ***** * * *~**** ....... ..          ****0*:03;*********.-*******.

• tlPFP Flu!She, TC HVAC

                                                             ~ ftl'o ( ra!lWtl ..t.fI                         1***t\*u ~Q~   ....................                                                                       Non-R,.,d Oemln W liter (0.011)

Cooling Wate r P otable Wale , _ _ g,ggu n g ll ry "Y. ' ' S~ rvi ce ,BUild ing S u~p .(0 .020) L. ** ks I r.hk * . Up Wa h. ( VWT P 00001 Turbine Ol6eelG6n (DIG) SUlkllllg Sum " 10.0001) L a b o / il tory W ils Ie ' B,uild.intJ ~~~g; ~~~ ~J~t;:~II~~n~ps{D~ciO~~'lDOO 1) N e IHtll I Wu tl'! 1 a n k _~~~~pn ~a_O_CJjtu.ilding-S.\j mp-&-Djka-(O.001) _ P rrtll h lo W ater L tne L n ll i(!l O. OQD I H I' FP SY'Itim Flu $h n ( O'{lOl) P(J ta bit! W liter LIne lnkll (0 .00 1 ) TVA Watts BarNuclear Plant

           ,S,ylf hun Lukyg l! & M '3 l n M n           ~
                                                        " g0                                                                                                                                                             Storm Waler RUnoff (0,&99)                                                       NPD~S     Perlnit Nc:TN00201 68 Ooo:a T lu nu!jl. (!(t(llinll W."..,                                                                   0.001                                                                                                 Cha mlon l storage R.lln.... ter Roe [t.IUU (O.OOt)                                             April200 6
           ~lio~~~~I~/~c~a:J:'I.~~IIl'!~(~lII m .                      HPFP S ya tem                                                                                                '1\ '                               Groundw.t.r Sump (D,OOI)                                                                AIiFlows In MGD R8W SV. ' Im Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement                                                                                                             137

AppendixC Append ;x

• C - ""1

               /\""ua+lc
                      ". C,.."lngu
                           "'VI'-' J c:::.llnnnrtinn
                                        ""                          Inform~tion
                                           .... t"",....,. **** ::J ****

• _.
• Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 139

    "U "l:;l (I)

J c..

x' .J>. n

Table C-1 (continued) ~o

    ~                                                                                                                    111 9 I\)                                                                                                                  ::~ 3 CJ) "D OJro Q)::!:
                                                                                                                         -, 0 z    :::J
                                                                                                                         §g:

C I~peida~

• ffio.

              .!.    * >.. , ~. '                   :., ;                                              ... .:,....:..:.;

til 0

                                                                                                                         ""0 1J (I)

Unspecifiable I 9913 91.17 131679 192.94 1*1569 42.44 I 1976 I 77.04 1259 I 38.86 Qj-"

J !!l.

clupeids C; §j"

-n

5' Alosa o 0.00 6 0.02 o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00

I

                                                                                                                         -** 0 I\)

Q) chrysochloris (j) C "0 "'0 Dorosoma sp. o 0.00 68 0.20 73 1.97 o 0.00 o 0.00 (D 3(I)

J Dorosoma 2 0.02 637 1.87 :334 9.03 o 0.00 324 10.00

 ~        cepedianuflJ.

m

 ~        Dorosoma                   32  0.29              T      o     0.00    o      0.00  20     0.62 cr

J petenense 3(I)

J

  ~

3" 11 n. (j)

  ~
  ;;!.

Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio 8* I 27 0.07 0.25 14 16 0.04 0.05 28 o 0.76 0.00 5 8 0.19 0.31 5 0.15 0.03 Macrhvbopsis I0 0.00 1 T o 0.00 a 0.00 o 0.00 storeriana 'k

• Notropis sp. o 0.0,0 1 T o 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 Notropis o 0.00 4 0.01 5 0.14 o 0.00 o 0.00 atherinoides

Table C-1 (continued)

                                                                                                       ':":~ -,---,-
                . Catoston\idae
                         ;.:..
                                      ,"     "i
                                                                                           ~~ : ':.:..

Unspecifiable o 0.00 o 0.00 1 0.03 1 0.04 a 0.00 catostomids Ictiobinae o 0.00 82 0.24 o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 Minytrema 2 0.02 1 T o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 "T1 melanops s* U> c:: 1 ~:T"l~i~h;it.~I~e. . ..,  :.." , "0 "0 (6"" 3(l) Ictalurus furcatus I 1 0.01 10 0.00 I1 I 0.03 I1 I 0.04 I1 I 0.03

;;t
!!!.           Ictalurus                  45       0.41   27           0.08      38   1.03       8                     0.31   9     0.28 m

J punctatus g' PYIOdiC~S olivaris 1 1 . IO~0 112.. . .. 1 0 .01 . 10 10.00 10 . 1 0.00 10 1 0 .00 '..

3(l)

s 3"

"0 Morone sp. 1 0.01 62 0.18 73 1.97 1 13 10.51 I 16 10.49

  ~

Cf)

  !!t Morone chlYsops           0        0.00   a             0.00     1    0.03   10                      10.00  10    10.00 (l) 3(l)          Marone                    0        0.00   a             0.00     a    0.00   10                      10.00  10    10.00

a. mississippiensis Morone (not saxatilis)

Is 10.05 150 10.15 17 10.19 131 11.21 1 199 16.1 4 "0

                                                                                                                                              '0 (J)

J a.

x'

       -"                                                                                                                                      (')
       .p..

w

     ..... Table C-1 (continued)                                                                                                                                                           ~b>

t ~3 00'0 rom ru!:!:

                                                                                                                                                                                           .... 0

. ; .. : ... ~ .:', '." ", ***. *,."' . :: .' .~.: '1 "

                                                                                                                                                               ; , ':. :"     ."

z::l

.'~.: :.:

                                                                                                                                                                  ':,   ~

c: ru Centrarctddfae '." (') ::l

                                                                 .'...:.'. .                    " t.**        "',:.-                        : .':.:.. .     . .. " '.' ; :.. :.: . . . .:. ro-  0..

ruO Lepomis or o 0.00 a 0.00 I () I 0.00 I a 0.00 a 0.00 -0

                                                                                                                                                                                           '1J(J) pomoxis                                                                                                                                                                       moo

3. ~

cg Lepomis sp. 209 1.92 428 1.26 873 23.61 I 57 2.22 857 26.45 ~a

'TI                                                                                                                                                                                        I\.)

i' ru Micropterus o 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 10 0.00 1 0.03 en c: dolomieu "0

'0 ro Pomoxis sp. 24 0.22 28 '1 0.82 334 9.03 19 0.35 328 10.12 3(I)

I

![           Pomoxis           a    0.00  1                              T       o      0.00        10                       0.00                         a                         0.00 m          annularis
  ~

a'

J 3(J)

I Unidentifiable 10 10.00 14 0.01 oI" 0.14 1 0.04 4 0.12

  ~

darter 3" -g

  !l-        Perea flaveseens  a    0.00  a                               0.00    o,-   0.'14           a                    0.00                         3                         0.09 en m

m Stizostedion sp. 1 1.01 5 0.01 3(J)

I Stizostedior). a 0.00 a 0.00 'I 0.03 a 0.00 a 0.00 canadense r

Table C-1 (continued) SCiaenidae . ~ '; :: ." .:;. ':;';.\.:~j';;:;~. ...:.:; .:;~ .... ';-',

                                                                                                                                                                                             . ..;;:::.:.....      \:

• j" i' . "I ::'::" - ",:: '\ .:',:.. >:;. ,' ,. .> .# :; .  :. : ,': .. ~.:. ;:::.  :

Aplodinotus 601 5.53 704 2.07 I ~~10 8.:i9 1454 17.70

• 1;'~~ :> - 6.33 grunniens Atherinidae

 'T1 Labidesthe~t      o              0.00     o                   0.00           I :32                                           0.87   10            0.00     18              0.25 5'              sicculus m..

en c: TOTAL 10873 100.00 I 34086 100.00 I 3697 100.00 I 2565 100.00 I 3240 100.00 -0 -0 (0 3(J)

l 9I Preoperational Operational m

  ~
 ,f                               19B3                     1984                                   1985                                                1996                     1997
 ;:)

3(J)

l Taxon Total Collected IComp

                                                 %      ITotal Collected Comp I Total Collected Comp I Total Collected Comp I Total Collected Camp
   ~

3 -0 aen I 1591 liT CD 3(J) Unidentifiable fish eggs 1143 87.12 126 27.66 I 16 51.61 12908 99.28 99.13

l Hiodon spp. o 0.00 10 0.00 I1 3.23 10 0.00 10 0.00 eggs Aplodin otus 169 12.88 I 68 72.34 I 14 45.16 121 0.72 14 0.87 grunniens eggs TOTAL 1312 100.00 I 94 100.00 I 31 100.00 I 2929 100.00 I 1605 100.00 >>

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      "0 "0

(J)

l a.

x* ()

           ~

01

    .....                                                                                        ~(")
    .;.. Table C-1 (continued)                                                                  ro 0

0)  ::::3 C/l\J CI:Jm ro .....

                                                                                                 ...., 0' z:::J c ro

(') ::l mo. ro o

                                                                                                 -0 31m ro Ql

J .......

eg'

-n s*

I Unspecifiable clupeids 15658 173.01 122435 193.33 15890 168.63 14135 183.89 18086 182.08 I

                                                                                                  ~.o N

(J) c '0 '0 m I Alosa chrvsochlons 10 10.00 10 10.00 10 10.00 10 10.00 18 10.08 3 m

J m

I Dorosoma sp. 10 10.00 I1 IT 10 10.00 10 10.00 10 10.00

J

.

0

J I Dorosoma CeQedianum I1 10.01 I 114 10.47 In 10.00 174 11.50 I1 10.01 3

-3" I (I)

J

 !!!..       Dorosoma petenense 12    10.03  10     10.00  IB    10.09  150   I 1.01 12    10.02

'0 ro n. (J') iii CD 3(I)

 -:::s

Table C-1 (continued)

                   ' ~ypronidf3e                                              . "' ..           ... ., ..
                                                                              ..:.... <',                              . ,,}:  . ~: ';' , :'. :: '. ;. : .. J *. : '
                                                                                                                                                                                 \,',

Unspecifiable I 'I 'I 0 1.42 1* T 9* 0.10 2 0.04 6 0.06 cyprinids Cyprinus carpio I 15 0. 19 7 0.03 o 0.00 2 0.04 2 0.02 Macrhyb0l2.sis a 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 11 storeriana ** S' m.. CIJ c: '0 Notropis sp. o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 "0 a> Notropis a 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 3(1)

J atherinoides 1[

m

J Notropis o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 2 0.02

 <              volucellus a'

J 3(1) [ 3" Unspecifi able o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 ' a 0.00 '0 catostomids

  ~

CIJ fi) Ictiobinae a 0.00 a 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 o 0.00 CD 3(1) Minytrema a 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 3 0.06 o 0.00

J melanops

                ';:',~;,i.~~'H'MI'.I~j#~: ,:{r :::' ;~:;f,.[., *..

a a

                                                                                                            ~o                I:                                                         I:

Ictalurus fu rcatus 0.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 Ictalurus 11 0.1 4 a 0.00 2 0.02 1 0.04 1 0.00 >>

                                                                                                                                                                                                        '0 QUDctatus                                                                                                                                                                              '0 (V

l 0.

        .j:>.

• Pylodictis olivaris Ia 1 0 .00 1 0 1 0 .00 1

0 1 0 .00 1 0 1 0 .00 1 0 1 0 .00 x' ()

                                                                                                                        ~()
    .P-  Table C-1 (continued)                                                                                          ru  0 O::>                                                                                                                :::3

(/)'0 mro ru~

                                                                                                                        .., 0 z::J Percichthyidae .                                                                                           c: ru o   ::J r-----        .     ,-          ,-         ."                '. -r'                                      .. t m~

Morone sp. I 50 0.65 108 0.45 24 0.28 41 0.83 820 8.32 "0

                                                                                                                        '"0(1) row

l_

Morone chrysops I 0 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 5 0.10 2 0.02 eg'

                                                                                                                        ~a

J Morone o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 16 0.3 6 0.06 N III mississippiensis (I)

C "0 "0 Morone (not I 244 3.15 283 1.18 29 0.34 161 3.27 382 3.88 (j) saxatilis)

1 Q)

                                                             ~".".'.'.

J

~              Centrarchidae, :                                                               ;,: ::};',":,<<-;,,",::'

rn

a' Lepomis or II 20 0.26 o 1'0': 10" 10.00

J pomoxis

1

(!)

~

Lepomis sp. I 309 3.99 247 1.03 2427 28.28 195 1.93 129 1.31 3' "0 Micropterus sp. I0 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 3 0.03 ()) st CJ) fi) Micropterus I0 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 m dolomieu

3 Q)

 ;;:..       Pomoxis sp.       I 220 2.84   90  0.37    158                   1.84   8   0.16   125         1.27 Pomoxis             o   0.00    o  0.00    o                     0.00   o   0.00   o           0.00 annularis L - . __

Table C-1 (continued) Percidae Unidentifiable 4 0.05 0 0.00 a 0.00 0 0.00 8 0.08 darter 1--- Perea flavescens 12 0.15 9 0.04 9 0.10 6 0.12 0 0.00 Stizostedion sp. a 0.00 0 0.00 a 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.02 Tl

~              Stizostedion           0               0.00      0           0.00                0                    0.00           0                     0.00      0                  0.00 (f) c:             eanadense

-0 -a m

~
                ", Sciaenidae; , "                                              ~,'" """,.,.' ; ' , . , ," ><,:i,                                      ,,' .,.,:':,:;", ' , < ' :

113.63 1737 I, 0.29 [~24 '1 6.57

l

![

m

l AQlodinotus grunniens 1056 13.07125 126712.71

~T

3 Atherlnjdae , ,,' ' .," " * "":'., ' ** ( q" ."',~ ~:~!: ":J!:'}:.:E'~;*!:':' .' * '~.~: ,,::i{, .:;.),(;: ". ~~ ":;"(,:;~t,*, .,"~ :

(() Qi Labidesthes a 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 3" sieeulus -g Sl TOTAL 7750 100.00 24039 100.00 8682 100.00 4929 100.00 9851 100.00 (J) ------.~-----. ru-m T == Less than 0.01 percent composition. 3(() Preoperational;;; 1976-1985; Operational::; 1996-1997

   ~

• Number collected changed or was previously missing.

             ** Scientific name changed, "0
                                                                                                                                                                                                     "0 (I)

s c..

x' ()

       .t;.

(!)

()1 o ~~

+3 (JI"O IDm m::::

                                                                                                                                         ... 0 z::::J Table C-2.           Scoring Results for the 12 Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga          t:: m o ::::J Reservoir, 2005                                                                                         ron.

r-~_c_.

                                                                                                                                         ~o
                                                                                                                                         -0"0
                                                                                                                                         -(I)

Forebay Transition Inflow Sequoyah ma;

J ....

TRM472.3 TRM 490.5 TRM529.0 TRM482.0 eg' Collection Metric Method  :!.o Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score I ...... I\.)

  '1

J

 !:l)I IA. Species richness and composition en                 1. Number of species                                   30       5        30       5    27        3     27     3 c

U 1':1 2. Number of centrarchid species 7 6 7 5 6 5 7 5 or 3(1) 3. Number of benthic invertivores 4 3 4 3 6 3 3 1

J

  ~                 4. Number of intolerctnt species                         6       5        7        5     6        5      5     5 m

I 5. Percent tolerant individuals electrofishing 71 0.6 76.2 0.5 58.6 1.0 70.2 0.5

';'

o gill netting 32.2 0.6 23 1.5 0 0 43.4 0.5

J 3(II

J

6. Percent dominance by one species electrofishing 42.2 1.5 39.4 1.5 30.5 3 25.1 1.5 9I gill netting 30.S 0.5 19.8 1.5 0 0 41 0.5 3" 7. Number nonnative species

'0 ro electrofishing 0 2.5 0.2 2.5 1 5 0.2 2.5

  ~

en gill netting 0.4 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5

 §!                  8. Number of top carnivore species                     12       6         9 ro                                                                                                   5     7        6      9     5 3

ro B. Trophic composition

 ;:z.

9. Percent top carnivores electrofishing 6.4 1.5 14.2 2.5 16.7 3 7.3 1.5 I gill netting 51.7 2.6 45.2 1.5 0 0 34 1.5

10. Percent omnivores electrofishing 11.3 2.5 19.9 2.5 33.3 3 26 1.5

            ----.-~-

gill netting 40.5 0.5 37.3 1.5 0 0 58 0.5 I

Table C-2 (continued) 1- FOi'ebay Transition Inflow Seq uoya h TRM472.3 TRM490.5 TRM529.0 TRM482.0 Collection Metric Method Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score

             ~. Fish abundance and health 11 S'                  11. Average number per run              electrofishing    37.3     0.5    41.8      0.5    67        3    58.5      0.5 Q!..

(j) c gill netting 26.9 2.5 12.6 1.5 0 0 21.5 1.5 U 'U (i) I--

12. Percent anomalies electrofishing 0.5 2.5 0.8 2.5 2.2 3 0.9 2.5 3 gill netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 CD

J 0 0 2.5

 ~                                 RFAI                                            46                48             42              39 m             - ..- ._-_."-

J

 <                                                                                Good             Good            Good            Fair g            "Percent composition of the most abundant species 3

CD

J

 ~

3"

'U III n-       Table C-3.         Recent (1993-2005) RFAI Scores Developed Using the RFAI Metrics Upstream and Downstream of Watts Bar Ul
  §t                          Nuclear Plant (f)

3 --_.

(f)

J 1993-2005 Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002* 2003* 2004 2005 Average Downstream TRM 529 52 52 46 - 44 -- 42 44 46 48 48 42 42 46 -

Upstream TRM 531 43 48 44 ------- 41 36 44 39 39 45 43 47 43

                                                                                                                                              ~

g CD

I a.

x'

      --'                                                                                                                                     ()

(TI

at ~2? f\.)  ::::3 C/)"O ([Iro

                                                                                                                                                 ~g:

z:::l Table C-4. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall Benthic Community Index Scores for Watts Bar c:: II> o  :::I Forebay and Sites Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Watts Bar and Chickamauga roo.

                                                                                                                                                 ~O Reservoirs, November 2005                                                                                              -0"0
                                                         ,.                                                                                      ar!!l
                                                                             .,. ,TRM$32,$;;*, '. *****,TRM:$21~.   ' . *****,iTRM,$18< . .* '.' :::lea.

Metric , . ObSerVecf ,R~tltig IobServed itt.tlng '~~~: ~tlng c; g'

                                                                                                                                                 ~a 01        1. Average number of taxa                                              2.9          3       6.8         5            6.4    5          tv

J

~,        ~r:...~e~ortion of samples with lonQ-lived orQanisms                 20%            1      100%         5           90%     5 (J)

C 3. Average number of EPT taxa 0.1 1 0.9 5 0.3 1 "C ":3ro 14. Average proportion of oliQochaete individuals 10.2% 5 0.8% 5 1.9% 5 CD

l

15. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by 95.41% 1 72.01% 5 74.41% 5 the two most abundant taxa DOM

~

m 6. Average density excluding chironomids and

l 21.7 1 480.0 1 610.0 3 oliQochaetes TOTNONCT a'

l

3 7. Zero-samples - proportion of samples containing no co 0.1 3 0 5 0 5

J organisms

e. 15 31 29

3

'U Benthic Index Score Poor Excellent Good tJ:) Sl TRM 532.5 scored with forebay criteria, TRM 527.4 and 518 scored with inflow criteria. (j) or Benthic Index Scores: Very Poor 7-12, Poor 13-18, Fair 19-23, Good 24-29, Excellent 30-35 EPT == Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera ttl

3

(!)

                  =

DOM Dissolved Organic Matter

) TOTNONCT = TOTal NON-Chironomid Taxa, i.e., the average number of organisms excluding chironomids and tubificidslsample.

l III (J) c

'"0 U

<D          Table C-S.         Recent (1994-2005) Benthic Index Scores Collected as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program at Watts 3                              Bar Reservoir - Transition and Forebay Zone Sites (Upstream) and Chickamauga Reservoir Inflow ro

l (Upstream) and Transition (Downstream) Sites

![

m

I Site,. , ' ~J ~~~rvoir,I,.~o,~iltlc>n:IJ9941:~~~~I1,~;~.119$8:!J~9*:U~P:I~~1. E~.Oo~,120~-];2~,:~1~~~:T~y:e~9E!'lc

'

o::I Upstream iWatts Bar 1TRM 532.51 13 I I 11 1 1 13 1 1 15 1 13 1 9 1 15 1 17 1 15 1 13 3 Downstream IChickamauga I TRM 527.4 29 I 27 33 33 31 30 ro

l III

 ~r "0

III Q. (JJ Iii

 <>
                                                                                                                                        "0
                                                                                                                                        '"0 CD

I a.

5f en C1 (.V

Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Table C-S. Sensitive Aquatic Animal Species Known to Occur in the Watts Bar Dam Tallwaters Within 10 Miles of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

,'" ',':,',;"""':"',+'~:'<, ,""",,',,;:;,!C::_:";' ii::':' '~f' ">:1':"'; ',','

CotnmonN,.me , ' ",' ",;,' , ',' ":L  :.,,"SQIe.fit~g~~~. >::'::'W~:~.ii::,j;;I£ '~:;~J~~ij~fGi~ * *:' Fish Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus THR Snail Darter Percina tanasi THR THR Mussels Dromedary Pearlymussel Dromus dromas END END (S1) Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta END END Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum NOST Rough Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum END END Tennessee Clubshell Pleurobema oviforme NOST Fanshell CYQroqenia stegaria END END 1 Status Codes: END = Endangered; NOST =No Status but tracked by the (State) Natural Heritage Project; THR ::: Threatened. State Ranking: S1 = Critically Imperiled 154 Finai Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Table C-7. Results of Recent Mussel Surveys (1983.1997) Within 2 River Miles Downstream From Watts Bar Dam, Tennessee River Mile 529.9 to 527.9 528~2'; ......  ;.:' .

                                                                                                                            ,:., ... , i ' .
                                                                                                                                             *..... ~       *. * *. '528'a~.**. :529~2R 5219;" . 527.9-"
                                                                                                    "629~4l 52*.~Ft: ::528~6R"
                                                                                     ; . 529i.4R*

I Common Name . Scientific Name '. **'(t910): : (1m) .:: '1990} \ . ,J19901.:': '1994 ~f#~~;': t1:$til .*Tot~d:: I Elephant Ear Elliptio crassidens 21 2 32 204 2921 268 62 3510 -n ~' ~hiOPigtoe P/eurobema corda tum 17 -- 4 34 530 47 7 639 (f) Pimpleback Quadru/a pustulosa 1 4 52 4 241 20 10 332 C "0 "0 ro Purple Wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata 4 - 8 5 142 13 3 175 I 3(J) 1 - 6 1 50 4 12 74 I

J

!.l:t m

Pink Heelsplitter Butterfly Potamilus alatus Ellipsaria lineo/ata - -- 3 -- 43 9 2 57

 ~
 ~f

J Threehorn wartyback Ob/iquaria reflexa 4 1 20 -- 7 - 1 33 3

CIl

J Pink mucket Lampsilis abrupta 2 -- - 1 26 1 1 31 fir Giant Floater Pyganodon (=anodonta) grandis -- 1 2 - 20 1 3 27 3" --.--~.

"0 ill Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra 1 -- - - 18 1 3 23

  $l                                                                                                                                                                                                               ,

(f) ill Black Sandshell Ligumia recta -- -- 1 -- 18 1 1 21 I I

 <t              Fragile papershell           Leptodea fragilis                                --       -         3                  2                  8               1            2                   16 3(J)
  ;;t            Pistolgrip Pearly mussel Tritagonia verucosa                             -         2        4                  -                  7               1                                14
               ~OCketbOOk                      Lampsilis ovata                                 -        -         -                  -                  8               -            1                     9 Mucket                        Actinonaias ligamentina                         -        -         --                 -                  -               8                                  8 Spike                         Elliptio dilatata                               -         --       1                   1 6               -                -~--

8

• L ::: along left descending bank; R ;:;; along right descending bank

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -0 (J)

J a.

x' 01 o en

~ 5()

                                                                                                                                             &0

t:3 (f)"O Table C-7 (continued) row ru  !~.

                                                                                                                                             .., 0
                                                                             .:: . " :: ~.. : ... . :

z:.:l

                                                                               .- : ~-.: ~::                                                 o1=  ill

l roo.

      . Comr~Oh;Nam~ - *.: .**<~*I:~cient:iiic: Nam~, ~    *.n .'.:.*.*. *.'
                                                                                                                                              !Il 0
                                                                                                                                              ..,'U 3! ~

Washboard I Megalonaias nervosa 7 7 ~!!t

                                                                                                                                              ~g' Tennessee Clubshell       I Pleurobema oviforme                                                                 6            I  6     ::J 0 rl=....,

N Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria 1 1 Flat floater Anodonta sborbiculata 1 1

"::;-
 ~

(J) C Fluted Shell ~ Lasmigona costata 1 I. 1 -'

"0 "0

lii' Kidneyshell I ptychobranchus fasciolaris 1 I1l

 ~       Longsolid                I Fusconaia subrotunda                                                                 1              1

[ l=m(J~LJLf!tal m

 ;:)

Rough Pigtoe I Pleurobema plenum 1 1 cr

I White Heelsplitter I Lasmigona complanata 1 1 3

CD

I

  .-+
  ~

Total Specimens 53 14 139 253 4111 253 108 "0 3' OJ Total Species 9 6 13 9 25 9 13 a

  !"a                                    Sample A rea (square mile) I                             100   100  250  200  nd**  nd 310
  *a 3

CD

        *L Mussels/square mile I
            =along left descending bank; R ::: along right descending bank 0.5:3  0.14 0.56 1.26          0.35
        **nd =not determ ined (suNey conducted using timed intervals, not area)}}