ML12171A245

From kanterella
Revision as of 09:57, 13 October 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
TVA, Watts Bar, NPDES Permit No. TN0020168 - Permit Modification Request - Addition of Unit 2 Operation
ML12171A245
Person / Time
Site: Watts Bar Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
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 C
References
NPDES TN0020168
Download: ML12171A245 (245)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:Tennessee Valley Au t hority. 11 01 Market Street. Chattanooga. Ten n essee 37402-2801 August 17, 2010 0Sr: q!/O \L8t Dr. Richard Urban, PhD Division of Water Pollut i on Contro l Chattanooga Field Office RECEIVED A G 1 8 2010 Tennessee Departme n t of Environment and Conservation State Office Bu il ding , Suite 550 540 McCallie Avenue Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402

Dear Dr. Urban:

PerIfit Section TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) -WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLAN I NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0020168 -PERMIT MODIFICATION REQUEST -AIDDIT I ON OF U N I T 2 OPERAT I ON. I Enclosed a re a signed original and a two-sided copy of a NPDES application packe t to r evise the NPDES permit to allow for WBN Uni t 2 operations. This packet consists of EPA Form 1 , s i te map, Form 2C, Form 2C addendum , f l ow schematic , and a address form. Als.o enclosed is a reasonable potentia l evaluation for whole e ff luent toxic i ty. T he revisions , which address the planned startup a n d operat i o n of Un it 2 , are discussed below. Sampling f o r the analytica l data provided in th i s application occurred in May 20 1 0 and h i sto r ical data were co m pi l ed f ro m th e p e ri o d of J u n e 'I, 2 009 , th ro u gh M ay 3 1, 2010. With r es p ec t to w as t e w a t e r di s ch a r ge s and w a t e r int a ke e ff ec ts, the c h a n ges , h a t w ill oc c ur are: 1. I n s ignifi ca nt hydroth e rm a l effects on n ea r-f i e ld and far fi e ld t emper a tu[e s a nd on th e op e ration of the Supp l ementa l Co n den s e r Cooling W ater (SCCW) s Y1t e m a r e expected. .1 2. Tow erbrom tr ea tm e nt s for condenser coo ling w a t e r (CCW) will in creflse 100 p ercent; how eve r, TVA a n t icip a t es being able to comply with the eX i st l'ng , a pprov e d Bioc i de/Cor r os ion Tr eatme nt Plan (B/C TP). 3. Th e intake pumpi n g s tation rate will inc r e ase from approxi m at e ly 52 to approximat e ly 75 MGD, an d 4. A corresponding incr ease of essent i a l r a w cooling w a t e r (ERC W) and r aw cooling water (RCW) chemic a l add itives wiil occur. Th ese c h a n ges a r e di sc u sse d in m o r e d eta il be l o w: D r. R i c h a r d u r b b n Page 2 ) Augus t 17 , 20 1@ RECEiVED AUG 1 8 2010 Outfalls 1 01 an 1 d 1 1 3 .. . Permit S e ction t:Jear-field hydro r hermal from of the impact of the heated effluent on the water te':lPrrature In the Immedia t e VICini t y of the plant as defined by the assigned mixing zones In NPDES permit. Even wit h the previous changes that have been made (e.g., t he supple 1 me.ntal cooling water system and new steam generators for Unit 1) and the ReservOir Operations Study crlanges to the operation of the Tennessee River, updated (discussed in more detail below) confirm that the operation of two Units at WBN will not have a signi f ican t impact on near-field hydrothermal conditions in the River. Because t h e second cooling tower at WBN will be operational w i th the startup of 2 , effects on water tempera t ures in the river for two-un i t operations can be effectively w i thin the current NPDES Pe r mit limitations fo r all outfalls without significan t i mpacts on plant operations. Additionally, data from recent f i eld studies support t he metllods used by TVA to model t he dissipation o f waste heat in the river , and demonstrate that the patterns of mixing from the outfalls provide ample space for f i sh passage and the protection of bottom habi t at. By v i rtue of the fact that thermal i mpac t s are insignifican t , far-fie l d impacts on Ch i ckamauga Reservoir are also expecte d to b e ins i gn i f i can t. )Ongoing ac ti v it i es u nde r th e TV A Reservo i r R e l eases I mp r oveme nt Program and the TVA Vita l Signs M oni t oring Prog r am would cont i nue t o provide close scrut in y of any potentia l far-fie l d impacts from the WB N effluents. The d i mensions 1 0f the Outfall 1 01 thermal mixing zone (240 fee t wide by 240 feet dO'v'Jnstrea m) are based on a p h ysical h ydro t her m al model test of the diffusers ,,",:hich indicated t hat su ffi cient mixing wo u ld be achieved at a distance equivalent to rough l y the l ength of t h e outflow sections of the diffusers (80 feet long for the upstream leg and 1 60 feet l ong fo r the dOW?s t ream l eg). The width of t he rive r at O u tfa ll 101 is appro x imately 1100 feet; therefore, about 80 percent of the river is available for fish refuge and passage. The designs of the d i ffusers and mixing zone were based on the operation of both units; t herefore, no ch cf nges are ant i cipated fo r accommoda t ing the operation of U n it 2. H o w e v er , TVA will perform l studies Similar to those performed for Unit 1 to confirm the perfo r ma n ce o f the d iffu se r s wit i t he operation o f two un its a t WB N. . F o r O utf a ll 11 3 , t wo mi x ing zo n es h ave bee n es t a bli s h ed i n th e ex i s ti ng r e i ss u ed p e r m it t o bett e r a li g n monit o rin g for thi s o utf a ll w i th th e b e havior of the e fflu e nt in th e r ece iving s tr ea m. C om put a ti o ns a n d m eas ur e m e nts s h o w th a t s p r e a d ing of the e fflu e nt v a ri es s u b s t a nti a lly b e tw ee n co nd i tidn s with an d wi t h o ut flo w in t h e riv e r fro m W a tt s B ar D a m. For conditions w ith dam f l ow, the effluent tends to reside on the right descending bank and is monitored b y an active mixing zone via in-stream temperature monitors. For conditions without dam f l o w , the effluen t can spread across the river and is mon i tored by the passive mixing zone. B eca u s e th e mixing zone encompa sses are a s 'Nhi c h mu st r e m a in c l ea r f or n a vi g a ti o n , it i s c h e ck e d bi a nnu a liy by TVA (in th e wint e r a nd s umm e r) by sp e c i a l w a t e r t e m pe r a tu re s urJ e y s r a th e r th a n in-s tr eam m o nit o r s. Outf a ll 113 i s a n ea r-s urf a c e di sc h a r ge , a nd cbmput a t io ns a nd m eas ur e m e nt s confirm that th e e fflu e nt di s p e r s es in the s urf a c e r e gion of th e w a t e r coiumn pro vi ding ample room for fish p as s age. TVA d oes not prop ose an y changes to th e d im ensions of the Outfa ll 1 13 mixing zo n e s with the completio n a nd start up o f Unit 2. TVA h as a n up da t ed hy d roth e rmal a n a ly s is o f th e WBN h ea t dissip a tion s y s t e m for the operation ofWBN Unit 2. Two operating c ases were con s ider e d: (1) Unit 1 only (i.e., current, base ca e conditions) and (2) the combined operation of Unit 1 a nd Unit 2, with the D r. Ric h ar d U rba n Page 3 August 17, 20 1 0 RECEIVED AUG 1 8 20iO P e rmit S e ction SCCW system serving only Unit 2. The analysis indicates that, for Outfall 1 01, 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 0.1 of in the summer and fall between the two cases. I n addition, maximum hourly temperature changes at the edge of the Outfall 1 01 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 f or all months with the exception of a predicted increase in the hourly rate of change from 2.4°F to 2.6°F i n April. A more complete discussion of the hydrothermal analysis, including assumptions regarding the flow and temperature of re l eases 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 l i cense 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 i f the ERCW intake temperature approached 88°F. TVA requests that the existing permit limitation f or Total Residual Chlorine be retained in the modified perm i t. Although the expected flow rate for Outfall 1 01 (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 perm i t. The di sc u ssio n of t otal r esidua l chlo r ine limitations o n page R-1 0 o f R-67 of the curren t per mi t i ndicates th a t t he e xi stingco n ce nt ra t io n limit of 0.1 mg/L fo r TR C i s cons i de r ed t o b e prot ec tiv e of wat e r qu a lity in the Tenne ss ee River a t a f l ow from Outf a ll 1 0'1 of 67.43 MGD which exc ee ds the e xp ec t e d flow rat e for 2-unit op e r a tion s by a con s id e r a bl e m a rgin. S imil a rly , the e xp ec ted fl ow r a t e for Outf a ll 1 13 (S uppl e m e nta l C o nd e n se r Co o ling W a t e r) fo r two unit operations i s 14 8.8 9 5 MGD compared to the maximum of 178.38 MGD evalu a ted in th e current r atio n a l e. Outfall 102 Th e re h a v e b ee n no di sc harg es from thi s outf a ll s ince M a rch 2005. Therefore, th e EPA Form 2C d a ta for this Outf a ll a re for hi s toric a l d a ta. Antidegradation Considerations The withdr a w al r ate for the int a k e pumping sta tion loc a t e d in C hi cka m a u ga Reservoir will incr ease from approx im ate ly 52 M GD to app r o ximat e ly 7 5 M GD a nd the S CCW int a k e withdrawal rate w i ll rem a in approximately 17 4 MGD. Of th e total withdrawal of ap proxim ate ly 249 MGD, a pproxim a t e ly 42 MGD i s consumptive (primarily cooling tow e r Dr. R ic h a rd Ur b a n P age 4 A u g u s t17, 2 0 10 RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2010 Permit S e ction evaporation) wi t h 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 extensive hydrothermal analysis of the WBN hea t dissipation system. Th i s analYSIS that near-field (and thus fa r-field) thermal impacts are inSignificant and can be managed wi t hin t h e limitat i ons of the cu r rent NPDES permit. The quantities o f chem i ca l s used for treatmen t s of i ntake or process waters must be cond u cted *i n accordance with a TDEC-ap p roved Biocide/Corrosion T reatment P l an (B/CTP). WBN's cur r ent B/CTP was approved in 2009. TVA anticipates that this provision w ill continue in th e m odified pe r mi t and plans to su bmit a revised B/CTP which addresses the cha n ges in c h emical trea t men t s of ERCW and RCW and Towerbrom t r eatments of CCW fo r two un i t operations at WB N. Approved l oad in gs as desc r ibed in t he current B/CTP are expected t o be adeq u ate. Prop os ed Who l e E f f luent Tox i city (WET) R e quir e m e nt s TVA r eques t s that the W E T li m it atio n s f or Ou tf alls 1 01, 1 02 , and 1 1 3 be revised as d i scussed in th e enclosed r easonab l e potential e v alua t ion. CW A Sec t ion 3 1 6(b) As you are aware , WBN is sub j ec t to EPA's Phase II 316(b) reg u lations wh i ch are current l y suspended. TVA u nders t ands t h at EPA will issue a draft of the revised Phase II regulation some ti me l a t er t hi s year or ea rl y n ext year and h as di r ected the states to base NPDES permit r equi r eme n ts on b est pro f essional j u dgment as has bee n done in the pas t. T he WB N int ake p umping s t atio n w i thd r awal ra t e from C hickamauga ReseNoir f o r 2-u n i t operations

  • is co mm ensu r a te w it h t he or i g i na l p lan t des i g n fo r close d cycle coo lin g. Therefo r e, B es t Av a i l a bl e T e chn ology (BA T) r e q u ir eme n ts f o r 3 1 6 (b) a r e clear ly m e t fo r t h is i nt a ke. A s r e fl ec t e d o n the e ncl osed F o rm 2 C flow sc h e m a t i c , t he m a ximum e x pec t ed i nta k e pumpin g s t ati o n withd r a w a l ra t e for n orma l 2-un i t op e r a tions (i.e., f o r o th e r t h a n acci dent s i t u a tio n s) i s 7 5.0 2 4 M G D (5 2,1 0 0 GP M). Th e ca l c ul a t e d throu g h-sc r een v e lo c it y f o r t h is fl o w a rid a norm a i s umm e r poo l e l e va t i o n of 683 i s 0.4 6 4 fp s. Pl ease n o t e th a t thi s ca l c u la tion does acco unt f o r sc r e e n guid es an d s u ppo rt s as well as the w i r e co mpri s in g t he m es h of th e sc r ee n s. TVA submitted biologic a l monitoring d a ta for the WBN SCCW int a ke th at w a s coll e ct e d in accord a nce with th e Propo s a l for I nform a tion Coll e cti o n (P I C) pl a n as d e V e l o p ed un de r th e 31 6 (b) Ph as e I I r e quir e m e nt s prio r to their s usp e n s i o n by E PA on M a r c h 2 0 , 20 07. Th e c o nt e nt o f this b i o l og i c a l d a t a , d u e no l a te r th a n J a nu a ry 7 , 200 8, was a gr ee d upo n du ring t h e No v e m be r 1, 20 07, m eet in g wi th T DE C. Based on those da t a, TVA concluded that the *WBN SCCW intake was no t adverse l y impacting the fi sh community in the vicinity o f WBN and, in accordance w i th Part III, H o f t h e prev i ous WBN NPDES permit, 316(b) limitations for thi s facilit y we r e dete r m in e d to b e i n comp li a n ce b ase d on b est p rofessio n a l judg m e nt in accorda n ce wi t h CFR 401.43 and 1 22.43. T h ere h a v e b ee n no c h a n geS in the desig n o r op e r a ti o n o f the S C C W int a ke s inc e th a t time, a nd th e S CCW int a ke f l ow r a t e will n o t in c r eas e as a re s ult of t he s t a rtup and oper a tion of WBN Unit 2. Ther e fore , TVA requests a D r. Richard U rba n PageS Aug u s t 17 , 2010 continuation of the current 316(b) BPJ determination pending reissuance of the final Phase II rule. Water Quality Certification for Nuclea r 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 i tate the development of pla n n i ng limits, i f applicable. in addition, we request concurrent public notices fo r the draft NPOES permit and the assoc i ated 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 quest i ons 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 Perm i ts and Compliance 50 L ooko ut P l ace c c: See Page 6 RECEIVED .i\UG 1 8 2010 Permit Section Dr. R i c h a r d Urb a n Page 6 August 1 7 , 20 1 0 Enclosures cc: Mr. Vojin Janjic , Manager Permit Section Division of Water Po l lution Control Tennessee Departmen t of Environment and Conservation 6th F l oor, L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashvi ll e, Tennessee 37243 AUG 1 8 20lO Perm" Sect'on '-...l ,,,"-,.III ,n,,l o rtowPal1i CCW -C o"d." ** , CooNnn CT-ConlilliJ T o ...... ' E-E va p llfaH on ERC.W -EI1lOI'!J/lncy R"wCooh n ll Wollo. HPFP_lIlgh !'.un lle FII. P.oloct/o" Sy"tu'n M\i\'S-MunltlpulWil l o r Uul'lply RCW-lIl1wCO<Ih"'JW"t" Wall! SCC W -SUI'I'lolNln tal CCW SGBO-G,nortl l o. 010....;10;'" TOSS-Turbu I II BL/l!dln o Slo!lonS U/l 1P IAv rp -VOlldfU W"lor T.o"lm Il 11 1 Pbnt W TP -Walnl Tr llQ tm ll rll Plaut KEY -+ I llt o nn i ll e llt F l ow -'7 C h c mir.a l Addi ti ve [><) No rmrt lly open va l vo N onnll ll y c l os e d va l ve n Negligib l e fl ow System L eakugo & Maintenance Doce Th.ollOh Cooling Wol l er (ERCW & RCIN !i yGlcm) M alll Feel l wa tef I!. Cnnden"" t c SY5 1 em& JUiW S yetc/II E R C W T r"lIc l in!l S crer!n Uil ck W (lsh 0.00 1 8 E R C W S I'lIinc fll Ba c k Wa.h 0.1 09 E R C WStl"i'l l nelli Leak age n S t"l k m Omrn a!)\! S lnnl'. 0.012 Liqui d RAdwdsle S y s l em Pnm ary Laboratory Wasl e (0.000 1 ) nad/oa t t illo AoQr& Equ i p rr\lInt 0<<11 01, Tanks , n ndSu,,,,,,,jOOOJ9) "A" Mt ll[l l C l ea nlnn Wi.ls l os 11.0 6 0 6 Ne u t r a l Wast e Tmlk P o tab l e Wale! lIll e l eaks 0.0002 0.0 3 99 H PF P S y stem 0.001 45.40B 0.O"ft6 TU/bine Build i ng S talion S u m p ------r---- J Me t al C lun lng Wulu (0.0003) S W R uroo ff (0.000 1 I Drum R i ns i ng {O.OOOI J Dwm (0.00011 Diue l C lean i ng Coolan t (O.oool) TBSS wI Melal Clean i ng Wasl e s -------*--*0]j(i3---- -*-*---*------"A" N on-Ro d Dem i n Water (0.011) Service B ui ld ing Sump (0.020) Diese l Geo (D IG) Bu i ld i ng Sump (0.0001) Eme rg ency DIG Bu i l di ng Sump (0.0001) CCW Pump Sta Uo n Sump (0.0001) NaOCI8uilding Sum p & D i ke (0.00 1) HPFP Sys tem Flushes (0.003) Pot able Wate r Line l eaks (0.001) Storm Water Runolf (0.6 99) Chemic al Storag e Ra inwat er Release (0.001) Groundwater Sump (0.001) 0.7373 Yard Hol ding Pond sccw Discharge YHP OVefnOW Weir D isc harge 0.10 5 0.057 QSN 113 148.89S OSN 10 2

  • Nole s: 1. Bo th units are operallng in nonna l power generation mode. 2. Raw wate r additives will be used In the Intake Pumping S t ation and Ih e Cooling Tower Basins. 3. For dual u n it operAtion.

two essenllal r aw cooling water (ERCVV) pumps and si)( raw cooling water (RClN) pumps are operntlno wilh a tolal maximum flow rate of 52.100 GPM (75.024 MGO). 4. Th e flows through I ce Condenser chiller packages and various air coolers arc doubled from Unit 1 Only Opera tion. The ERCW. and RCWdlscharge rate s were r ationed up by 21% to balance Ih e now diagram.

References:

1. N3-67-4002, R25, ERCW System Description.
2. Calculalion No. MDN00002720100373 RO. jJ (!) J'> m ... :3 c:: () GJ f""'--f.*

I-! m (f) 00 CD r-.J < ("") = .... 0 => ITl ::l 0 TVA Walls Bar Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No" TN0020128 Flow Schematic for Dual Un i t Operation All Flows in MGD July 2010 TENN ESSE E VALLEY AUTHORITY (TV A) -WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT (W B N) -NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0020168 -APPLICATION FOR PERMIT MODIFICATION Current Whole Effluen t (WET) Toxicity Limits (permit effective 7/1/10): Outfall 101 -Outfall 102 -Outfa ll 113 day or 3-brood IC 25 2! 3.3% effluent (30.3 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year 7-day or 3-brood IC 25 2! 3.3% effluent (30.3 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year (on l y if discharge operated 2! 30 days from Jan. -Jun., or Jul. -Dec. if all toxicity testing has not been comp l eted fo r Outfall 101) 7-day or 3-brood IC 25 2! 8% effluen t (12.5 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year Proposed Whole Eff luent (WET) Toxici t y Requirements: Outfall 101 -Outf a ll 102 -Outf a ll 113 day or 3-brood IC 25 2! 2.8% effluent (35.7 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year , one during oxid i z in g biocide treatment and one during non-oxidizing b i ocide treatment 7 -day or 3-brood I C 25 2! 2.8% eff lu e nt (3 5.7 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year (on l y if di sc harge op era t e d 2! 30 da y s from J a n. -Jun., or Jul. -Dec. i f a li toxicity testing h as n o t been complete d for Outf a ll 101) 7-day or 3-b rood IC 2 5 2! 6.7% eff lu e nt (14.9 TUc) Monitoring Fr eq u e ncy = 2/y ea r, one during oxidi z ing biocide tr eat m e nt and one during non-oxidizing biocide tr eat ment Outf a ll s 101 and 113: I n accordance with EPA's recommendation (T echnical Support Documen t for Water Qua l ity-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 o p erating 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 r enewal process to document acceptable effluent toxicity and toxicity at the instream wastewater concentration (IWC) would serve only as a hard tr i gger for accelerated toxicity biomonitor in g. However , raw water used at the facility is treated with corrosion inhibitors and biocide products. T hese 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 th e permit period and the combined toxicity effec t of the chemicals is not known. Thus it is not feasible to control toxicity only by the app li cation of chemica l specif i c eff l uen t limits to the discharge. Toxicity testing is a reasonable m ethod to eva lu ate t he toxicity impacts of the products in th e eff l uent. Therefore, TVA believes i t is appropriate to incorporate th e proposed WET requirements stated above for WBN Outfalls OSN 1 01 and OSN 1 13 that are specified in the Biocide Corrosion Treatment Plan (BCTP), approved by letter o n dated Ju ly 30 , 2004, with one test per outfall dur i ng oxidizing biocide treatment and one test per outfall during non-oxidizing biocide treatment. TVA i s requesting permit l anguage 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 r esults. Outfa ll 102: Sampling and analysis of Outfall OSN1 02 has not been required under t he current permit or p revious perm it since the conditions for biomonitoring were not met. No RP determinat i on was made fo r thi s Outfal l. Table 1. Summa ry of WBN Outf a ll O S N101 W E T Biomonitoring Re s ul ts: Acute Results Survival! Chronic Results % Survival in Study Study Test Date Test Species Highest Toxicity I C 25 Toxicity Concentration Units (TUa) Units (TUc) Tested 1. Feb. 2-9, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% 10.2 t Pimephales promelas 100% <1.0 (IC 2s:<1.0) 2. Aug. 26 -Sept. 22 , 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% Pimephales promelas 100% <1.0 <1.0 3. Feb. 1-8, 1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100% Pimephales promelas 98% <1.0 >100% <1.0 4. Aug. 9-16 , 1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 1 00% >100% Pimephales promelas 100% <1.0 >100% <1.0 5. Feb. 23 -Mar. 1 , 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% P im ephales promelas 98% <1.0 <1.0 6. Aug. 22-29, 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 89% >100% Pimephales promelas 100% <1.0 >100% <1.0 7. Feb. 19-26, ;997 Ceriodaphnia dubia 80% 58.0% Pimephales promelas 100% <1.0 >100% 1.7 8. Aug. 12-20, 1997 Ceriodaphnia dubia 0% 30.9% Pimep ha les promelas 100% 3.1 >100% 3.2 9. Feb. 24 -Mar. 3 , 1998 Ceriodaph nia du bia 1 00% >1 00% Pimephales promelas 1 00% <1.0 >100% <1.0 1 0. Sept. 16 , 1998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 0% 32.4% Pim e phales pro m elas 98% 3.2 >100% 3.1 1 1. M ar. 2-9 , 1 999 Ce ri bdap hni a dubi a 100% >100% P i m e ph a l es prom e l a s 90% <1.0 40% 2.5 1 2. S e p t. 9 -O c t. 6 , 1 99 9 Ceri o d a phni a dubia 100% >1 3.2% P im e ph a l es prom e l as 1 00% <7.5 8 >1 3.2% <7.58 1 3. Apr. 4-11 , 2000 C e ri odaphn i a dubi a 10 0% >1 3.2% M a r. 22-29 , 2000 Pi m e p h a l es p r om e l a s 98% <7.5 8 >1 3.2% <7.5 8 14. O c t. 25 -N o v. 1,2000 Ce ri odap hni a dubi a 100% >13.2% <7.58 <7.58 Pimephales promelas 100% >13.2% Summary of WBN Outfall OSN101 WET Biomonitoring Results (continued): \\:) Acute Results 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% Oct. 21-28, 2002 Pimephales promelas 100% <7.58 >13.2% <7.58 19. Apr. 14-21,2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2% Pimephales promelas 100% <7.58 >13.2% <7.58 20. Nov. 3-10 , 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90% 12.1% Pimephales promelas 100% <7.58 >13.2% 8.3 21. Apr. 20-27, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2% Pimephales promelas 98% <7: 58 >13.2% <7.58 I, Summary of WBN Outfall OSN101 WET Biomonitoring Results (continued): Test Date Test Species n Maximum Minimum Mean %CV Acute Results (96-h Survival) % Survival in St d Highest. Concentration U*t (TU ) Tested m s a 66 100% 0% 95.8% 18.2 33 7.6 1.0 4.66 55.63 Chronic Results Study I C 25 Toxicity Units (TUc) 33 8.3 1.00 4.75 53.47 f Statistical endpoint biased by selection of the dilution series. IC 25 derived from orig i nal data. Current permit was effective July 1 , 2010. Shaded area designates data collected during previous perm it (Effective Date: November 5 , 2004). Applicable permit lim i t: IC 25 ;:: 2.4%, 42.3 TUc. Applicable permit dilut i on series: Contro l, 1.2%, 2.4%, 4.8%, 9.6%,19.2%. Tabl e 2. S ummary ofWBN Outf a ll OSN113 WET Biomonitoring Results: . Acute Results (96-h Chronic Results Survival) Test Date Test Species % Survival in Study Study Highest Toxicity IC 25 Toxicity Concentration Units (TUa) Units (TUc) Tested 1. October 19-26, 1 999 Ceriodaphnia dubia 1 00% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 98% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 2. Apr. 4-11,2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90% 19.5% Pimephales promelas 100% <2.43 >41.2% 5.0 3. Oct. 25 -Nov. 1, 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 98% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 4. Apr. 18-25, 2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 100% <2.43 25.1% 4.0 5. Oct. 15-23,2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 100% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 6. Apr. 14-19,2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Apr. 28 -May 3 , 2002 Pimephales promelas 93% <2.43 20.0% 5.0 7. Oct. 21-28 , 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 98% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 8. Ap r. 15-22, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 93% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 9. N ov. 3-10, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 100% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 10. Apr. 20-27, 2004 Ceriodap hni a dubia 1 00% >41.2% Pimephales prornelas 100% <2.43 <2.43 I Summary of WBN Outfall OSN113 WET Biomonitoring Results (continu ed): I Test Date Test Species N M ax imum Minimum Mea n %CV Acute Results (96-h Survival) % Survival in St d Highest" Concentration U"t (TU ) Tested nI s a 44 100% 90% 99.3% 2.1 2 22 3.29 2.43 2.90 1 5.12 Chronic Results Study IC 25 Toxicity Units (TUc) 22 5 2.43 3.20 22.96 Current permit was effect ive July 1 , 2010. Shaded a r ea designates data collected du r ing previous p er mit (Effective Date: November 5 , 2004). Applic ab l e p er mit limit s: I C25 7.6%, 1 3.2 TUc. Appli cab l e permit dilution ser i es: Control , 1.9%, 3.8%, 7.6%, 15.2%, 30.4%. OSN 101 Reasonab l e Potential (RP) Determination Based on OSN10 1 Eff lu e r 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 1 00 = 2.80% Chro ni c TOXICITY Step 1 Step 2-3 Step 4 Step 5 O S N 113 33 WET Biomonitoring Studies, Maximum Observed Toxicity is 8.3 TUc. [Average toxicity = 4.75 TUc; compl i ance limit = 42.3 TUc (lC 25 2.37% effluent).] I Coefficient of variation (CV) = 0.53. For 20 samples arid a CV of 0.5, th e mu ltiplyin g factor (99% confidence level and 99% PTbability) is 2.0. Low riv er flow = 2062 MGD and WBN Outfall OSN101 discharge = 57.76 M GD = 2.80% In st r ea m Waste Concentration (IWC) afte r mixing. At a 0.028 IW C: 8.3 TUc x 2.0 x 0.028 = 0.46 TUc 0.4 6 TUc i s l ess th a n the ambient CCC criterion of 1.0 TUc. Thi s out co me demonstrates that no Reasonable Po te nti a l for exc ur s i o n s above the CCC exists, ba se d on effluent data obtain d from te s ting con ducted under cu rr ent operating conditions. Reasonable Potentia l (RP) Det e rmination Based o n OSN 11 3 Data On l y T e chn i c a l S upport Documen t, Text Box 3-2 and Section 3.3 (EP N505/2-9 0-001) DI L UTION OS N 1 1 3 D i s c h a r ge F l o w = 1 48.895 MGD (b ased on r evised f l ow s c h e m at i c) S tr ea m 1 0 1 0 = 2062 M G D Dilution Factor (DF): F O s + Qw 2062 + 148.895 148-D = = = .) Qw 148.8 9 5 Instream Wastewater Concentration (IWC): IWC = DF-1 X 100 = 6.73% Chronic TOXl d lTY Step 1 Step 2-3 Step 4 Step 5 22 WET Biomonitoring Studies, Maximum Observed Toxicity"is 5.0 TUc. [Average toxicity = 3.20 TUc; compliance lim i t = 13.2 TUc (IC 25 ;;:: 7.58% effluent).] 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. Low l stream flow plus WBN Outfall OSN113 discharge = 2210.895 MGD and Outfall OSN113 discharge = 148.895 MGD = 6.73% Instr ea m was j e Concentrat i on (IWe) after mixing. At a 1.0673 IWC: 5.0 TUc x 1.3 x 0.0673 = 0.44 TUc 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 efflue nt data obtained from testing conducted under curre nt operating conditions. Pl ease print o r type in the uns h a ded areas on ly (fiJI i n a reas a re s pa ced for e m e typ e Ie 12 ciJaractersli nc h) Fo rm A ppro v e d O J 6 No 2040-0 086 Approval e xpires 5-31-92 -, .. , FORM U.S. ENVIRONM E NTAL PROTECTI O N AGENCY . r:.t>AI.D. . ,. 1 EPA GENERAL INFORMATION 1\1 26 1 410101 3 101 a 35 r£-GEN ERA L Co nsolidate d Per mits Program Fl. l ... D (R ead the "G eneral Instructions" b efor e starting.) 1 I 2 I 13 14 15 LABEL I T E MS I Gto N to R AL IN::; I HU<.; I IU N::; If a preprinted labe l has been p rovi ded, affix in th e designated I space. Review the information ca r e-fully; if any ?f it is incorrect, cross th rough it and enter the correct data in the appropriate fill-in area below. if any of the preprinted data is absent . I L E L S C (the area ta the left of the label space lists the information l that should appear), please provide it in the proper lilt-in area(s) below. II the label is complete a h d correc t, you need not complete Items 1 , 1II, l v , and VI (except VI-B which must be completed l egardleSS). Complete alt items il no label has been prov i ded. Refer to the instructions for detailed l item descriptions and for the legal authorizatiqns u n de r which this data is collected. II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS

..
...

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 f orm listed in the parenthesis following the question. Mark "X" in the bo x in the third cd 1 lumn if the supplemental form is attached. If you answer "no" to each question, you need no t submit any o f 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' SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I MARK 'X' SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YES NO FORM 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 f proposeo) wh ich results in a discharge to waters of th e U.S.? inc l ude a concen trated animal feeding operation or X (FORM2A) X aquatic animal production facility whi 9 h results in 16 17 18 a discharge to waters of the U.S.? (FORM 26) 19 20 21 I I.;* 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 th e U.S. other than those described in X X in A or B above) which will result in a to X A or 6 abov e? (FORM 2C) 22 23 24 waters of t he U.S.? (FORM 20) I 25 26 27 I E. 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 d tratum con-X taining, within one quarter mile of the bore, X 28 29 30 underground sources of drinking water? I (FORM 4) 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 wat er or other fluids which are brought to the sur-processes such as mining of sulfur by thb Frasch face in connect i on with conventional oil or natural process, solution mining of minerals , in Jit u 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 X (FORM 4) .I X storage of liquid hydrocarbons? (FORM 4) 34 35 36 37 38 39 IS InIS raclillY a proposea stationary source wnlcn IS IJ* IS In IS racllry a proposea srarlonary wnlcn IS one of the 28 industrial categories listed in the in-NOT one of the 28 industrial categories I l isted in the struct i ons 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 the Clean Clean Ai r Act and may affect or be located in an X Air Act and may affect or be located in a h atta inme nt X attainment area? (FORM 5) 40 41 42 area? (FORM 5) I 43 44 45 III. NAME OF FACILITY .. '.' m SKIPITIVIAI- 'W'A'TITISI 'SIA I RI INIUICILIE I AIRI 'p'L 'A'N'T' I I ! I I I I I I I I I L l!il 16-29 1 30 I Rql IV. FACILITY CONTACT . z;:::. !!.m'=.:1':3'. '-£:"**--:'!'---I:"".; ..;5i<'" , .. ,' , .**. c*.*,;tl;**.'*<'*'o'-';'.,,,-,>*'.

  • ,r. 1"c" ,<:'0" '. . .. , , .. -Vi":.;;. A. NAME & TITLE titfp l I B. PH DNE area code & no.) r<1H'U'T'C'H'1 'S I OIN' 'DIA'RIR'I IN' ICIHIEIM I/I E IN1V I IMIN1 G 1R 4: 2 3 1 1 3 1 6 1 5 8 1 0 1 11 5 49'-'511 ' , I 1 51 16 45 46 -48 52 55 V. FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS I' , .*....

.' '. -.,. * ,< _., -.'. . ; .. ':". .. ;g . ,,:: .. ,"" .... A !,;TRFFT OR I> 0.8 1 IX ISO X 2 Q q 0 1 , I I I , I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , , , , , , , : 1;:; 1R 4;:; B. C I -y OR roWN o. 711>

N: G: : CII'T'Y' I I I I I I I I , I I , I T I N 3 1 7'3 8 , 15116 4 1 1 47 -I '5 1 VI. FA C ILITY LOCATIO N I '?::': i:i'.:::!::
'l<'",., . . .. ".,--.. '-. j;,' 'ii'" *,0" :",' .,
. ;;.
.. ::." ....... _ .. _._2: ..
'F:,' .. A. !':TRFFT.

ROIITF NO OR.OTHER SPECIFIC ID EN*nF I E R I 'f 1 6 s ' Ip IL A t I R <) A d , I I , I I . 15lJF 45 B. COllNTY NAMF I I I , I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I lAa 7n C. CITY OR TOWN D.STATE E.ZIPC POE F. COUNTY CODe (nKnOWn) i61s Ip 'R II N IG I b) t t ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 1 7 1 3 I I I , . 15 161 I I I I I I I 4 <11 4 47 -51 '52 54! EPA Form 3510-1 (8-90) CON IINUE ON PAGE 2 17 CONTINU ED FROM PA GE 1 VII. SIC CODES (4-d iait. in order o f orioritv) .. . ., .. A. FIRST B. SECOND ..£ I (specify) ,.£. 7 4 9 1 1 I ELECTRICA L POWE, GENERATION 7 , 15 16 19 1 15 16 19 C. THIRD D. FOURT H (specify) I I I (specify) 7 7 15 16 19 1 5 1 6 19 OPERATOR INFORMATION .. ,'; .. II.! . -. , . ...::"."". -VIII. , ', 0' t .-." I A. NAME B. Is the name liste d 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 owne r? 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 DNO 15 16 I 55 66 C. STATUS OF OPERATOR (Enter the appropr iate letter i nto t he answer bo x: if 'Other' specifv.) D. PHONE (area code & no.) F = FEDERAL M = PUBLIC (o l her than federal o r state) M(SpeCif Y) I I I I I I I I I I S = ST AT E 0 = OT HER (S 1 eCifY) 4 2 3 3 6 5 8 71617 P -PRIVATE 56 116 -181 119 -211 122 25 E. STREET OR P.O. BO X I I .1 I I I I I I I I I : 1 : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P., O. S b X , 2 Q Q 0, , , , 1 , , , , , , , , , , , , , 26 I 55 F. CITY OR TOW N G.STATE H. ZIP CODE IX. INDIAN LAND I I I I I I I I I I I : I : I I I I I I I I I I I IT: NI I I I I Is the facility located on Ind i an lands? B S,P,R, I ,N,G, C I T, Y , , , 1 , , , , , , , , , 3,7 , 3 , 8 ,1 DVES 0 NO 15 16 40 41 42 47 51 52 X. EX I STING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS I I c" ..*... . 'J ... *;.;*,. ...... 1 .... r .; .. ,.,,,- A. NP DES (D ischarqes to Surface Water) D. PSD (Air Emissions from Proposed Sources) c T 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 9 N T, NOlO 12 10 1116181 I I I 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 5 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 1 2 1 9 1 I I I I I I TITLE V AIR PERMIT 1 5 16 17 18 I 30 15 16 17 18 30 XI. MAP {*.,;fs, ** ':" -..

  • .
  • oJ, Attach to this application a topographic map of tre area extending to at least one mile beyond property boundar i es. The map must show the outline of the facility , the loca t ion of each of i ts existing and p r l oposed intake and discharge structures, each of its hazardous waste treatment , storage, or disposa l facilities, and each well where it in j ects fluids underground.

Inell X for precise requirements. I XII. NAT URE OF BUSINESS (provide a brief descr iption) Production of elect rical powe r via th er r onuc l ear fission and associated operations. W atts Bar Nuclear is located a t a pproxim ate Tennessee Rive r Mil e 528. Units 1 and 2 are each rated t o produce 1 , 2 70 MW of e le c tr i city a t tuili oad .. XIII. CERTIFICATION (see in st ructi o n s) I ,; '. 3" , .. ' ",J. .!'. J> ,:. , _.l ::-" i,. -' c.;" .. th a t , bas e d on my inq UIry of th ose pe r sons I m ed i ate ly r espons i ble f o r obtamlng the mf orma tlOn contained In the application , I belie v e th a t th e I c ertify under penal ty l a w that I have perS f nallY e x am in ed and am famili a r with the. inform at ion submitted in this applicatio n a nd a ll attac hment s and fin e and im p ri so nm en t. A. NAM E & Urr l L;IA L I II L t:: (ty pe or pont) B:z:£d '/ C. DATE SIG N E D Don E. Grissette B/I"?/IO S it e Vice Pres i den t W a tt s Bar Nucle a r P l ant . . -. COMME N TS FOR O FF ICIAL U SE ONL V I 1"-"-1 1111 ..£ 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 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) 0 r).4 (i.e 1.2 1.6 0 0.6 1.2 1.:3 2.4 3 2 krll I _ J"'I<3"J; l . , >i .' --'" ... ... ' .... 1 TVA Watts B1r Nu clea r Pla n t NPD ES pe rr it TN0020168 D e catu r pu a dr ang l e o I nt e rnal Monitoring Poin t ... :.'-----=--.---::- ... , ..... _// .. ... ...... ,-.,-. oJ r S:;' r !:Ole (]= 1.2:33

!EP A I.D. NUMB ER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) form Appr o v ed I TN2 6 400300 35 N o. 2040*0086 Please print or type in the unshaded areas onlv Aooroval expires 5/31/92 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .AGFNCY ..... F OR M APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE " 2C EPA EXISTING , MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL, MINING AND SILV j'CULTURALOPERATIONS NPDES . Consolidated Permits Proaram I. OUTFALL LOCATION """:;. .. "",',. .. .-. '" .""': .:. -'---For each*outfall *list the latitude and lonaitude of its l ocation to the nearest 15 seconds and the name of the receivina wa ter. A. OUTFALL : B. LATITUDE C. LONG I TUDE D. RECE T 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 @-527.9 102 35 35 4 5 84 47 30 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY O Fj TEN N ESSEE RIVER @-TRM 527.2 IMP 103 35 36 0 84 47 30 TENNESSEE RIVER @ -527.9 via OSN 101 IMP 107 35 36 0 84 47 30 TENNESSEE RIVER @ -527.9 via OSN 101 113 35 35 45 84 46 45 TENNESSEE RI VER @-T R: 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 A. line draw in g show i ng the water flow through the fp.cility. Indicate sources of intake water, operations cont rib uti n g wastewater to the effluent, and treatment un i ts labeled to correspond to the more detailed descriptions in Item B. Construct a water balance on the li ne drawing by -showing average flows between intakes, operations, treatment units, and outfalls. If a water balance cannot be (e.g., for cettain minina activities) , orovide a oictorial descriotion of the nature an d amount of any sources of water and anv collection or treatment measures. B. F or each outfall, provide a description of: (1) All operations cont ri buting wastewater to the effluent , including process wastewater, sanitary w astewater , cool ing water , and storm water ru n off; (2) The a ver age flow contributed by each operation; and (3) The I treat ment received by the wastewater. Continue on additional sheets if necessarY.

1. OUT-2. OPERATIONfST CONTR I BUTING FLOW 3. I TREATMENT FALL NO a .. OPERATION (Jist) b. AVERAGE FL OW a. DESCRIPTI9N
b. LIST CeDES FROM mst) ... (include units) TABLE2C-1 OSN 101 Diffuser Discharge (receives the following) 57.76 MGD I I (1) Yar d Holding Pond 1.371MGD W a stes are treated in a p ond , 1 U a) Turbine Bldg Station Sump (TBSS) alternate path [OMGD] (acreage for 10 1 and 102 combined) 2 K b) Cooling Towe r Blowdown (CTBD) alternate Path [O MGD] providing sedimentation/neu t ralization. 4 A c) Emerg. Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) alternate path [OMGD] D ischarge through multiport d) Raw Cooling Water (R CW) alternate path [O MG D] to surface water I e) Ice condenser chiller/air coolers alternate path [OMGD] I f) Miscellaneous discharges , i nclude s: [0,7373 MGD] I Non-rad Demin Water di scharges to Yard Drain s {0.011 MGD} I Service building s ump {0.020 MGD} I Diese l Genera t or (D/G) Building Sump {O.0001 MGD} le ak collection with oil X X Emergency D/G Building Sump {O.0001 MGDJ I CCW Pump Station Sum p {O.0001 MGDJ I NaOCl Building S ump and Dike {O.0 01 MGD} Sed imentat io n I 1 U Hi g h P r essure Fire Prot ec tion (HPFP) F lu shes {0.003 MGD} I Potable water line le aks {0.001 MGD} I Storm Water Run o ff {0.6 99 MGD} I Rainwater relea ses fro m seconda ry {0.001 MGDJ I c on t a inment f or bulk chemica! storage I G r ou n dwa t e r sump {0.001 M GD} g) Condens e r cleaning , coo ii ng t owe r cleaning, & [nJ Filtrat i on to 5 mi c rons f or X X worker deeon [nJ Filtratio n to 5 microns fo r X v " h) T raini ng Center Cooling Tower Blo w dow n [0.001 MGDJ I i) Trash slu i ce water, receives:

[0.187 8 MGD] I Sta t ion drainage sumps {O.072 M G D} Eme r gency r aw cooling w ate r s tr a iner l eakage {nJ I ERC W S tr aine r ba c kwa s h {0.1 08 M GD} I ERC W T rav e ling Sc reen back w as h {O.0078 MGDJ OFFICIAL USE ONLY (effluent .Guidelines sub-catef]ories) " , - an altemate flow path n negligible flow EPA Form 351G-2C (8-90) Page 1a of 4 Continue on Page 2 P leas e pr i nt 'type in th e unshaded area s onl y FORM E PA 1.0. NUM BE R (copy fr o m Item 1 of F o rm 1) TN 26 4 0 0300 35 Form Approved OMB No. 2 040-0086 Approval exp i res u. S. I I-\L I-'HL' I cv IIU N AGENCY APPLICATION FOR PER M IT TO DI S CHARG E WA STE WAT E R 2C EP A E XI S TIN G MANUFAC TU RING , CO MMERCIAL, MI NI NG SIL V IC ULTU RAL O P ERA TIO NS I (,:, , PerrTl@..Proaram .. -. NPDES I. OUTFA.L. LC CATION I For each outfall. ist the latitude and 10nQitude of its loc ation to the nearest 1 5 seconds and the name of the receiviOQ..water. A. OUTFALL _B. LA T ITU,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. OFPOLLUTICIN, AND TRE, I I I :1,,1 OGlES . I A. 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 draw i ng by showing average flows I i ntakes , operations , treatment units , and outfalls. If a water balance cannot be determined (e.g., for certain minina activities). provide a p i ctorial I of the nature and amount of anv sources of water and anv I I or . mo",,,, "'0" l B. For each outfall, . provide a IV' j of: (1) All WIIlIIUU,II Iy wastewater to the effluent, including process wastewater , sanitary st 6 rm average flow contributed by each operation; and (3) The treatment received by the Continue on addition l a l sheets if necessary. 1, OUT* 2. vr :.1I-\IIVN\' I"VN t1IDUTING FL ,:)W 3. TREATMEN .mll0 a. UI"CN i MION (list) I b.

a. DESCRIPTION
b. I OSN 1 01 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 supe rn ate I {0.025 _MGD} I pH adjustment

...><.. X Vendor water . Rb reject {O.26 MGD} .lul'bine building stati0 rl SL i mp, receives: {0.07l6 MGD} . Floor drain collection w/oil s kimm i ng X x Metal clean i ng w astc 1 s 0.0303 MGo Labore,v, 'waste I 0.0002 MGo Neutral Waste Tank l n Potable Wat er Line !,eaks 0.0002 MGo S y s t em Lea k age & 0.0399 MGo H i gh Pressu r e Fire F l rotec t io n disc h arge., 0.001 MGo k) ERCW Heade r flus h es I [n] .. [0.0 4 8 MGD] 1 m) Cooling tower d e silting b;: isin [0,00 2 MGD] ISedi l"" ,nc:tLlul 1 U in) Dischar g e irom I.MP 1 07 h eta l c l eaning waste ponds [0.033 MGD] I Lined pond 1 MG (0.26 ac r e); un l ined U r eceives: I !pond 5 MG (1.3 acre) provides 2 C ,K Prec i pit a tion , Less ... , {0.002 MGD} precip. ner -". i M e t a l Cleani n g w as t es I {O.0003 MGD} S t orm w ater r uno ff {0.0001 MGD} . Drum rinsing {0.0001 !v1 C;D} Drum dewatering {O.OOOl MGD} Flo o r dra i n collectio n w/oil skimm i ng x X Diese l cleaning coola nt {0.0001 MGD} T u rbi ne s t at i o n su m p w/m E i t a l c l e a n i n g w as t e s {O.0 3 0 3 Iv1 GD} OI"I"ICIAL USE ONLY (eff luent auidelint, sub-cateaories) a n alternate flow path n -negligible flow EPA Form 351G-2C (8-90) Page 1b of 4 Continue on Page 2 Please print or type in the unshaded areas only EPA I.D , N UM BER (cop y from Item 1'ot Form 1) TN2640030035 Form Ap p r oved OMB N o, 2040-008 6 t:.nn",,,,,1 expires.5!31!92 "" : 'U. S. E N VI **. _. I rAL l"'HU I c lJ II,.i N. . .'.. . ."". ,. FORM'*

  • APPLICATION F:OR PERMIT TO , DISCHARGE

-< ". i 2C' '. :' ,,:-. EXISTING .. ' ,-. " . r;' '.-. ,'.',' .;; :-. J. OUTFALL LOCATION ' .' .'. ' '. .'..." I For each outfall ,-Iistttle Ip.titude and lonoitude of its 1 01 nearest 15 seconds and th, i name of the wafer: ' '. ., ': A OUTFALl:: i"'-B. LATITUDE . . C. LONGITUDE >.. D. ,._ .* _. , .. ,,_ {nai(leJ: , .' .. IIII1MRI=R --,. .". . , . " " ." -. (list) '.' 1 DEG. 2. MIN 3. SEC. t DEG. 2. MIN. 3. SEC. -. II. FLOWS. OF PI )LLUTION AND TREA'I MCN I nr.1 1 A. Attach a line drawing showing the water flow through the facility. Indicate sources of intake water, UfI"'C1UUII;:i cor!t ributing wastewate r to the effluent, and treatment units labeled to correl!Pond to the more detailed descriptions in Item B. Construct a watel i 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 , 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 operat i ons contributing . to the effluent, including wastewater, sanitary wastewater , c-Ooling water, and storm runoff; (2) The average flow cqntributed by each operation; and (3) Tre treatment by the Continue on addit i onal sheets if ' . 1. OUT-2. VI' r-tA. UN\i:>J"vNlnIBUTINGFl 'JW 1 3, InCAIMCN FALL NO a. OPERATION (list) l b. FLOW a. __ IIVN (list) . "' (include units) -" " OSN101 __ -+ __ __________ -+ ______ -4 ____ ____ (continued) 'a) Liquid 'au"C1"' system which receives flow [0.0040 MGD] lion ::"''''':1 and Filtratipn System 2 J from the IV"UVVIII\j. Primary 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 I d) Cooling To we r Weir [45A08 MGD] 1(3) Mi sc. Cooling Water, 1 0.62 MGD ia) Eill"'yt::II"Y Raw Cooling Water [5.31 MGD] 'b) Raw Cooling Wate r [4.9 1 MGD] c) Ic e Co , .v" , '( Chiller N a riou s A ir coolers [OAO O MG D] O S N 1 02 Yard holding Pond Ovemow W e ir (E r '"':I ''. O.OOOM G D I See Outf a ll 001 Outfal l) pro vid es an alternate u, ,,,,, oo c,'\j" path f o r th e l diffu se r d i s:: har ge point (OS N 101) I MP 1 03 I See description abo v e in OSN 10 1 0.36 1 9 MGD , See Outfall 001 U SE ONLY (e ffluent f" ,inQlinoc s ub-c a teaori es) an a lternate flow path EPA Form 351D-2C (8-90) Page 1c of 4 Continue on Page 2 IEPA I.D. NUMBER (co py from Item 1 of Form 1) Form Approved I I TN 2640 030035 OMB No 2040-0086 Please print ortype in the un shaded areas oniv Approval expires 5/31/92 FORM APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER I u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2C EPA EXISTING MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL, MINING AND SI LVICULTURAL OPERATIONS NPDES I** . . Consolidated Permits 'Program ... I. OUTFALL LOCATION '-. _ -"'.-. 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 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 to correspond to the more detai l ed 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 descriotion of the nature and amount of anv sources of water and anv collection or treatment measures. B. Fo r each outfall, provide a descriptibn of: (1) All operations contributing wastewater to the effluent, including process wastewater, sanitary wastewater, cooling water, and water runoff; (2) T he 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 Ponds l (LP and ULP) 0.031 MGD See OSN 101 See description above i n 101 I OSN 113 Supplemental Condenser Water 148.895 MGD Discharge to surface water O SN 114 SCCW Intake screen 0.019 MGD Discharge to surface water O FF ICIAL U S E ONLY (e ffluent Quideline s sub-cat e.a o ri es) a n a lt e rn a t e fl ow p a th y"'\ EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page 1d of 4 4 A 4 A Continue on Page 2 1.0UlFALL NUMBER* 2. OPERATION(s)

CONTR I BUTING FLOW b.MONTHS 1.04 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) 365 4. FINAL COM* 1. I DENTIF I CATIO N OF CONDITIO N, A GREE M E N T , E T C. 2. AFFECTED OUlFALLS b. SO U RC E O F D I SCH A R G E OPTIONAL: You may a tta c h add i tio n a l s h ee t s d es cr i bing any addi t ion a l w a t e r po llution c o ntr o l pro g r a m s (or e nvironm e nt a l proj ec t s whi c h may aff ec t your discharges) you now have und erwa y or which you plan. In dicate wh e ther each program is now Inn A rvV::lV o r pl a nn e d, and indicate your actua l or planned schedules for constr uction. MARK 'X" I F DESCRIPTION OF ADDITiONAL CONTROL EPA Form 351G-2C (Rev. 2-85) Page20f4 Continue on Page 3

1.0. NUMBER

(c opy f r om Item 1 of Form 1) TN 2640030035 one set of tables for each outfall -Annotate the outfall num be r in t h e space pLO v ided. , V-C are on separate sheets numbered V-1 tbrough V"9. 'D. I Prnrl\l!<.n" oxide (as ethlyene-oxide-ine (as Ethylenediamine I tptr"",,,tlr. acid) I s any pollutant listed in Item V-C a product or byproduc t? D EPA Form 3S10-2C (8-90) I ,-. . -For every you'list,'brieflydescribe the reasons you believe it to be present'" additive used as cooling addit i ve in Training Center or a component of a substance which you currently use or manufacture as an intermediate or final (list al/ such pollutants below) [i] NO (go to Item VI-B) 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 *on a rec eiving water in r elat ion to y ou r discharge wit'lin the l ast 3 years? any of your discharges or [XJ YES (id entify 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. Env i ronmenta! Science Corp (ESC) One, LTD c. SIGNATU RE EPA Form 351G-2C (8-90) 12065 Lebanon Rd Mt Juliet, Tn 37122 1 Pinnacle Parkway nsburg, OH 44087 (880)767-5859 330-963-0843 Page4of4 accordance with a system o f the person or persons SUI"Jmmf;'U is , t o the best of my information, including the D. DA TE X x x x may r epo rt so m e or shee t s (u s e Ill e sa m e f orma l) inst ea d o f completinq Ih ese paqe s , ;ON C E NTRAT I ON CONCEN TRATION <5 45.0 1.8 11.0 ' (2) MASS I 0.0 9 I I I 5.0 X I NA I 0.1 2 I 0.11 I I E PA Form 3510-2C (8-9 0) d. NO. OF I ANALYSES 1 I I 1 1 8.2 13 365 1 6.6 I 182 I 183 (2) MASS (2) MASS I I <0.05 I I I I Page V-l AVERAGE VALUE b. NO. OF a.CONCEN-Ii. MASS (1) (2) MASS ANALYSES TRATION CONCENTRAT i oN mglL <5 .. . mg/L <10 mg/L 2.0 mg/L 5.1 mg/L MGD 60.48 2 VALUE " C N/A N/A VALUE " C 19.9 2 CONCEN' <1.0 I 275 Img/L <0.05 2 1 PCU 5 I I N/A NA I I NA 1 mg/L *0.12 I 1 Img/L 0.11 CONTINUE ON PAG E V-2 ITI'M 11_,\ C O N T N II F n FR OM PAGF V_1 2. MARK 3. EFFLUEr. .. 4. IITS ... ,,, ." .. .. '!i'INT4KF 1. P OL L UT-a. BE-b. BE-a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE *C. LONG TERM AVRG.-VALUE ., c;.-B J LONG TERM b. NO. OF A NT A ND UEVED UE VE D III available) (If available)

d. NO. OF B: CONCEN-, b.MASi3' -AVERAGE VAI:UE ANAL-CA S N O. PRE-AB-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-TRAnON ,(1) 1/; (2) MASS YSES fl f ava il a b l e) SENT SEN T CONC ENTR A TION CONCENTRAnON CONCENTRATION YSES .. "'j' > CONCENTRAnON . ..:. II. N itroQ Bn , Total Orga ni c X 0.36 1 mg/L 0.29 1 '(as NJ 11. Oil a n d Grease X <5.6 <5.4 13 mg/L <5.2 1 L Pilosp h orus (as P), Total X <0.1 1 mg/L <0.10 1 llla dioa ct ivi tv (1) A l p h a, To t al X <3.25 1 pC ilL <2.93 1 (2) Be t a. Total X 2.1 1 1 pCi/L 2.06 1 (3) Rad i u m. To t al X N A NA NA NA NA (4) Rad iu m 226. T otal X N A NA NA NA NA k. Su lf a t B (as 804) X 11 1 mg/L 9.6 1 !.1iflQ fl-79-Rl I. S u lfid e (as S) X <0.05 1 mg/L <0.050 1 mSu ifi te (as 8 03) X 0.0 2 0.02 2 mg/L <0.02 2 14?fi!i-4!i-::\\ n. Su rfac t a n t s X <0.10 1 mg/L <0.10 1 o. Al u m in um. To t al X 0.6 8 1 , 7429-90-'" 1 mg/L 0.36 1 P. Ba rium , To t al X 0.0 2 8 1/7A.d rl_3Q-'H 1 mg/L 0.024 1 Q. Boro n , a .JJ To t al X <0.2 0 (f.) 1 mg/L <0.20 1 744 0-42-m ..... 'r---'-r. Coba lt. ;;;j . , Tota' v ____ -::.Q.O Q l.O --LJJ E3 1_. _mg/L 1 F. 1ti44 0..1 R-4\ 1_. I . s. Iron,T o ta l i ll (7439-09-6) X 0.4 0 m 00 1 mg/L 0.20 1 0 ", -. t. Maq n es iu m. '-. ...... , :> -.. 1 Total X 5.3 = m 1 mg/L 4.7
s u. Mo lvb d e nu m. 0 <0.0050 1 To t al X <0.00 5 1 mg/L 1 7439-9El-7 1 v. Ma nq anes e , To tal X 0.0 37 1 mg/L 0.028 1 17439-9 fi*51 w. Tin. Tota l (744 0-31-5) X <0.0 0 10 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 x. Titani u m. To tal X 0.011 1 mg/L <0.010 1 1 74.<1 n_<\9_A\ --,... --...0 EPA Form 3510-2C (6-901 PanEl V*2 CONTINUE ON PAG E V-3 vJ a EPA,l.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1. of Form 1) OUTFALL NUMBER ! I TN2640030035 101 __ ***** ____ *** __ ._ *** ___ 0.1 .....* "" ** , ** _ .., PARTC-If y o u a re a primary industry and th i s 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 s uc h G C/MS fractions that app l y 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 n onreq uir ed 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 an y pollutant, you must p rovide the resuns of at least one analysis for that pollutant. "you ma l'k column2b for any pollutant, you must provide the results of at least c;me analysis for that pollutant If you III10w o r have reason to believe It will be discharged in concentrations of 10 ppb or g i eater: "you mark column 2b ior ac rolelri i'aciylOnHrile, 2,4 dlnltropheno i, dr 2*me tily l-4 , 6 diriiiroPhenol l you 'provlde ihe' re sults o f at least one analysis f or 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 c o l umn 2 b, you must eith e r submit at least one analysis or briefly describe the reasons the pollutant l3 expected to be dischar ged. Note that there are 7 pages to this part; please rev i ew each carefully , C omp let e one t able (all 7 pa , ae s) for each outlall. See instructions for additional detailS and requ i rements. 1. POLLUT ANT 2. MARK'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS 5. INTAKE (optional)

A ND C AS n. TES T* b. BE-C. BE-a. MAX I MUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALU E , , c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE ,....,. ....... -;..,..;-U EVE O' .. -----...,....----- --NU M B E R UEVED (If available) (II aVBIIBbla)

d. NO. OF a. CONCEN-b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL' (if a vailab l e) RE-PRE* AB-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-TRATION (l)CONCEN-(2) MASS YSES aU IR E D SENT SE N T CONC ENTRATION CONCENTRATION . CONCENTRATION
  • YSES TRATION M ET AL S, C YANID E AND TOTAL P HENOLS 1 M. An ti mony, Tota l (7440-36-0)

X <0.0 010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 2M. Arsen i c, Tota l (7 4 40*38-2) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 3M. Bery lli um , Tota l, (7440-41*7) X <0.0 010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 4 M. Ca dmium, Total (7440*43*9) X <0.00050 1 mg/L <0.00050 1 5M. C h romiu m , Tota l (7440-47-3) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 6 M. Co pp er , Tota l (7440-5 0-8) X 0.0 011 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 7M. Le ad, To t a l (7 4$9-9 2*1 ) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 OM. Mercu ry , Tota l (7439-97-6) X <0.0 000008 1 mg/L 1.3E-06 1 9M. Nic l le l , To t a l (7 44 0*02-0) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 10 M. Se l enium, Tota l (7762-49*2) X <0.001 0 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 11 M. S il v er , Tot a l (7 44 0-22-4) X <0.00050 1 mg/L <0.00050 1 12 M. T h a lli um, Tota l (7440-2 6-0) X <0.0 010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 13 M. Z in c, T o t al (744 0*66-6) X 0.2 00 <0.051 25 mg/L <0.010 1 14 M. C yan i de, To ta l (57-12-5) X <0.00 50 1 mg/L <0.0050 1 1 5M. P h e n ols, Tot a l X <0.0 4 0 1 mg/L <0.040 1 DI OX I N 2,3,7, O*Tel r a* I I rESC RIB E RE SU L TS c h loro d i b e nzo-P X Dln X'n 117R4-nj-61 -E PA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Pag l! V*3 CONTINUE ON PAGE V*4 r.ONTI NIII=n FROM V-3 1. PO[CUfANf

2. MAR K' 3. EFF UEN' 4. rs 5. INTAKF (oolior ,,/I AND CAS a. TEST* b. BE-' c. BE* a. MAX IMUM DA IL Y V AL U E b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG: VA L UE a. LONG TERM b. NO. O F NU MB ER IN G LlEVED LlEVED -lif available lif available
d. NO. OF B. CONCEN* b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL* (if a va il ab le) RE* PRE* AB* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* TRATION (l)CONCEN*

(2) MASS YSES au IR ED SENT SENT CONCE N TRAT ION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION GC/MS F RA CT IO N -VO LATILE C OMPOUNDS 1V. Acro lein (107-02-8) X <0.050 1 mg/L <0.050 '1 2V. Acrvlo nit rlle (107-13-1) X <0.01 0 1 mg/L <0.010 1 3V. Benzene (71-43-2) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 4V. 81s (C hf oro* methyl) E the r X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010. 1 r fid?:nR.1\ SV. Bromo f orm (75-2S-2) X <0.0 010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 6V. Carbon Tetrachloride X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 ., 155-2 3-5\ 7V. Chlo rob enze ne (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. Ch l o roeth ane (7S-00-3) X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 1 10V.2-C hloro-ethylvlny l E th er X <0.050 1 mg/L <0.050 ., 11 V. Chlo rof orm (67-66-3) X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 ., 12V. D i ch lor o. bromome tha ne X <0.0010 I m;_?7.d\ 1 mg/L <0.0010 ., --13V.D i ch lor o-difluoromet h ane X <0.0050 1 mg/L <0.0050 ., 117fi-71-R \ 14V.1.1-D ich lo r.o* et hane (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-D i cl1loro* ethylene (75-35-4) X <0.001 0 1 mg/L <0.0010 '1 17V. 1.2-0 Ich loro-propane (78-8 7-5) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 --18V. 1.3-D i chlora-propylene (54 2-75-6) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 19V. E lhv l benzene (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. Met h vl "V Ch lo ride (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 E PA 1.0. NUMBER (CODV fr o m Item I of F onn II OUTFAL L N UMBER CONT INII Fn FR OM P A :F y-4 TN2640030035 101 2. MAA K'IjlI"'" r 1. POLL UT ANT 3. 4. rs A N D CAS a. TEST-b. BE-c. B E* a. MAX I MUM D A IL Y VALUE b. MAXIMUM 3 0 DA Y VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a.LONGTERM b. NO. OF NUMBER I NG LlEVED LlE VE D ({fa v all a ble . {If available d .. NO.OF a.CONCEN* b.MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if avai labl e) RE-PRE-A B-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-(1)CONCEN-(2) MASS YS E S Q UIRED SENT CO N C ENTRA T IO N CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION r.(,/M'" _ IIr A'I11 '" n"Dnl .. n.' 22 V. Melhylene Chl or ide (7 5-09-2) X <0.00 50 1 mg/L <0.0050 '1 2SV.l.l.2.2-T e t ra-c hl o roeth ane X <0.001 0 1 mg/L <0.0010 '1 24V. T e tr a chloro-e th yle ne (1 27-1 8-4) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 '1 25V T o l u e n e (1 00-88-S)_ X <0.0 0 50 1 mg/L <0.0050 '1 2 6 V. 1,2-Tr ans-Dl ch loroethyl e n e X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 ;,1 <;R_,;n_<;, 2 7V. 1.1.1-Trl-X <0.0 0 10 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 1'7 1_1<1<_ 2 8 V. 1 , 1 , 2-Trl-c hl oro eth a n e X <0.0010 Iml-nn-;,\ 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 2 9V. T r ic hl o ro-e th yle n e (7 9-01-6) X <0.0010 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 S O V. Tr lchlor o-flu oro m e th a n e X <0.0050 17';-11 9-4\ 1 mg/L <0.0050 1 3'IV. Vlnvl C hl or i de (75-0 1-4) X <0.00 10 1 mg/L <0.0010 1 GC MS F R AC TION -ACID C OMPOUND S lA. 2-C hlor op hen o l (9 5-57-8) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 2 A. 2, 4-D l chloro-ph eno l (1 2 0-8 3-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 '1 3 A. 2, 4-0Im e thyl-ph en o l (105-6 7-9) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 4 A. 4.6-0 In it ro-0-C r esol (5 34-5 2-1) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 5 A. 2,4-0I n ltro-ph enol (51-28-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 SA. 2-N i t rophenol (8 8-75-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 7 A. 4-Nitrophenol (1 00-02-7) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 8A. P-C hl oro-M C r es ol (59-5 0-7) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 9 A. Pe n t ac h lo r o* ph eno l (87-8 6-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 lO A. Phenol (1 0 0-9 5-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 l l A. 2 ,4, 6-Tr lc hl oro-ph en ol (00-06-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L <0.010 1 ""'-------EPA Form (0-90) Pag e V-5 CONTINU E ON PAG E V-6 CONT INIIFn "R OM 'Ar." 1. POLLU T A NT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS . 5. INTAKE (nntint A N D C AS a. TEST* b. BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAI L Y VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DA Y VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF N UM B E R IN G LlEVED LlEVEO (/lavallabl. (If avallabl., d. NO. OF a.CONCEN* b.MAsS AVERAGE VALUE .' . ANAL-(if ava il a bl e) RE-PRE-AB-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) . (2)W,SS ANAL* TRATI.ON (1)C ON CEN-(2) MASS , YSES QUI RED SENT . SENT CONCENmATION CONCENTRATION , CONCENTRATION YS ES TRATION G C/MS F RACTION -BASEJNEUT RAL COMP OUNDS 1 B. Ace n ap hth ene (8 3-32-9) X 1 mg/l 2 B. Acenaph tvl en e (208-9 6-8) X 1 mg/l 3B. A nt h ra ce n e (12 0-12-7) X 1 mg/l 4 B. Be nzidin e (92*87-5) X 1 mg/l 5B. Be nzo (a I Anlhracene X 1 mg/l 5fl*1;1;*:1\ 6B. Be n zo (a I Pyre n e (50-32-6) X 1 mg/l 7B. 3 ,4-Be n z o-fiu ora nth e n e 1/?M.Q<l.?, X 1 mg/l BB. B e n zo (o tlil Pe ry l e n e X 1 m g/l i 1 1!l i_:>4.:>1 9B. Be n zo (kl Fluora nth e n e X 1 mg/l 1 1?1l 7.r IB*0l lOB. B i s (2*C fll o r o-e/fl oxy) Me t h an e X 1 mg/l 1 11*91*1\ 11 B. B l s (2*C fll oro* etltyl) E th er 11-1-44*4 1 X 1 mg/l 12B. B i s (2*C I1/oro* Isopropy l) Et h er Ir l0 2*fl rl.1 1 X 1 mg/l 13B. B ls (2-£thvl* tle xy l) P h tha l a t e X 1 mg/l i I11 7.R 1.7 1 14B.4*B romo* p h enyl P h e n yl X 1 mg/l Ii:: th"i /1 11 1*5<;.31 15B. B utyl Be n zyl P ht ha l a t e (05*66*7) X 1 m g/l -1 6B. 2*C hl o r o* n ap h t ha l ene 1 191.5 R.7 1 X 1 mg/l 17B.4*C hl oro* phenyl Phe n yl X 1 mg/l E II,"; 1 7 00 5:7?::11 1 BB. C hry sene (2 1 0*0 1*9) X 1 mg/l 19 8. D ib e n zo (a.h l A nl hracene X 1 1"".7 11." , 1 mg/l 2 0B. 1.2*Di c hloro-benzene (9 5'5 0*1) X <0.0 0 1 1 mg/l <0.001 1 2 1 B. 1.3*D i ch l o r o* ben z e ne (541*73*1) X <0.001 1 mg/l <0.001 1 _" __ L--...----

'---------E P A For m 3510-2C (8-90) Page V*6 CONTINUE ON I'AGE V*7 EPA 1.0. NUMB E R (r.nnv f ro m /t R m 1 nf Fnrm 1) IUUTFAL L NUMBER I rn ... T , ... , ,,"n ",n n M p , , GE V-n T N26 4 00 3 0035 101 1. P O LL UTAN T 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UN fl!f " 'OJTAIfO:

A N D CA S a, TEST-b. B E-e , B E-a. MAX IMUM DAILY VALUE b , MAXIMU M 30 DAY VALUE c, L ONG TERM AVRG , VALUE a. LONG TERM b , NO , OF t:l UMBER ING UEV E O UE VEO (II B v a ll able (lla v al/.lble d , NO , OF B , CONCEN* b , MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL* (i f a vailab l e) RE-P RE-A B-(1) (2) MAS S (1) (2) MA SS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-mAT I ON (I)CON C EN-(2) MASS Y SE S aU IR EO SE NT SENT CONCE NTRA TI O N CONCENTRATION CO N CENTRA TI ON YSES TRATION _ R r R1I1 1'1 ,M P nllN riC: 22B, 1,4-Dic hl oro-b enz ene (106-46-7) X <0,001 1 mg/L <0.001 2 236, 3.3'-Di c hl ora-benz i d in e X 10 1_0d_1\ 24B. D l eth y l X ------I M-n n-25B, D i m e t h yl Ph t ha l a t e X 26B. D i-N-B utvi X i/A d-7A-27B , 2.4-D i n it ro-tol ue n e (1 21-14-2) X 28B. 2,6-Din ll ro* t oluene (606-20-2) X 29B. D i*N-Octvl X 1/ll7_Rd_ 3 0 B. 1,2-D i p hen yl-hy d raz i n e (as Azo-X . /JaJJ,o no' """_""_7' 31 B, F l uor an th ene (206*44-0) X 32B. F l u o r en e (8 6-73-7) X 338. He)(B C h l o r obenzen e (1 18-74-1) X 34B. Hexa-c hl o robut adie n e X 35 B, Hexa c h l oro-cycl ope n ta diene X 117 7-;7-4\ 36 B, Hex ach l or o-e t ha n e (67-7 2-1) X 37B, lnden o (1, 2, 3-c d) Py r ene X 36B. Isop hor on e '. (7 6-59-1) X 39 B, Naphtha l en e (9 1-2 0-3) X 40 B, N i tro be n ze n e (9 6-9 5-3) X 41 B. N-N i t ro-s o dl methy l a min e X 42B. N-Nitr os od l-N-Pr o p ylamln e X (6 2).6 4-7) ----.. _-'--EPA Form (8-90) P age V-7 CONTINU E ON PAGE If-8 CON TINlJl'D F ROM p , ,G E V-7 1. POLL UTANT 2. MARK'X' 3, EFFLUENT 4. NITS 5. INTAKE (nnfinn, A ND CAS a. TEST* b. BE* c. B E* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AI/RG. VALUE s. LONG TERM. b. NO. OF NU MBE R IN G LlEVED LlEVED (1I8vallable (II 8V8118l"e

d. NO. OF s;CONCEN*, , ojLMAss . AVERAGE VALUE . ANAL-{i f a vailable}

RE-PRE* AB-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* TRAnON t,*,.,. ;', (1) CONCE.N-.(2) MASS YSES QUI RED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRAnON YSES TRAnON i GCIMS . rRAL 43 B. N*N ilr o-SOdlphe n y l am in e X 86-3 0-6\ 4 4B. Phe n ant h r e ne (8 5,01-8) X 45B. Py r en e (1 29-00'0) X 46 B. 1,2,4-T ri-ch l o robenzene X 1 20-62-1\ GC/MS FRACTION* PESTICIDES -1P. A l d ri n (309-0 0-2) X (319-04-6) X (31 9-8 5-7) X 4P. -v*BHC (58-89-9) X "P. BH C (31 9-8 6-8) )( 6P. C hlord ane (57-7 4-9) X 7P.4,4'-00 T (50-29-3) X BP.4 ,4'-DDE (72-55-9) )( I 9P.4 ,4'-000 (72-54-8) X 10P. D iel drin (SO-5 7-1) )( 1-1 (11 5-29-7) X 12 P. Il*E nrio""l fAn (11 5-29-7) X 13 P. Endosu lfan S ul fa te X 10 3 1-07-81 14P. E ndrin (72-20-8) X '1 51'. E ndrin A l d e hyde X 74 2 1-9 3-4\ 16 P. Hept ac hlor (76-44-B) X w -------------------'1 EPA Form 2C-3510 (0-90) Page V-8 CONTfNUE ON PAGE V*g loT *" C ONTIN UE D FROM P AGE v-a 1. PUL L UT AN I 2. MARK ' A ND C AS a. TEST* b. BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE N UM BER IN G LlEVED LlEVED (if ava il a b l e) R E* P RE* AB-(1) (2) MASS QUIR ED SE N T SENT CONCENTRATION IGC/M S -17B. Hep ta ch t or Epox id e 1(1024-57-3\ X l ap. PC B-1 2 42 (53469-21-9) X 19P. PCB-1 25 4 (11097-69-1) X 20P. PCB-1221 (11104-2 8-2) X 21P. PC B-1 2 32 (1 114 1-16-5) X 2 2P. PCB-1 2 48 (12672-29-6) X 23P. PC B-1 2 60 (1 1 096-82-5) X 24P. PC B-l 0 16 (12674-11-2) X 25P.To xaphene (8001-3 5-2) X (1) Nalual bacl<ground racl i a tlo n l e vel s. Nole: Long term a v erage val u es from Oct ober 1, 2 00 4 thro u g h Septe mb er 30 , 2005. EPA Form 3510-2C (a-90) EPA 1.0. NUMB ER (CODV from /tern 1 of Form 1) OUTFAL L NUMBER TN264 0 030035 101 3. EFFLUEN' 4. rs 5. INTAKE {DotlDr ell b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM IWRG. VALUE B. LONG TERM a. LONG TERM b. NO .. OF (if available .. " (if avalillble

d. NO. OF AVERAGE VALUE AVERAGE VALUE A N AL* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* a.CONCEN* b. MASS (l)CONCEN*

(2) MASS . YSES CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION TRATION. Pag e V-g IiIS TO nlvl-'\'-5.5 5.2 29.3 17.4 '1 2.1 11.2 NA NA 0.0 6 N i tr it e (as N) \"J EPA Form 3510-2C (1J..90) Page V-1 2 7 7 0.03 mg/L MGD " C " C B.OONCEN* I b.MASS TRATION mg/L b. NO. OF ANALYSES CONTINUE ON PAGE V-2 ITE M V-R C ONT N lJ ED FR OM PAGE V-l 2 MARK')\'

  • EFFLUEN" 4. ITS 1. POLLUT-o. BE* b. BE* a. MAXI M UM D AIL Y VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONG TERM b.NO.OF ANT A ND UEVED U E V ED ({I ava il able) ({I available)
d. NO. OF a.CONCEN* b.MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL* CAS NO. PAE-AB* (1) (2) M AS S (1) (2) MA S S (1) (2) MASS ANAL-TRATION (1) (2) MASS YSES (jfa va ilab l e) SENT S EN T C ON CE NT RATION C ONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES CONCENTRATION

!l. N i l ro!l en. T ot a l Org a nic asN) h. O il an d G r e as e <5 <5 2 mg/L I. Phosph o rus (as P), Total 1 1772 3-14-0) '. Rad l oa c tivitv 1 r A lp na:;-----To t al (2) Be l a, Tolal (3) Rad i u m, Tota l (4) Rad i um 226, Tota l 1<. S u l f at e (as S O.) 1 4808-79-8) I. Su lli de (as S) m Su lfite (a s S03) 142 65-45-3) n. S urfact a nt s o. A lumin u m, Tota l 7429-9 0-5) p. Bari um , Tota l 1 1 7 440-39-3) Q. Boron, Total [17440-42-8\ r. Coba lt , To t a l 7440-48-4\ s. Iron , To ta l (7439-89-6) I. MaQnesiu m , T ot a l . 7439-95-4) u. Mo lv bd e num , Total 174:lg*!1R .7\ v. Ma nQa nese, T olal 7439-96-5) w. Ti n. To t al (7440-31-5) x. T it a n i u m, Tota l :1744 0-32-6) EPA Form 35 100 2 C (8-9 0) P a g'e V-2 CONTINU E ON P A GE V-3 tv -0 EPA 1.0. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) OUTFAL L NUMBER TN2640030035 102 -_ ............ _-........... "" .. ..... (alt to lOll PA RTC-I f you are a primary industry a n d this outfall contai n s process wastewater, refer to Tabl e 2c-2 in the iml tructions to determ i ne which of the GCIMS fractions you must test for. Mark 'X' In column 2*a for all suc h G C/MS fractions that apply to you r industry and for ALL toxic metals, cyan ide s , and total phenols. If you are not required to mark column 2-a (secondary In dustries , nonprocells wastewater ouffalls, and nonr e quire d GelMS fractions), mark 'X' in column 2-b for each pollutant you know o r have reason to believe Is present. Mark 'X' In column 2-c for each pollutant ybu be liev e I s absent. If you mark column 2a f or a ny polluta nt , you mu st provide the results of at least one analys i s f or that pollutant. If you mark column 2b fo r any pollutant, you must prov i de the rasuns of ai least one analysis f o r that polluiant W you Im o w o r have reason to believe it wi ll be d isc harged In concen tr ation s of 10 ppb or greater. If you mark col(rnn'2b. for acrolein, acrylonitrile, 2,4 d lniti"ophenol , or 2-methyl-4, 6 dln rirophlin o l; you must provide the . res u lts of at least one analysis for each of these polluta nts which you know or have reason to believe that you disch arge In of 100 ppb or greater. Otherwise for Pollutants for which you mark co lu m n 2b, you must either submit at lea st one analysis or briefly describe'the reas ons the pollutant Is expected to be d ischa rg ed. Note th at there are 7 pages to this part; plea se rev iew each carefuliy. Co m p l e te on e table ,all 7 eaoes) for each out fa ll. See Instructions for detailS and requlremlmts. . 1.' POLLUT ANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4 .. UNITS 5. INTAKE (optional) AND C AS a. TEST-b.BE* c. BE* a. MAXIMUM DAIL Y VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRI3. VALUE 8. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NU MB ER IN G LlEVED LlEVE D (II available) (If available)

d. NO. OF a.CONCEN-b. MASS AVERAGE VAlUE ANAL-(if ava il ab l e) RE* PRE-AB* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-TRATION (l)CONCEN*

(2) MASS YSES Q UIRED SE NT SENT C ONCENTRAT I ON CONCENTRAT IO N CONCENTRATION YSES TRAT I ON M ETA LS, CY ANIDE A ND TOTAL PHENOLS 1M. A nlim ony, To t a l (7440,36-0) 2 M. A r se ni c , T ot a l (7440*3 8*2) 3M. Be ry lli um , To l a l , (7440*4 1-7) 4M. C a dm i um, Tot a l (7440*4 3-9) 5M. C hromium, To t a l (7 4 4 0-4 7-3) 6M. C opper , T olal (74 4 0-5 0 ,8) 7M. L e ad , Tola l (74 39-9 2-1 ) 8M. Me rcUlY , To t a l (7439-97*6) 9M. N i c k e l , To l a l (74 4 0-0 2-0) 10 M. Se l e n ium, To t a l (7782-4 9-2) l1M:-S ll ver,T otal (7 440-22-4) 1 2M. Tha lli um, To t a l (7440-2 8*0) 13M. Z in c, To l al (7440*66-6) 0.01 <0.01 3 mg/L 14 M. C yan id e , Tol a l (57-1 2-5) J 15 M. P hen o l s , Tot al D I O X IN 2 ,3, 7 ,B-Te tr a-DESCR I BE RESULT S ch l o ro dib e n zo*P D i o xi n 117 64*01*6\ EPA Form 35 1 0-2C (8-9 0) Page V-3 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-4 1 .* IJ/IIIIIIIIIt-1J I*HIJIVI 'Alit* V-:i . -1. POLLUTA N T 2. MARK 3. EFF LUEN' 4. UNTS 5. IN TAKE ("nUN g/I :_ ANOCAS a. T E Sf* b. BE* c. BE* a. MAX I MUM DA i lY V A LUE b. MAX I MUM 30 DAY VALUE c. lONG TE R M AVRG. VALU E B. LONG TERM b. N O. OF 50 NUMBER I NG L1E V E D L1E V ED a/avaifable (i f av ailable d. NO. OF a.CONCEN*

b. MASS AVERAGE VALU E ANAL* (If avallilb l e) R E* P RE* A B* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* TRATION (l)CONCEN* (2) MASS Y SES QUIR ED SE NT SENT C ON C ENTRAT I ON CO NCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION GC/MS FRACT IO N -VO LA TIL E C OMPO UND S --1 V. Acro l e i n I (107-02-8) 2V. Acrvlo nl trlle (107-13-1) 3V. Benzene (71-43*2) 4V. B i s (Gll/om-, metllyl) Ether 11542-BO.l

\ 5V. Bromo f olm (75-25-2) av. Carbon Tetrachlor i de 56-2::1-5\ 7V. Chlorob,>nzene (100-90-7) \ OV. Chlorodi ,. bromornethane 11124-4B-1I 9V. Chloroe t hane (75-00-3) 1 OV. 2-Ch l oro-athylv l ny l Ether liV. Chloroform (67-66-3) .. 12V.Oich l oro-bromomet h ane I 117!'i-?7-4 \ 13V. O l ch l oro-dlfluoromet h ane 171i.71-m 14V. 1.1-010h l oro* ethane (75-34-3) 15V. 1 ,2-0 i clilo r o-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. Ethy l benzene (tOO-41-4) 20V. Me t hyl Bromide (74-03-9) 21V. Methyl Chlorldo (74-07-3) , -EPA Form 35102C (8-90) Pag e V-4 CONTINUE ON PAG E V-S EPA I.D. NUMB E R (coov from It em 1 of Form 1) OUTFAL L NUMBER T N 2640030035 102 '"'U N IINUI::.U t" t'UM t" A\.:i 1:. V-q la l l 1 0 101 1. POLL UT A N T 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS " IM"4K" (nnfinn , A ND C A S a. TEST* b. B E* c. BE* a. MAX I MUM DAILY VALUE b. M AX IMUM 3 0 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONG TERM b.NO.OF NU MBER IN G LlEVED LlEVED (If a v ailable fllB ilall ab le d.NO.OF a.CONCEN* b.MAss AVERAGE VALUE ANAL* (if availa bl e) RE* P RE-AB* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS' ANAL-TRATlON (l)CONCEN' (2) MASS YSES aUJ R ED SE NT SENT CONCENT RATlON CONCENTRATlON CONCENTRATlON YSES , TRATl ON 1 r.r.iMC: .1Ir. 4' " nUPnI, IIIno' 22 V. Met hyl e ne C hl o ride (7 5*09*2) 23 V.l ,I , 2,2-Tetra-c h l oro e lh an e 1 1 7 9-3 4-5 1 24 V. Te tr achlo r o-e th yle ne (1 2 7-t6-4) 25 V. T o l uen e (1 0 0-08-3) 2 6V.l, 2-Tr a ns-D i ch loroelhyl e n e I llli A-A n-li l 27 V , t,t,t-T ri-c h l oro e th a l)e 1 1 7 1_" ,,_'" 2 SV.l , l, 2-T ri-c hl oro el h an e 1 179-0 0-5 1 2 9V , Tric hl oro-e lh yle ne (79-01-6) 3 0V. T richloro-flu oro me th an e 7"-""-4' 3 1V. Vinvl C h l or ide (7 5-0 1-4) G C/MS FRACT ION -A CID COMPOUNDS 1 A. 2-C hlor op h eno l (95-5 7-8) 2 A. 2 ,4-Dichloro -p he n ol (1 20-6 3-2) 3 A. 2 ,4-D im et hyl-p h eno l (105-6 7-9) 4A. 4 ,6-D i n it ro-O-C re s o l (5 34-5 2-1) I 5 A, 2 ,4-D inil ro-QiJ.er!QL(51 -2!j-5L -6 A , 2-N ilr ophe n ol (88-7 5-5) 7 A, 4-Ni l roph e nol (1 0 0-0 2-7) SA. P-C hl oro-M C r es ol (59-50-7) 9 A. P en ta ch l o r o-p h eno l (67-86-5) 1 0A. P h enol (1 0 8-9 5-2) 1 1 A.2.4.6-T r ich l oro-p h eno l (86-06-2) " EPA F or m 3510-2 C (0-90) Paga V-5 CON T INU E ON PAGE V-6 CO NT INU E D FR OM PAGE V-r. -1. POLL U TA N T 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNI TS !;.INTAKF fnnfinn.1l AND CAS a. TEST-b. BE-c. BE-a. MAXIMUM D A IL Y VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DA Y VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF NUMB E R ING lIEVED II/available /I available

d. NO. OF a. CONCEN-b. MASS " " AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if ava ilable) R E-PRE-AB-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MAGS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-TRATiON (1)C ONCEN-(2) MASS YSES QU I RED SENT SENT CONCENTRA TION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION G C/MS FR ACTION -BASE'lNEUTRAL COMPOUNDS 1 B. Acenaph th ene (0 3-32-9) 2B. Acenaph ty l ene (20B-96-8) 3B. An l hracene (1 2 0-12-7) 4B. Be n z idin e (9 2-87-5) 56. Be n zo fa l An t hracen e Imll-5 fi-:l\ I 6B. Benzo (a J , pyrene (50-32-0) , 7B. 3,4-Benz o-I fl uora nlhen e 205-99-2\ 8B. 6e n zo (ahil P ery len e 1 9 1-24-2\ 9B_ Be n z o (k J F l uora nth ene I I?Cl 7_nR_Q\ 10 B. B i s f 2-C hlnro-atlJO XY) Methan e 111 1 1-Q1-1\ 11 B. Bis (2-C hloro-e t hy l) E th er 11 1-1: 44-4\ 1 2B. B i s (2-C hl oro-Isopro pyl) E th er 1 O?-OO-l \ 13 B. B i s (2-E thvl-he xy l) Phth a l ate 1 17-R1-7\ 14B. 4-6romo-I ph e ny l Pheny l I Etl 1"; 110 1-55-3\ 15B. Buty l Be n zyl Ph t ha l at e (85-68-7) 1 G 6. 2-G lllo r o-na p htha l en e . 91-'i R-7\ 17 6.4-G h loro-phen y l Pheny l E t he ,: 1 70os: n-:l\ 1 BB. C hrys ene (218-01-9) 19 B. Diben z o (a.l ll An t hrace n e 2 0 B. 1,2-D i c hl or o-be nz e n e (95-50-1) 2*t B. 1 , 3-Di c h l or o-benze n e (54 1-73-1) --EPA Form 351G-2C (G-90) V-6 CONTINU E ON PAG E V-7 EPA 1.0. NUMBER (r:onv from /tRm 1 nf Fnrm 1) OUTFALLNUMBER r.O IllT IIIIII F n I'ROM p , , r.F \/.Il TN2640030035
1. POLLUTANT
2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS !;. IN'r AKF Inntlnm AND CAS a. TES T* 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 E R INO LlEVED Ll EVt;D III available

.. lIIaval/a!>'" d.NO: OF a. CONCEN* b. MASS .' . AVERAGE VALUE .: ANAL* (if a v a ilable) RE* PRE-AB-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-TRATION (I)CONCEN-(2) MASS YSES QU IR ED SENT SEN T CONCEN TRATI ON CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION ",rl .. e

  • R ''',,::. rRAI r.IIMPC'lilN rll': 22B. lA-D l c h lor o* b en z e n e (1 0 6-46*7) 2 3B. 3.3'*Dlc hlor o* ben zi din e 2 4 B. D i eth vl P hl h a lat e 'Ind ...... ?\ 2 5B. D im e th y l P ht ha lat e 1 1 13 1.11.:: 1\ 2 6 B. D i-N*B utvi P ht h a lat e I IA4.7 4-?\ 2 7B.2 ,4*Dlnitro* to l ue n e (12'1*14-2) 2 8B. 2.6*Dinltro* t olu e n e (6 06*2 0*2) 29 B. D i*N-O c tvi Pht h a lat e 1 111 7.R4-0I 30B. 1.2-Di ph e n yl-hyd r az ine (a s Azo* Iho n7o noll l,>?"".7\ 3 1 B. Fluoranthe n e (2 06*44*0) 3 2B. F luor e n e (S6*7 3-7) 33 B. Hexach l oroben z e n e (II B*7 4*1) 34 B. He x a* c hl oro bu t adi e n e I IR7.f\J V'I\ 3 5B. Hexachloro
  • c yc l o p entad ie ne l i 7 7.A 7.4\ 36B. Hexachloro
  • e th a n e (67*72*1) 37B.lndeno (1 , 2, 3'c d) Pyr ena 3 BB. Isophorone (7 B*5 9*1) 39 B. Naphth a len e (9 1*2 D*3) 40 B.-N it rob e nzen e (98*9 5*3) 4 1 B. N*Nitro* s o cl i m e th yl a mln e 4 2 B. N*Nil ro s odi*N* P ro py la mln 9 1{('?1 : 1'<4.7\ --EPA Fo rm Page V*7 CONTINUE ON PAG E v*a C'nIllT IIIII II::" FROM p j l G E y-7 _ '1. P OL L UTANT 2. MARK 'X'. 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS /i , INTAKE/";':"."'" AND C A S B. TE S T-b. BE-c. B E-a. MAXIMUM DAIL Y VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE , c. LONG TEAM A\fRG. VALUE a , LONG TEAM b. NO. OF N U MB E R I NG LlEVED LlEV E D II/av a ilable {I/av a ll a ble d. NO. OF B. CONCEN-b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(i f av ailab l e) R E-PAE-AB-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-TRATION (1) CONCEN-(2) MASS YSES Q UIA ED SENT SENT C ON C E NTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES-. TRATION RAI 43 6. N-Nit ro-sod i ph e ny l am i n e 86-3 0-n\ 44 B. P h e n an th r e ne (8 5-0 1-8) 45 6. p y r e n e (1 29-00-0) 46 B_ 1, 2 ,4 -T r ich l o ro b e n zene 12 0-0 2-1 1 GC/MS FRACT I ON -PESTI CIDES 1P_A l d ri n (30 9-00-2) 2 P.n-BH C (3 1 9-0 4-6) ::I P. -B H e (3 1 9*8 5-7) : 4 P. 'Y-B H C (58-8 9-9) 6 H C (31 9-0 6-8) 6 P. C h l orda n e (57-7 4-9) 7 P.4, 4'-00 T (50-2 9*3) OP.4 , 4'-DDE (72-5 5-9) 9 P.4, 4'*0 00 (7 2-5 4-8) 10 P. O i e l drin (60-5 7-1) 1 1 P. (1 1 5-2 9-7) 12P. (1 1 5-2 9-7) 1 31'. E ndo su lf a n S ulf a te *t 0 3 1-0 7-m 14P. E nd r i n (72-2 0-8) 1 5P. E ndri n A l d e hy d e 161'. H e pt ach l o r (76-44-8) ______________ _______________
  • __ 1_ ____________

JL ______ JL __________ . __ _L ____ , __ _L ______________ L_ ______ L_ ____ .L ________ L-______ L-________ .. ______ .. ____ __ EPA Forrn 2C-351 0 (8-90) P a g e V-8 CONTINUE ON P A GE V-9 EPA 1.0. NUMBER (CODV from I tem 1 of Form 1) OUTFAL L NUMBER C ON T INUED FROM 'AGI= V-8 TN2640030035 ("It

1. PO LLU T ANT 2. MARK 3. IT 4. rs-5. 'N*r.6KI=

fnntinm>ll AND C A S 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 NU MB ER IN G LlEVED LlEVED ' (if available (ifavallatole

d. NO. OF AVERAGE VALUE AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(i f ava il ab l e) R E* PRE-AB-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS' ANAL-a. CONCEN-b. MASS (1)CONCEN-(2) MASS YSES QUIRED SENT SENT CONCENTR A T ION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRA T ION YSES TRATION TRATION GC7Ms . (,."n '/n .. ",.,1 17B. Heptachlor

--Epoxide (1024-57-3\ 18P. PCB-1 2 4 2 (53469-21-9) , 19P. PCB-12 5 4 (11097-69-1 ) . 20P. PCB-12 2 1 I (1 1104-28-2) 2 1 P. PCB-1232 (1 11 4 1-16-5) 22P. PCB-1 248 (12672-29-6) 23P. PCB-1 2 6 0 " (1 1096-82-5) 24P. PCB-l0 1 6 (1.2674-11-2) . 25P.T o x aph e ne (800 1-35-2) -(1) Natua l bacl<gro un d r a di a ti o n l e ve l s. No t e: Long term ave r age va lu es (ro m Oc tob er 1, 2004 (hrough Se pt e m ber 3 0.2 00 5. "') EPA Form 3510-2C (8*9 0) Page V-g O' (2) MA SS "" , n l, V'" <5.0 39 2.1 8.8 19 1.360 22.8 (1) CO N CEN TR AT I O N X <1.0 X <0.050 X 5.0 X NA X 0.12 Nitr it e (a s N) X <0.10 EPA Form 3510-2C (0-9 0) 4.9 I NA IVA LUE 'VAL U E NA (2) MASS I (2) MASS CONC 1 NTRATION d. NO. O F b. NO. OF ANALYSES ANALYSES 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 14 mg/L mg/L 129.350 365 MGD *11.5 18 2 l O G 23.0 183 l O G a.CONCE N* I b. MASS I (1) (2) MASS TRATION CONCENTRATION mg/L <0.05 262 mg/L PCU mg/L mg/L Page V-l CONTINU E ON P AG E V-2 ITE M V-B F ROM P An F V-1 2. MAR K X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. rs. ;,' *5. INTAKEJootinnalL

1. P OLL UT-a. BE-b. BE* a. MAX IM UM DA I LY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DA Y VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE , *. LONG TERM b. NO , OF ANT AND U E V ED UE V ED {/I available)

{/I available)

d. NO. OF , *. CONCE ilI-b , MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL* ' CAS N O. PRE* AB* (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL* TRATION (1) (2) MASS YSES (if a vaila b le) SE N T SENT CO NCENTRAllON CONCENT RATION CONCENTRATION

-"-. Y SES .CONCENTRATION. n. Nitronen. Tota l Organ!c X 0.28 1 mg/L asN) h.O iland Grease X <5.7 1 mg/L I. P ho sp h orus (as P), T ot a l X <0.10 1 mg/L 7723*1 4-0\ '. R adioacti v i tv .. (1) Alpha, To tal X <3.20 1 pCi/L (2) Be t a, Tota l X <2.11 1 pCi/L (3) Rad ium , Tolal X (4) Rad ium -226, To tal X !I. S ulfate (as 80.) X 10. 1 mg/L (MROS-7 A.AI I. S u lfid e (as S) X <0.050 1 mg/L m Su lfit e (as 80 s) X <0.020 <0.020 2 mg/L 1426['-45-3)

n. S urfac ta nts X <0.10 1 mg/L o. A l u minum, Total X 0.37 1 mg/L 1 1 742A-90-5\ fl. Bar ium , To t al X 0.025 1 mg/L '1 7440-3 9-3\ Q. B o ro n. 0 To tal X <0.2 0 1 mg/L 1 1 74 40-42-01 r. Cob alt , To t a! X 0.0010 1 ---'TI9/L 74 4 0*4 R-4 s. Iro n.Tota l (7439-8 9 , 6) X 0.19 1 mg/L t. M aj:lnes i um, . To t al X 5.0 1 mg/L 74 3 9-95-4\ -u. Molvbdenum, mg/L I To t a l X <0.005 0 1 7439-9B-7\ v.

T otai X 1 (7 439-96-5\ 0.020 1 mg/L w. T i n, Tot al (74 40-3 1-5) X 0.0020 1 mg/L x. Tita ni um , j To tal X <0.010 1 mg/L 1 1 7440-::1?_1>\ '-J EPA Form 3510-2C (8-90) Page V-2 CONTINUE ON PAG E v-s EPA I.D. NUMBER (copy from Item 1 of Form 1) OUTFALL NUMBER " . TN2640030035 113 'W ...... , .. '1 ..... .... I 1 ........ 1' ...... VI I _lllV1 '-'I..r PA RTC -I f you a re a primary industry and thi s outfall conta i ns 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 suc h G C/M S fraclions Ihat to your Induslry and lor ALL loxlc melals, cyanides, and total phenols. If you are not required t o mark column 2-a (secondary Industries, nonpfOCllss wasiewater oiJlfalls, and no n mq uir ed GCIMS fraclion s), 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 is absent. , If , yoU mail< colUmn 2a f o r any poll utant, you m ust provide the of at least one analysis for that pollutant. If you marlc co i umn 2b for any pollutant , you must provide the of at least one ior that po ii ulani if yo'ti' . k now o r h a ve 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 ." res ult s of a t 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"' -co lu mn 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. Co mnlete one table (all 7 pages) for each outfall. See In s tructions for additional detailS and requirements. , ," -" . _, .... 1. POLLUTANT

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

AND CAS ., T E ST-b. BE-C. B E-a. MAXIMUM DAIL Y VALUE b , MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE 8, LONG TERM b , NO. OF 11II er+-ClEVEO-Cl EVE[) (II available) (If avai la ble) --d. NO. OF a. CONCEN-b.MAss AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if avai/ab l e) R E* PRE-A B* (1) (2) MASS (t) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-TRATION (I)CONCEN-(2) MASS ysEs a u I RE D S EN T S ENT C ONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSEs TRATION M ET ALS, CY ANID E AND TOTAL PHENOLS 1M. A ntim on y. Tot a l (7440-36-0) X <0.0 0 1 0 1 mg/L 2M. Arse ni c, To t a l (7 44 0-3S-2) X 0.0 0 1 4 1 mg/L 3M. Be ry lli um. Tot a l , (7440-41-7) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 4M. Ca d mium, Tot a l (7440-4 3-9) X <0.00050 1 mg/L 5M. C h ro m iu m , Tot a l (7 4 40-47-3) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 6M , Co p per, T ol al (7 44 0-50-8) X 0.0018 1 mg/L 7M. L ead, To t a l (74 3 9-92-1) X <0.00 1 0 1 mg/L OM, Mercury , To l a l (7 4 39-97-6) X 0.0 0000 1 5 1 mg/L 9M. N i ckel, T ota l (74 4 0-02-0) X 0.0 01 0 1 mg/L 10M. Se l e ni u m. Tot a l (7782-49-2) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 1 1M. S ilv e r , T ol al (74 4 0-22-4) X <0.00050 1 mg/L 12M , Tha lli um. Tot a l (7440-2 8-0) X 0.00 20 1 mg/L 13M. Zi n c, To t a l (74 4 0-66-6) X 0.01 3 1 mg/L 14M. Cya ni de, Tot a l (57-1 2-5) X <0,0050 1 mg/L 15M. P h e n o l s , Tol a l X <0.040 1 mg/L D I O X IN ." .. : , .. 2,3,7, 0-Tetr a-R E SULT S ch l or od i ben z o-P X D i o x in 11 704-0 1-6\ EPA Form (8-90) Page V-3 CONTINUE ON P AG E V-4 '-Q CONT IN IIFn FR nM 'Afl l= 1. POLLU T AN T 2. MARK 'X' A N D C A S a. TE S T-b. B E-c. BE-NUMBER IN G Ll E V E D LlEVED (if ava il a bl e) RE-P R E-AB-QUIRED S E NT SENT GC/MS FR A C TION -VOLA TIL E COMPOUNDS 1 V. Ac rol e in (107-02-8) X 2V. Acry l on itri l e (107-13-1) X 3V. Be n zene (71-43-2) X 4V_ Bls (Ch l oro-methy l) Et her X !1542:R R-l \ 5V. Brom o f orm (75-25-2) X 6V.C arbon Te trach l ori de X IIh A-?::l-<;\ 7 V. C h l orobenzene (108-9 0-7) X 8V. C h l oro d i-bromomethane X 11124-4 8-1\ 9V. C h l or oe lh ane (75-00-3) X 10 V.2-Chlor o-ethyl v l nyl E t h er X l1V. C hl oro f orm (67-66-3) X 12V.D i chloro-bromome t ha n e X 1175-2 7-4\ 13 V. D i c h lo r o-difluorometha n e X b"_71_A1 14 V. 1, l-D ic h l or o-et h ane (7 5-34-3) X 15 V. 1 , 2-Dlc h l oro-e th a ne (1 07-06-2) X 16V.l.l-0 i c h l oro-e th yle ne (75: 35-4) X 17V. 1,2-D i c h l oro-pro p a ne (78-8 7-5) X' 1 B V. 1.3-0 I c h l o r o-prop y l e n e (542-7 5-6) X 19 V. Et h y lbe n zene (100-4 1-4) X 20 V. Methy l Brom ide (74-83-9) X 21V. Methyl Ch l or ide (74-87-3) X EPA Form 351 0-2C (8-90) a. MA X IMUM DAIL Y VALUE (1) (2) MASS C ON C ENTRATI O N <0.050 , <0.010 <0.0 01 0 <0.0 010 -<0.0 0 1 0 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0 010 <0.0 050 <0.050 <0.0050 <0.0 010 <0.0 050 <0.0 010 <0.0 010 <0.00 10 <0.0 010 <0.0 010 <0.0 010 <0.0 050 <0.0025 3. EFFLUENT 4. UNITS Ii INTAKF7';,.,ffnr;'i1

b. MA X IMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a.LONGTERM b.NO.OF (if av a ila ble (if a v a i lable d. NO. OF a.CONCEN-b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(1) (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-TRATION (I)CONCEN-(2) MASS YSES CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION . 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L I 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mglL 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L . 1 mg/L 1 mglL 'tJ :0 1 mg/L I '/) ... 1> l'Tj :1 c: 1 mglL . '-G') -< () C!r.l In 1 mg/L (I r:o.-, , . -" a'" --0 -. ..... 1 mg/L 0 = f'Ti ....; -lJ 1 mg/L 1 mglL 1 mg/L Page'V-4 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-l>

EPA I.D. NUMB E R (C ODV from /rem 1 of F o nn 11 OUTFAL L NUMBER S'; CONTI NU ED FRO M P A lE TN2640030035 113 2. M A R K! I -1. P OL L UTANT 3. 4. Irs " I .... ' .* "'F (nn'n. AND C A S a. TES T-b. BE-c. B E-a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE a: LONG TERM b. NO. OF N U M BER I NG LlEVED LlEVED (/I available (/I avall8/I le d. NO. OF a.CONCEN-b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if ava il a bl e) RE-P R E-AB-(1) (2) MASS (1) (Z)MASS (1) (Z)MASS ANAL-TRATlON (l)CONGEN-(2) MASS YSES Q U IF IE D S ENT SEN T C ONCENTRAT I ON CONCENTl1ATlON CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION r.r./M!': _ v r: AT II F OMI>OI Nn!': .i. 22 V. Me th vlene C hl oride (75-0 9-2) X <0.0050 1 mg/L 23V.l,1,2,2-Te tr a-ch l oroet h ane : 179-34-5 1 X <0.0010 1 mg/L 24V. Tetrachlo r o-ethylene (127-1 8-4) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 25V. T o lu ene (108-8 8-3) )( <0.0050 1 mg/L 26 V. 1,2-Trans-D i chloroe thyl ene X <0.00 1 0 1 mg/L 1/1 56-6 0-51 27 V. 1, 1 ,1-Tri-c hl oroe than e 1171-55-61 X <0.00 1 0 1 mg/L 2 0V.1 ,1 ,2-Tri-c hl oroe th an e X <0.0010 1 mg/L 1179-00-5\ 29 V. Tr ic h l oro-ethyl e ne (79-01-6) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 30 V. T ei c hl oro-fluo rome l h an e X b,,_f\Q_dl <0.0050 1 mg/L 31V. V lnvt Ch t orlde (7 5-0 1-4) X <0.0010 1 mg/L GC/M S FRACTION -ACID C OMPOUNDS 1 A. 2-C h l orophenol (95-57-8) X <0.040 1 mg/L 2A. 2, 4-Di c hloro-phen o l (120-83-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L 3A. 2 ,4-Dim e thvl--phen o l (105-67-9) X <0.040 1 mg/L 4A. 4, 6-D in l l ro-0-Cres o l (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-Nitroph e n ol (88-75-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L 7 A. 4-N itr oph e n ot (100-02-7) X <0.040 1 mg/L OA. P-C il l oro-M Creso l (5 9-50-7) X <0.040 1 mg/L 9A. Pe ntachl or o-phen o l (07-86-5) X <0.040 1 mg/L lO A. P h e n ol (108-9 5-2) X <0.0 4 0 1 mg/L 11 A. 2,4 ,6-Tr l c hlo ro-phen o l (88-06-2) X <0.040 1 mg/L E PA Form 3510-2C (8-9 0) P a g e V-5 CONTtNUE ON P A G E V-6 C O NT IN lI Fn FROM >A G E V-fi 1_ P OL L UTANT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4_ UNITS " Inn'v", oil A ND CAS a. TEST-b. BE-c. BE-a. MAXIMUM DAILY VALUE b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRCl. VALUE a. LO NG TERM b. NO. OF N UMB ER ING LlEVED LlE V ED (/I available (/I available

d. NO. O F a.cONCEN-b. MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(if ava il ab l e) RE-PRE-AB-(1) (2}MASS (1) (2}MASS (1) (2}MASS ANAL-mATION (l}CONCEN-(2}MASS YSES a UIR ED SENT SENT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION G C/M S FRACT ION -BASE/NEUTRAL COMP O UNDS 1 B. Ac e n aphlhe n e (8 3-3 2-9) X 1 mg/L 2B. A ce n a phlv l en e (2 0 8-9 6-8) X 1 mg/L 3 B. An thr a c e ne (120-12'7) X 1 mg/L 4 B. B e n z idin e (9 2-0 7-5) X 1 mg/L 5B. B en z o fa) A nth ra cen e X 1 mg/L 1 156-5 5-:i\ 6 B. B e n zo f a) P yr ene (50-3 2-8) X 1 mg/L 7B. 3 ,4-Ben zo-fiuor a nthen e X 1 mg/L 20 5-9 9-2\ 8B. B e nzo fohi) Pery l e n e X 1 mg/L I IHll-2 4-2\ 9B. B e n zo Od F lu ora nthene X 1 mg/L !19n7_n ll_QI lOB. B is f 2-C h l oro-e lli oxy) Met/lan e X 1 mg/L 111-9 1-11 11 B. Bls f 2-C h l oro-e tlw l) E lh e r X 1 mg/L '11 1-44-4\ 12 B. B i s f2-Ch l or o-I s op r o py l) E lher X 1 mg/L 1';2-.1 O'-il 1 3 B. B is f 2-E thvl-hexy l) Phtha l a t e X 1 mg/L 11 7-Rl-7\ 14B.4-Bromo-ph e n y l Phe n yl X 1 mg/L E th",;1 101-,,-1 15B. B utv l Benzyl P hth a late (05-66-7) X 1 mg/L 16B.2-C hl oro-n a p ht ha l e n e X 1 mg/L I ml-ii R-7\ 17B. 4-C hl o r o-p hen y l P h enyl X 1 mg/L E th e; /7 005-'72-3 1 lOB. C hry sen e (2 18*01-9) X 1 mg/L 19 B. D i ben z o fa.h) mg/L Anth r a cene X 1 1 1""', 7 0*"'1 2 0B. 1, 2-D i ch l o r o-b e n ze ne (95-5 0-1) X <0.0010 1 mg/L 21 B. 1 , 3*Di c hlo r o-mg/L be n ze n e (54 1-73-1) X <0.0010 1 EPA Form 3510-2C (8-9 0) Page V-6 CONTINUE ON PAGE V-7 J\ r CONT INII Fn FRO M p , .nF I'-Iii 2. MARK 'x:-1. P O LLU TANT A N D C A S a. TEST* b. BE* c. B E* a. MAXIMUM DAilY VAlUE NUMBER I NG LlEVED Ll E v e D (if ava ila bl e) R E* PRE-A S-(1) (2) MA S S QUIRED SENT SEN'r C ONCENTRAT I ON 1lCI"" -"" ru", r.>A, EPliN 22 B. 1 A-D i ch l a r a-"'-ben z ene (106*46-7) )( <0,0010 23B. 3.3'-Dich l aro-

)( -Q4-1 24B. Diethvl Phtha l ate X I A4.1l1l-?\ 25B. D i m e th v l Ph l halate )( 11:'1 1-11-:'11 2 6B. Di-N-Butvl Phlh a late X IIM.7"_?1 27 B. 2A-Dinilra-lo l oo ne (12 1-14-2) X 28B. 2 ,6-Dinitro

  • tolu e ne (606-2 0-2) X 2 9B. Di-N-Octvl Phthalate. 1 1 1 1 7_AII_nI X 30B. 1 , 2-Diphe n vl-hydrazine (a s Azo* I I< ""_""_7' X 31 B. Fluoranlhe n e (20 6-44-0) X 32B. F l uaren e (86-7 3-7) X 33S. He xach l orobe n ze n e (11 8-7 4-1) X 34B. Hexa-c hlo ro buladi e n e X I IR7-Il A-:'I1 35B. Hexachloro

-c ycl o penladlene X !1 77-4.7-4\ 36B. Haxachloro -e lh ane (67-72-1) X 37B.lndena (1,2 , 3-cd) Pyre n a X 38B. Isophorone (78-5 9-1) X 39B. Napht h a l en e (91-2 0-3) X 40B. Nilrobenzen e (98-9 5-3) X 41 B. N-N i lro-s odime th y l aml n e X I IA?-7 fi-!l" 42B. N-N i lro s odi*N-Pro py l am in e X EPA Form 35 1()" 2C (8-90) EPA I.D. NUMBER (r.nnv fmm Ifam 1 nf Fnrm 11 OUTFAL L NUMBER TN2640030035 113 3. EFFLUENT 4. . "'MTAIl" /nnHnn, b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VAlUE c.lONG TERM AVRG. VAlUE 8. lONG TERM b. NO. OF iiI aval/able (IIaval/lIIJle

d. NO. OF 8.CONCEN* .b. MASS AVERAGE VAlUE ANAL* (1) (2) MASS (I) (2) MASS ANAl-TRATloN ' . (I)CONCEN* (2) MASS YS E S CO N CENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATION 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1-1'I1g/[ 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/l 1 mg/L I 1 mg/L 1 mg/L : I 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/l 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L P a g e V-7 CONTINUE ON PAG E V-8 CONT IN II Fn F RO M p , , G E II.Z. 1. P OL LU TA NT 2. MARK 'X' 3. EFFLUENT 4. UN TS " lorrAll1=

Inntinn, A ND CA S 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 I NG UEVED UEV E D (llevelleble ,. (flevellebl.

d. NO. OF a. CONCEN* b.MASS AVERAGE VALUE ANAL* (i f a v a il a b l e) 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* In N""'" . '" """.,<:, 43B. N*Nitr o-rRAI C-l MelJUN I)!': s od i p he nyl am I n e X 1 mg/L IIBB*3 0-s i 4 4B. P h e n ant h r e n e (85-01*8) X 1 mg/L 45 B. P y re n e . (129-0 0-0) X 1 mg/L 46B. 1 , 2 ,4* T r i .. c h l o ro be n z ene X 1 mg/L 120*02*1\ GC/M S F RA C TION* PESTIC IDES 1 P. A l drin (309-00*2) X 1 mg/L (3 1 9*04-6) X 1 mg/L ::I p.n*S H C (3 1 9-8 5*7) X 1 mg/L 4P. v* B H C (58*89*9) X 1 mg/L S H C (3 1 9.86*8) X 1 mg/L 6 P. C hlord a n e , (57*7 4*9) X 1 mg/L 7 P.4 ,4'*0 0T (50-2 9*3) X 1 mg/L O P.4,4'-DD E . (7 2-55-9) X 1 mg/L 9P.4 ,4'*00 0 (7 2*54*8) X 1 mg/L I -c . 1 O P _ D i e ld rin (60-57.1) X 1 mg/L . i 1 1 P. (11 5*2 9*7) X 1 mg/L 12P. , (1 1 5.2 9*7) X 1 mg/L 1 3 P. E ndosulfan S ulf a te
  • X 1 mg/L 10 31*0 7*8\ 14 P. E ndrin (72*2 0*8) X 1 mg/L 1 5 P. E ndrln A ld e h y d e X 1 1742 1 1 mg/L 16 P. H ept ac hlor (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: CO N T INUE D F ROM P AGE v-a 1. POLLUT ANT 2. MARK AND CAS a. TES T-b. BE* c. BE* a. MAXIM U M DAILY VALUE NU MB E R I N G Ll E VED LlEVED (i f ava i l ab l e) R E-PRE* AB-(1) (2) MASS aU IR E D SEN T SENT CO N CE NTRATION FR A C TI ON -1 7 B. H ep ta chlor E po x id e X !1 02 4-5 7-3) l B P. PCB-1 242 (5 34 6 9-21-9) X 19 P. PC B-12 54 (1 10 9 7-6 9-1) X 2 0 P. PC B-12 2 1 (1110 4-2 0-2) X 2 1 P. PC B-1 232 (11141-16-5) X 22 P. PC B-12 4 8 (12672-29-6) X 23P. P CB-12 6 0 (11 096-8 2-5) X 24 P. PCB-l0 l 6 (1267 4-11-2) X 25 P.T oxap h e ne (80 01-3 5-2) X ----_._--(1) Natual background ra d i a li o n leve l s. Note: Long term average val u es (rom Oct ob e r I, 2 004 tl1 ro u gh Sept e mber 30.2 0 05. EPA Form 3510-2C (8*90) EPA I.D. NUMBER (copv from I tem 1 of Form 1) OUTFAL L NUMBER TN2640030035 113 3. 4. rs 5. IN-rAKE (nntlnn b. MAXIMUM 30 DAY VALUE c. LONG TERM AVRG. VALUE LONG TERM a. LONG TERM b. NO. OF .. (i/avallable (i/avallable
d. NO. OF AVERAGE VALUE . AVERAGE VALUE ANAL-(1). (2) MASS (1) (2) MASS ANAL-a. CONCEN-b. MASS (l)CONCEN-(2) MASS YSES CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION YSES TRATioN .. T.RATION 1 mg/L
  • 1 mg/L 1 mg/L : 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L 1 mg/L , 1 mg/L 1 mg/L ------------------------------Page V*g DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CO I 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/ Environmenta l 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 __ ____ __ 37381 PERMIT BILLING ADDRESS (where invoices should be sent): CONTACT PERSON: _J".,e<!.!rrC'-i ""L"-.. ____ e""n'-"!ti!-",st ,--TELEP HONE: (423) 365 -3 576 FACILITY NAME: Name Title I T ennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar Nuclear Plant STREET AND/O R P.O. BOX: P. O. Box 2000 CITY: Spring City STATE: TN Zl 1 CODEO ;;..37:...=:3=8-"---1 ___ _ FACILITY LOCA nON (actual location of permit site): CONTACT PERSON: Jerri L. Philli12s Environmental Scientist TELEPHONE: (423) 365-3576 N ame Title F ACILlTY NAME: Tennes see Vall ey Authority -Watts Bar Nuclear Plant STREE T AND/OR P.O. BOX: HWY 68 Nuclear P lant Road CITY: Sp r ing City STATE: TN Z IP CODE: 37 3 81 COUNTY: Rh e a TELEPHONE: (423) 365-3576 DMR MAILING ADDRESS (wh ere preprinted Discharge Monitoring Reports should be SE tnt): CONTACT PERSON: Travis Markum, W a ter P e rmittin g SQ e ci a ji s t 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 permit address form 4-06 Ipj.doc TN0 020 1 68 WBN PROCESSES 2C Add endu m Chemica l s u l ed i n Plant Processes Chemical addi ives are used in plant processes and may be found in trace quantities in th E various NPDESdischarge points due to blowdown , leakage, and system mainte L:ance activities. The following paragraph describes the most commonly usep system additives. The table below summar i zes all chemical additives the water additives that may be found in each outfall as wel l. The wate r add J tives are biocides and corrosion treatment chemicals a n d are discussed in detai l in the Biocide Corrosion T reatment Plan (BCTP) approved in A pril 2007 by the Divisio n of Water Pollution Control a nd updated with this SU bm1*tt a l. Hydiazine, am . onia, acid , sodium molybdate, so lum t o lyltn azole, potassium hydroXide, and lith ium hyd roXide are routinely to the Primary and Secondary Systems to control pH and corrosion. Up t o 300 pounds o f modified alpha cellulose could be added to the conde n se r channel to temporarily p l ug pinhole tub e l eaks in the condense r. peroxide may be added dur in g re fueling for Primary System cleanu p to .reduce radiation exposure t o m a i ntenance pe r so nn e l. S im ilarly, of ethylene glycol, a heat transfer medium used in building c hill e r ackages, the ice co nd ense r c hill e r packages, and diesel generators , co wl d e nd up via leakage in OSNs 10 1, 102, in t ernal m o nit or in g point (IMP) 103 , and I MP 1 07. March 2009 TN 002 01 68 WBN PROCESSES 2 C A I de ndum

SUMMARY

OF CHEMICALS ADDED BY DlSCHAR t E DESCHARGE OSN 101 OSN 102 IMP 1 03 IMP 107 March 2009 DESCRIPTION Diffuser Discharge Yard Holding Pond Overflow Weir (See OSN 101) Low Volume Waste Treatment Pond Lin e d Pond & Unli n e d P ond CHEMICAL ADDED Ammonium Hydroxide , ium Chloride (Not added now but will add to U-2), Alpha Cellulose, Asbestos afte r 5 micron filter , Boric Acid, Sodium Tetraborate , Bromine , Chlorine, Copolymer Ethylene Oxide -Propylene Oxide copolymer, cCDpolymer, Ethylene I Glycol, High Pressure Fire flushes Hydrazine , Laboratory Chemicrl Wastes , Lithium , Molybdate, Molluscicide, Oil and Grease, Phosphate Cleaning Agents , Pfint Compounds , Sodium Bisulfite, Sodium HYPichlorite , Sodium Hydroxide , Surfactant , Tolyltria , zole , Film Processing Rinse Water, Zinc Chloride Orthophosphate , Zinc Sulfate , Phosphino-carboxylic acid copolymer; D i ethylenetria r inepenta-methylene phosphonic acid, Sodium salt; Sodium chloride; Ethylenediamine tetracetic ac i d, Sodium salt; Sodium Hydroxide (also see BCTP). I Alternate discharge path for OSN 101. Ammo 1 ium Ch.loride, . BOric Acid , Sodium Tetraboratj , Bromine , Chlorine Copolymer Dispersant, Ethyle ll e G l yco l, Hydrazine , L abo r atory Chem i ca l Wastes , !l ithium , Mo l ybdate , Monoethano l amine , Mo ll uscicide , Oi l and Grease , Ph os ph ates , Phos p hate C l ean i!n g A g en t s , Pa int C o mp o u nd s , So d i um Hydr o xide , S urf ac t a nt , T oly l tri azo l e , X-r a y Fi l m R i n s e W a t e r, Zin c S ul fa t e , (a l s o se e BCTP). : M e t a l s -m a in l y Ir o n a nd C O PP Ej r , A c id s an d C a u s ti cs , Ammonium Amm o nium C hl o ri d e , A sb es t os a ft e r 5 mi c ro n fi lt e r, Bor ic A ci d , Sod i u m T e t r a or a t e , B r o min e , Ch l orin e , Copo lym e r Di s p e r sa t , H yd r azi n e , L a bor a t o ry C h e mi ca l W as t es , ithium , iViono e th a no i a mine , M o lybd a te M o ll u s c i c i d e , O il and Gr ease , Pho s ph a t e s , P ho ph a te Cleaning Agent s , Sod ium, Sod ium Hydr xide, S urf ac t a nt, Tolyltri azo l e , Zinc Sulfate , (a I s see BCTP) IM P 113 March 2009 SCCW Diffuse r Some contact with chemica l s present in OSN 101. Alpha Cellulose, Bromine, Chlorine, copolyme r, Molluscic i de, Zinc Ch l oride Orthophosphate TENN ESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) -WATTS BAR-NUC L EAR PLANT (W , B N) -NPD ES PERMIT NO, TN 0020 1 68 -A PP LICATI O N FOR PERMIT M O DIF IC A TION Current Whole Effluent (WED T oxicity Limits (permit effective 7/1/10): Outfall 101 -Outfall 102 -Outfall 1 13 day or 3-brood IC 25 3.3% eff l uent (30.3 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/year 7-day or 3-brood le 25 3.30/1 effluent (30.3 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/yea r (only i f discharge ope r ated days f rom Jan. -Ju n., o r Jul. -Dec. if a ll toxicity t est in 1 has not been comp l ete d for Outfall 101) 7-day or 3-brood IC 25 8% jffl uen t (12.5 TUc) Monitoring Frequency = 2/yea r Pr oposed Who l e Effl u ent (WED Toxicity Req u irements: Outfa ll 101 -Outf a ll 102 -Ou tfall 113 day o r 3-brood IC 25 2.8o/l e ff luent (35.7 TUc) Mo n itor i ng Frequency = 2/year , one during oxidizing biocide treatmen t and one d jr i n g non-ox i dizing biocide t reatmen t 7-day or 3-bro o d IC 25 2.8°/l e fflu e nt (35.7 TUc) M on itoring Frequency = 2/yer (only if di s charge op e rated po days from Jan. -Jun., or Jul. -Dec. if a ll toxicity t est ina has not been complet e d for Outf a ll 101) 7-d a y or 3-brood iC 25 6.7°1c effluen t (1 4.9 TUc) M on i toring Frequenc y = 2/ye. r, on e duri n g oxidizing bio c i de tr eatme nt and on e d ring non-oxidi z ing b i ocide tr ea tment Outfalls 101 and 1 1 3: I n accordance with EPA's recommendation (Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Contro l , 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 a demonstration of no Reasonable Potential (RP) for excu r sions above the ambient water quality chronic (CCC) criterion using effluent data for current ope r ating conditions. Following guidance l in the Technical Support Document (TSD), when no RP exists, biomonitoring would be conducted at a 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 tox i city 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 disc h arged through Outfalls 101 and 113. The shemical makeup of the products used can change during the permit period and the combined toxicity of the chemicals is not known. Thus it is not feasible to control toxicity only by the application of ch l emical 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 inco q porate the proposed WET requirements stated above for WBN Outfalls OSN101 and OSN113 that a M l e 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 outfa ll during non-oxidizing biocide treatment. TVA is requesting permit language consistent with the BCTP. The following RP ut i lizes 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 Outf a ll OSN101 WET Biomonitori'lig Results: T est Date Tes t Species 1. Feb. 2-9 , 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% 1 0.2 t Pimephales promelas 100% <1.0 (IC2s:<1.0) 2. Aug. 26 -Sept. 22, 1994 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% Pimephales promelas 10 0% <1.0 <1.0 3. Feb. 1-8 , 1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100% Pimephales promelas 98% <1.0 >100% <1.0 4. Aug. 9-16,1995 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >1 00% Pim ephales promelas 100% <1.0 >100% <1.0 5. Feb. 23 -Mar. 1, 1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% Pimephal es promelas 98% <1.0 <1.0 .,1, e ;" . ,. ", . 6. Aug. 22-29,1996 Ceriodaphnia dubia 89% >100% Pimephales promelas 100% <1.0 >100% <1.0 7. Feb. 19-26, 19 97 Ceriodaphnia dubia 80% 58.0% Pimephales promelas 100% <1.0 >100% 1.7 8. Aug. 12-20 , 1 Ceriodaphnia dubia 0% 30.9% Pimephales promelas 100% 3.1 >100% 3.2 9. Feb. 24 -Mar. 3 , 1 998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >100% Pimephale s promelas 100% <1.0 >100% <1.0 1 0. Sept. 16 , 1 998 Ceriodaphnia dubia 0% 32.4% Pi mephal es prome l as 98% 3.2 >1 00% 3.1 11. M a r. 2-9 ,1 999 C er i odap hni a dubia 1 00% >100% Pim e ph a l es promel as 90% <1.0 40% 2.5 1 2. Sept. 9 -Oct. 6, 1 999 C e ri odap hni a dubia 10 0% 13.2% Pim ephafes pr o m e f as 10 0% <7.58 13.2% <7.5 8 13. Apr. 4-11,2000 C e riod ap hnia dubi a 1 00% 13.2% M a r. 22-29 , 2000 Pim ep.i?a!es p r ome f as 98% <7.58 1 3.2% <7.58 14. O c t. 25 -Nov. 1, 2000 C e riod ap hni a dubia 100% 13.2% <7.58 <7.58 Pim ep h a l es promelas 100% 13.2% Su of WBN Outfall OSN101 WET Biomonito ri 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) Te sted 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% Oct. 21-28, 2002 Pimephales promelas 100% <7.58 >13.2% <7.58 19. Apr. 14-21,2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2% Pimephales promelas 100% <7.58 >13.2% <7.58 20. Nov. 3-10 , 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90% 1 2.1% Pimephales promelas 100% <7.58 >13.2% 8.3 21. Apr. 20-27, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >13.2% Pimephales promelas 98% <7.58 >13.2% <7.58 22. Nov. 8-13, 2004 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2% Pimephales promelas 100% <5.20 >1 9.2% <5.20 23. Apr. 12-19,2005 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2% Pimephales promelas 100% <5.20 >19.2% <5.20 24. Nov. 2-9, 2005 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >19.2% Pimepha l es promelas 98% <5.20 >1 9.2% <5.20 25. A pr i l 18-25 , 2006 C eriodap hn ia d u bia 100% <5.2 0 >19.2% <5.2 0 Pim e ph a l es prom e l a s 10 0% >1 9.2% 26. Augu s t 22-29, 2006 C e riod a phnia du b i a 1 00% <5.2 0 >;9.2% <5.20 Pim e phal e s prom e las 100% >19.2% 27. April 3-10, 2007 C e ri odaphn ia dubia 100% <5.20 >19.2% <5.20 Pim e phale s prom e las 100% >19.2% 28. Octob e r 16-23 , 2007 Ceriod a phnia dubi a 10 0% <5.20 >19.2% <5.20 Pi m e p l 7afes prarne/as 10 0% >19.2% 29. May 6-13, 2008 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% <5.20 >19.2% <5.20 Pim ep hal es promel as 100% >19.2% Summary of WBN Outfall OSN101 WeT Biomonitoring Results (continued): Test Date 30. Nov. 4-11, 2008 31. May 5-12, 2009 32. Nov. 3-10 , 2009 33. May 4-11,2010 n Maximum Minimum Mean %CV Test Species Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimepha/es prome/as Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimepha/es prome/as Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimepha/es prome/as Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimepha/es prome/as Acute Results (96-h Survival) I % Survival in St d Highest. Concentration U*t (TU ) Tested nI s a 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 00% 100% 100% 100% 66 100% 95.8% 18.2 <5.20 <5.20 <5.20 <5.20 33 7.6 1.0 4.66 55.63 Chronic Results Study IC 25 Toxicity >19.2% >19.2% >19.2% >19.2% >19.2% >19.2% >19.2% >19.2% Units (TUc) <5.20 <5.20 <5.20 <5.20 33 8.3 1.00 4.75 53.47 f Statistical endpoint biased by selection of the dilution series. IC 25 derived from origin I data. Current perm i t was effective July 1,2010. Shaded area designates data collected during previous permit (Effective Date: November 5,2004). Applicable permit limit: I C 25 2: 2.4%,4 2.3 TUc. Applicable permit dilution se ri es: Control , 1.2%, 2.4%, 4.8%, 9.6%, 19.2%. T able 2. Summary of I Outfall OSN113 WET Biomonitoring Re s ults: Acute Results (96-h Chronic Results Survival) Test Date Test Species % Survival in Study Study Highest Co n centration Toxicity IC 25 Toxicity Tested Units (TUa) Units (TUc) Pimephales promelas 98% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 2. Apr. 4-11,2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 90% 19.5% Pimephales promelas 100% <2.43 >41.2% 5.0 3. Oct. 25 -Nov. 1, 2000 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 98% <2.43 >4 1.2% <2.43 4. Apr. 18-25, 2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >4 1.2% Pimephales promelas 100% <2.43 25.1% 4.0 5. Oct. 15-23,2001 Ceriodaphnia dubia 1 00% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 100% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 6. Apr. 14-19,2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Apr. 28 -May 3, 2002 Pimephales promelas 9"°; <2.43 20.0% 5.0 v/o 7. Oct. 21-28, 2002 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Pimephafes promelas 98% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 8. Apr. 15-22, 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% >41.2% Pimephales promelas 93% <2.43 >4 1.2% <2.43 9. Nov. 3-10 , 2003 Ceriodaphnia dubia 1 00% >4 1.2% Pim ephales promelas 1 00% <2.43 >4 1.2% <2.43 1 0. Apr. 20-27, 2004 C e riod ap hnia dubia 100% >4 1.2% Pim ep h a les prom e l as 10 0% <2.43 >41.2% <2.43 11. Nov. 9-16, 200 4 C e riod a phn i a dubia 100% >30.4% Pim e ph a l e s prom e la s 10 0% <3.29 >30.4% <3.29 1 2. Apr. 12-1 9 , 2005 Ceriod ap hnia. dubia 1 00% >3 0.4% <3.29 <3.29 Pim ephales pr omelas 98% >30.4% 1 3. Nov. 2-9, 2005 Ceriod ap hnia dubia 10 0% >30.4% Pimephales prom elas 98% <3.29 >30.4% <3.29 14. April 18-25, 2006 Ceriodaphnia dubia 100% <3.29 >30.4% Pimephales promelas 100% >30.4% <3.29 Summ a ry of W B N Outf a ll O S N113 W E T Biomonitoring R es ult s (continu e d): I Test Date 15. August 22-29, 2006 16. April 3-10, 2007 17. October 16-23,2007 1 8. May 6-1 3 , 2008 19. November 4-11, 2008 20. April 21-28 , 2009 21. November 3-10,2009

22. May4-11 , 2010 N M ax i mum Minimum M ea n %CV Test Species Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas Acute Results (96-h Survival)

% in Study Highest. Toxicity Concentration Units (TUa) Tested 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 00% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 44 1 00% 90% 9 9.3% 2.1 2 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 22 3.29 2.43 2.9 0 1 5.12 Chronic Results Study I C 25 Toxicity t 30.4% j 30.4% j 30.4% j 30.4% j 30.4% j 30.4% j 30.4% r°.4% j 30.4% r°.4% >1 30.4% 1 30.4% j 30.4% >30.4% t 30.4% >30.4% Units (TUc) <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 <3.29 22 5 2.4 3 3.20 22.96 Curr e nt p e iiTdt w as e ff ec tiv e July 1, 2 010. Sh a d e d area d es ign a t es data collect e d du' ing previous p e rmit (Effec tiv e Date: November 5,2004). Ap plic a ble perm i t limit s: I C25;;:: 7.6%,1 3.2 TUc. Applic able p e rmit dilution series: Contiol, 1.9%, 3.8%, 7.6/6, 1 5.2%, 30.4 10. -Wi OSN 1 01 Reasonable Potential (RP) Determination Based on OSN101 Effluen t Data Only Technical SUPP f' rt Document, Text Box 3-2 and Section 3.3 (EPAl505/2-90-001) DILUTION OSN101 Disch l 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 Step 1 I 33 WET Biomonitoring Studies, Maximum Observed Toxicity is 8.3 TUc. toxicity = 4.75 TUc; compliance limit = 42.3 TUc (lC 25 2! 2.37% efflu t nt).] Ste p 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. Low l river flow = 2062 MGD and WBN Outfall OSN101 discharge = 57.76 MG9 = 2.80% In s tr eam Waste Concentration (Iyve) after mixing. Step 4 . Step 5 O S N 113 At a 6.0 28 IWC: 8.3 TUc x 2.0 x 0.028 = 0.46 TUc 0.46 TUc is l ess than the ambien t CCC criteri o n of 1.0 TUc. Thi s outcpme demonstrates that no Rea so nable Pot e ntial for excursions abo Vj e the CCC exists, ba se d on effluent data obtained f rom t es ting c o n duc t ed unde r c u rren t operat i ng c ondit i ons. R eas on a bl e (RP) D e termin a tion Ba se d on O S N113 Effl ue nt D a t a Only T e chnical Supp rt Document , T e xt Box 3-2 a nd Se cti o n 3.3 (E PA/505!2-90-001) DILU TIO N OSN113 Discha ge Flow = 1 48.895 MGD (bas e d on revised flow schematic) S tr ea m 1Q10 = 0 6 2 M G D DF= Qs+Qw = 2062+148.895 =14.85 Qw 148.895 Dilution Factor (DF): Instream W astewa t e r Concentr atio n (IWC): rwe = DF-1 x 100 = 6.7 % Chronic TOXICITY Step 1 Step 2-3 Step 4 Step 5 22 WET Biomonitoring Studies, Maximum Observed Toxicity is 5.0 TUc. [Average toxicity = 3.20 TUc; compliance limit = 13.2 T J c (IC 25 ;;:: 7.58% effluent).] 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. Low stream flow plus WBN Outfall OSNl13 discharge 1 2210.895 MGD and WBN Outfall OSN113 discharge = 148.895 MGD = 6.73% In stream W aste Concentration (IWC) afte r mixing. At a 0.0673 IWC: 5.0 TUc x 1.3 x 0.0673 = 0.44 TUc 0.4 4 TUc is l ess than the a mbi ent CCC criterion of 1.0 TUc. This outcome demonstrates that no Reasonable Potentia l for excursions above the CCC exists, based on eff lu ent data obtain d from testing conducted under current operating conditions.

D ocumen t Type: E I S-Ad m i nis t rative R ecor d Ind ell Fiel d: ¢n viro n men t al Document Pr o j ect N a m e: atts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 E ansmitted Public/A ge ncies ompletion Project Number: 2006-12 4 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENV I RONMENTAL IMPPi CT STATEMENT

j AUG 1 8 2010 rrnit SeCtion COMPLETION AND OPERATION OF WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 Rhea County, Tenne ssee TENNESSEE VAL EY AUTHORITY JUNE 2007

Final Supplement a l Environmenta l Imp act Statemen t Jun e 2007 Propo se d project: Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nu lear Plant Unit 2 Rhea County, Tennessee Lead agency: Tennessee Valley Authority For further information, contact: Ruth M. Horton Senior NEPA Specialist Tenness ee Valley Authority Abstract: 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-ma il: rm horton@tva.com The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is proposing to ee t the need f or additional base load capacity on the TVA system and the use of existing assets by completing and operating Watts Bar Nuc!ear Plant (WBN) Unit 2. The unit would be completed as originall t designed , a l ongside its sister unit, WBN Unit 1, which has been since 1996. Only minimal new construction is proposed, and no expansion of the existing site footprint would be TVA has prepa r ed this final supplemental environmental i mpact statement (FSEIS) to update the extens iv e previous environmenta l record pertinent to proposed action. In addit ion to this FSEIS, TVA i s also conducting a d eta i ed , seoping , estimating and pl a nn i ng (DSEP) st udy. TVA will u se inf I rmation from the D SEP and th e FSEIS to make a d ec i s i o n abou t whether t o complete con structio n of and to op e rate W B N Unit 2.

Summ a ry SUMMAR Y 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 to add additional base l oad capacity to its system in the next decade to meet growing demand for power. At the same t ime, 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 comple ting and operating Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2. The ur}it would be completed as originally designed , alongside its sister unit, WBN Unit 1 , which has been operating since 1996. Produc in g tritium for the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) at WBN Unit 2 i s n o t part of this proposed ac ti o n. l This fin a l supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) will info l m decision makers and the public about the potential for environmental impacts with a decision to complete and operate WBN Unit 2. I t updates the analysis o j potential environmenta l impacts resulting from construct i on, operation, and maintenance of WBN Unit 2 as a supplement to the original 1972 final environmenta l statemen: t (FES) titled Final Environmenta l Statement , Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (herea"liter r eferred to as 1 972 FES) and subsequent WBN-related environmen tal reviews. I t also updates the need f or power analys i s. In addit i on to this env ir onmental review, a detailed, scoping, estimating, and plann in g I (DSEP) study is underway. TVA will use information from the DSEP and the FSE I S to make an informed decision about whether to complete construct i on of to operate WBN Unit 2. NE E D FOR POWER Th e need for power a naly sis p r esented in Chapter 1 s how s how comple on of WBN Unit 2 w ou ld h e lp TVA meet expec t ed d emands for in c r eased b ase l oad pow e r , improv e the div e rsity of r eso urc es se rving it s customers , r ed u ce the ri sks inh e r en t wih a ny parti cu lar kind of resourc e , provide added fl e xibility to r ed uc e fossi l plant emission$, and pot ent ially l ow e r the cost of pow e r to TVA's customers. TVA prepares a r ange of f9r ecas ts of future pow e r demands on it s system. Some of tho se f o r e ca s ts show a ne e d for additional ba seload capacity as ear ly as 2010. ALTERNATiV ES iNCLUDiNG THE PROPOSED ACTION In the 1 972 FES for Watts Bar Units 1 and 2 , TVA considered a number f alternatives to con st ructing and operating WBN, inclu d ing the No Action Alt e rn at ive. A is propo s ing to compl ete WBN Unit 2 as originally de sig n e d except for modific a tions co sis t e nt with those made to Un it 1. Consist e nt with the Council on Environmental Quality's atio nal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regul atio ns [§1502.4(D)], thi s docume t also tiers off of Energy Vision 2020 -An Integr ated 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 e n vironmenta l ecord pertinent to 8-1 Com pletio n and ope.J tion of W atts Ba r Nu c l ea r Pl a ht Unit 2 WBN. As suc h, this FSE I S identifies no n e w alternatives to tho se already add r esse d in those documents. CHANGES IN THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES I The environmental 1 0nse q uences of constructing and operating WBN were addressed 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 construction of Unit r was complete, most of the construction effects had already occurred. Unit 2 would use that already exist and most of the work required to complete Unit 2 would occur i T side of those buildings. All disturbances proposed for the construction of new support facili t.ies would be within the current plant footprint. TVA would use standard constructio 1 n best management practices (BMPs) to control minor construction i mpacts to air and water from dust, sed i mentation, 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 th at time. Some to plant design and operations have occurred since that time. This summarizes the environmental effects assessed in past WBN-related environmenta l reviews and assesses the potentia l for new or additional effects that could result from the com R'etion and operation of Unit 2. Tab l e S-1 summarizes the pote n tial 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 Insignificant hydrothermal effects on near-field and field temperatures and on the operation of th e supplemental condenser COOling water (SCCW), g iv e n compliance with National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) permit li mits. In significan t effects from raw water c h emica l treatment. Water intake would increase by 33 percent over present conditions but st ill w ou ld be Surface Wa e r Quality w i thi n the original d eSig n b as i s of th e pl a nt f o r two-uni t op e r a tion. A corre s ponding incr ease of ess ential r a w c ool ing wat e r a nd r a w cooling w a t e r ch e mica l additives of 33 p e r ce nt woul d o cc ur. Tow e r bro m tr eat m e nt f o r Con de n s in g Cooling W a t e r (CCW) would incr ease 100 p e rc en t. Th ese incr ease a r e not expecte d to affec t c o mpli a nc e wit h ex i sting N PDES effl u e n t limi tat i o n s th a t prot ec t a qu a tic r esources. Qu a!ity No i mpacts expected. 8-2 S u mm a ry Tab l e $-1 (continued) Since no construction activities wbuld occur within 500 feet of the reservoir, all activities would be subject to appropriate BMPs to e ljl sure that there are no impacts to surface water, intake flows would stay within Aquatic Ecology the original design basis for of the two-units in closed cycle mode, and changes would remai n within existing NPDES limits. An y impacts to aquatic ecology, plankton, or aquatic co mm unit i es in the vicinity of WBN would be insignificant. I I mpacts on existing plant and communities withi n or adjacent to the disturbed area ,Eotprint would be Terrestria l Ecology insign i ficant. Some minor disturb i ance of communi t ies may occur during construction. N o new infestat i ons of exotic invasive p l ant species a r e All construction work would be using BMPs, no additional discharge-related would occur, and intake flows would no t be over the origina l design basis for two-unit operatio p. There would be no effect on state-listed or federally (,sted aquatic animals o r Threatened and their habitats. Endangere d Species W e tl a nd s N a tur a l Ar eas Cul tura l R es o urc e s (Ar c h aeo logic a l a nd Hi sto ric a l) Socio e conomics , Environmental Justice and L and Use Floodplains and Flood Risk Seismic Effects No impacts to threatened or terrestrial plan t or animal species are expected. occurrences of listed or federally listed plant spe*ies are known on, or adjacent to WBN. No impacts to b ald eagles or gray bats are expected. I No impacts to wetlands a r e No d i sturbance is pl anned th a t would affec t the on forested wetland a dj acen t to th e proiect f ootprin t. No imp acts w o uld occu r to th e n a tur a l a r eas with in 5 mil es of WBN, i ncluding the State Mu sse l S a nctu a ry. I Beca u se n e w mo und d i st ur ba nce w ould be m i nim a l a nd o n ly minim a l c o n s tru c tion i s p l a nn e d , h i s t o r i c r e s ou r ces on a nd ad j ac e nt to th e l s i te a nd a r c h ae ol og ic a l a r ea of pot e ri a l eff e ct would not be S o me i mpac t s t o popul a t i on, incll ding low inc o me a nd min ority g roup s du e t o i nflux o f wbr k e r s; m ost im p a cts w ould b e w id es pr e ad a nd m i no r. A n ot i cea bl e in c r e a se in dem a nd for hou s ing a nd mo b il e t ou s ing loc a tions would occur during peak construction. Some impacts are expected to schools. Minor impabts are expected on l a nd use. Beneficial effects on emplo ment and income , and local governments' r evenues durinQ constr uction. No anticipated adverse f1ood-rela ed impacts. No adverse seismic effects anticipated. 5-3 Com p l e t i on an d ope J io n 01 W a tt s Bar Nu c l ea r Plaht Unit 2 T ab le 5-1 Climatology and . -A slight change -local affectwi-nd . Meteorology l values. Effects expected to be insignificant. Nuclear Pla n t Safety and Security The risks of a beyond-design-basis accident from operation ofWBN are small. Increased risk from Unit 2 opera t ion would be extremely low. Risk of and potential impacts from a terrorist attack on WBN are not expected to increase significantly due to completion of WBN Unit 2. 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 l Effects Anticipated effects unchanged since 1995; insignificant. Radiological j Waste Anticipated effects unchanged since 1995; insignificant. Spent Fuel li l ransportation Insignificant effects anticipated from the transpo rt or and Storage storage of spent The cumu l at i ve of constructing and operating Units 1 and 2 were considered in the 1972 FES and the 1 p 95 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 cont r olled by monitoring requirements and NPDES permit limits. Previous reviews a l so considered the potential for cumUlative effects to air f r om Watts Bar Fossi l I Plant, which had not operated since 1983 and has since been ret ir ed. Cumulative effects are also considered l in many of th_e documen t s incorporated by reference and/o r tiered from for this supplement. Most notably, cumulative effects of transportation and storage of spent fuel were addressed in the DOE 1999 final environmenta l im pac t statement; cumUla tiv e effects of of radioactive materials were addressed in NRC's Environmental Survey of Transpoliation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Powe r Plan t s, Supplement 1 NRC 1975); and cumu l ative effects of hydrothermal and water supp ly were j dressed in TVA 2004a. I DENTIFICATION 9F MITIGATION MEASURES Miti ga tion of pot e ntial or ac tu a l e nvironm e ntal i mpacts includ es avoiding, minimizing, r ec tifying, r ed ucing , l or comp e n sat in g for th e imp a ct s. Mitig a tion m eas ur es h a ve b ee n id entified in th e 1 972 FES and subsequent NEPA documents. Tho se m easu re s are s till in effect. This supp l e I enta l document identifies mitigation m eas ur es to address imp acts b e yond wh at w ere i sc u sse d in those earlie r r e vi ews. TVA will id ent ify specifi c mitigations and commitments s lected for im p l ementation i n th e Record of Deci s ion (R OD) for this proj ect. TVA h as identified t e foll owing m easures that could b e impl e ment e d during construction or oper at ion of WBN nit 2 to address tho se pot e ntial impacts. TVA would desi n ate certain counti es as imp acte d b y the construction process. Thi s would make th e eligible for a supplementa l al loc a tion from TVA's annual tax equ iv a l ent pay en t und e r Tennessee l aw. Th ese funds could be used by counties to address impact on county services. S-4 Summary As pa rt o f the DSEP, TVA is conducting a l abo r st udy of the pot en J constructio n w o rkf o r ce. TVA would prov id e information from thi s study to in the impacted coun ti es. This information could h e lp with loca l planning to accom I odate the anticipated temporary population growth. S-5

Cont ents TA BLE 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 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 ENVIRONMENT fL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................ ........................ r ................. _ ......... ,. 33 3.1. Water Quality ......................... ......................................... ................... ........................... ......... 34 3.1.1. Surface Water -Hydrothermal Effects ........... ............................... ....................... ........ 34 3.1.2. Surface Water -Chem i cal Additives to Raw Water ..................................................... 46 3.1.3. Groundwater ...................... ............................................................. .............................. 53 3.2. Aquatic Ecology .......... ................................ ...................................... ..................................... 54 3.3. Terrestrial Ec ol og y .................. .......... ................................................................ .................... 56 3.3.1. Pl ants ............................................................. .......................... ....... : ............................. 56 3.3.2. Wildlife ..................... ..................................................................................................... 57 3.4. Thre atene d and End a n ge red Species .................................. ................................ ................ 57 . 3.4.1. Aqu a tic Anim a l s ............................................................ ................ ................................. 57 3.4.2. P l a nts ................................. ....................... ......................... ............................. ............... 59 3.4.3. Wil dlife .................................. ......................... ................. ...................... ........... .............. 60 3.5. Wetl a nds ................... .................................... ............ ................................... ........... ............... 6 1 3.6. N a tural Ar eas ..................... ................ ............. ................................... .................................... 61 3.7. Cultur a l Resources ................. ................................................... ................... ........................ .. 62 3.8. Socio eco nomic , Environmental Ju s tice, and Land Use ................................. .................. ...... 64 3.8.1. Popul a tion ............................................... ...................... .............. ................... ............... 64 3.8.2. Employment and Incom e ........................................................................................ ....... 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 Compl e tion and of Watts Bar Nucl ea r Pla r Unit 2 3.8.8. Cumulative Effects ........... .................. ................. ................ ............................ ............... 68 3.9. Floodplains Flood Risk ................... .......................................... ............. ................. ......... 69 3.10. Seismic Effects .................... ............................... ...................................................... .............. 71 3.11. Climatology Meteorology ...................................................................................... .......... 72 3.1 2. Nuclear Plant Safety and Security ............................................... .......................................... 73 3.12.1. Severe Analysis ..................... ........................................... .............................. 73 3.12.2. TerrorislT) .................................. ................... ............................................................. ..... 75 3.13. Radiological Effects ....................................... ................................ .......................................... 76 3.14. Radioactive Wa ste ........................................................................ ............. ............................ 91 3.15. Spent Fuel st qr age ....................................................... ............. ...................... ...................... 95 3.15.1. Construc f ion Impacts ..................................................................................................... 97 3.1 5.2. ........................ .............................................................................. 98 3.15.3. Postulated Accidents ............ ..................................................................... .................... 99 3.1 6. of Radioacti v e Materials .......................... ............................ .................. ........ 99 3.1 7. DecommisSi0 1 ing .............................................................. ................................... .............. .. 101 4.0 LIST OF PREP f RERS* ...................................... .............. ...................... ............. ................. .. 103 4.1. N EPA Project Management ........................... ...................................................................... 103 5.:.2. .. ::::::::::: ..... :.::: .. ::::. 5.1. List of Agencies, Organizations , and Persons to Whom Copies of the Draft or Fi n a l SEIS Were Sent an 1 to Whom E-links Were Provided ........................... ........... ........................... 109 5.2. DSEIS Press ............................... ....................... .............. ................. ..................... 115 5.3. Inf ormation Open House Paid Advertisement ......................................... ............................ 1 1 6 5.4. In forma tion O J en House Handout ....................... ................................................................ 117 6.0 SUPPORTING j NFORMATION .................................... ........................... .............................. 121 6.1. Literature Cite! ................................. .............. ........................................................ .............. 121 6.2. Index ........................................................ ............ ......................... ....................................... 1 26 LIST OF APPENDICES App e ndix A -Summ a of Previous Hyd rot h e rm a l I mp ac t St udi es .................................................. 129 App e ndix B -NPDES low Di ag r a m .......... ................... ................................................................... 1 35 Ap pendi x C -Aquatic co logy Supporting Inform a tion ......................... .................. ................... ...... 139 App e ndix 0 -R es pon e to Comments ............................................................................................. 157 ii inal Supplemental Environmenta l Impact Statement Table S-1. Table 1-1. Table 1-2. Table 2-1. Table 3-1. T able 3-2. T ab l e 3-3. Table 3-4. Table 3-5. Table 3-6. Table 3-7. Table 3-8. Table 3-9. Table 3-10. Table 3-11. T able 3-1 2. T a bl e 3-13. T ab l e 3-14. T able 3-15. Table 3-16. T ab!e 3-17. T able 3-18. Table 3-19. Table 3-20. Table 3-21. C o nt en t s LIST OF TA B LES Summary of D i rect , Indirect, and Cumu l ative Environmental Effe ct s From Completion of WBN Unit 2 ......................... ......................... ....................................... ... 2 Envi r onmental Reviews and Decuments Pertinent to Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 .............. ......................................................................................... 6 Effect ofWBN Unit 2 on TVA Delivered Cost of Power ............................................... 17 .. .................. 29 NPDES Temperature Limits for WBN Outfalls to the Tennessee ...................... 35 Es t imated Hyd r othe r mal Conditions for Re l ease From Watts Bar Dam ...................... 38 Es t imated Hydro t hermal Conditions for Therma l Effluent F r om 0 1 .. .. ** .. *********39 ................ 40 Wit h Unit 1 and Uni t 2 Operation ................................................................................. 42 Predicted SCC W I mpact on WBN Operatio n ...................... ......................................... 44 H istory of 8etz Chem i cal Treatment of Raw Water at WBN 1 996-Present Chemicals ................................................................................ ( .... 47 His t ory of Nalco Chemica l Treatment of Raw Water a t WBN 1996-Presen t .............. .47 Potentia l Chemica l D i scharge to NP DES Outfa li s at WBN ............ 1 .............................. 50 Hi sto ry of Ot h e r C h emical T reatmen t o f Raw Wa t e r a t WB N 2oo 9-p r ese nt ............... 5 1 S t a t e-L iste d P l an t Species Reported F ro m Wi th in 5 M iles of the R ropose d Pr o j ec t in R h ea C oun ty , T ennessee ....................................... ..................................... 6 0 S e v e r e A cc id e nt Annu a l Ri s k s ....................................... ............................. ................. 7 4 Pu b li c W a t e r S up p li e s W i t hin a 5 0-Mi le R a d i us Down s t r e a m of W J B N ........................ 79 E s tim a t ed R e cr ea tion a l U s e of Tenn essee R iv e r Within a 50-Mil R a d iu s D o wn s tr e a m Of WB N ................ .................................. ................... l ..... * .... * ............. ..... 79 W B N Tot a l Annu a l Discharge-Li quid W as te Pro cess ing S y ste m f r Two-Unit Op erat ion ............... ............................. ............ ........................ ............... ...................... 80 W att s Bar Nuc!ea r P l an t Do se s From Liquid Efflu e nt s p e r Unit fo Y ea r 2040 ............ 84 Com pa ri s on of Estimate d Annual Liquid Rel e ases and Res ultin g oses per Unit a t W BN ................. ........................................................... ................................ ................. 8 4 R ecepto r s from A ctual L a nd U se Survey Result s U sed for G aseo us Rel eases From W BN Unit 2 ................. ..................... ............. ........................... ........... 86 WBN Total Annual Gaseous Discharge Per Operating Unit (curie lyearlreactor) ....... 87 W8N Doses From Gaseous Effluent For Unit 2 Without Tritium P oduction for Year 2040 ..................................................................................................................... 89 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement iii Compl e tion and of W a tts Bar Nucl ea r P l a nt Unit 2 T ab l e 3-22. 01 Est im a ted Annu a l Airborne R eleases and R esu lting Doses ............... 9(] Table 3-23. Estimated Population Doses From Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.. ................ 90 Table 3-24. Anticipated Two-Unit Annual So li d Radwaste to be Processed .................. 95 Table 3-25. Da t a for i 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 for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 as Compared to Ope r at io n of Both Units 1 and 2 ..................................... .................. .......... .................. 99 Table C-1. Total N.l mbers and Percent Composition of Fish Eggs and Larvae Collected During 1 976-1985, 1996, and 1997 in the Vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. ........ 141 Table C-2. .. 50 Table C-3. Recent (1 993-2005) RFAI Scores Developed Using the RFAI Metrics Upstream and Do t nstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ............. ................................ ............... 1 5 1 Table C-4. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall Benthic Community Index Scores for Wa tt s Forebay and Sites Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plan t, Watts Bar and Chi f kamauga Reservoirs, November 2005 ........................ ................................ 152 Table C-5. Recent p 994-2005) Benthic In dex Sco re s Collected as Part of the Vita l Sig ns Monitor ir g Program at Watts Bar Reservoir - Trans it ion and Forebay Zone S i tes (Upstream) and Chickamauga Reservoi r Inflow (U pstream) and Transition Table C-6. ................ 153 Table 1 54 F r om Bar Dam, Tennessee River Mile 529.9 to 527.9 .......................... .......... 155 iv Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 1-1. Figure 1-2. Figure 1-3. F i gure 1-4. Figure 1-5. Figure 1-6. Figure 1-7. Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2. F i g ur e 3-1. Figure 3-2. F igu r e Figu r e 3-4. Figure 3-5. F i gure 3-6. Figure 3-7. Figure 3-8. Figure 3-9. Fi gure 3-10. Fi g ur e 3-11. Cont ents LIST OF FIGUR E S Location of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant .......... ................................... ................................ 2 U nit 2 Site Plan .............................................................................. ................................ 3 Actual and Forecast Net System Requiremen t s ........................ ................................. 13 2008 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Type ........................ ................ .............................. 13 2013 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Type ................................. ..................................... 14 2008 Estimated Generation by Fuel Type ..................... .............................................. 16 2013 Estimated Generation by Fuel Type ............................................................. ....... 17 Components of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Heat Dissipation Sy ste j" ............................ 22 Schematic of Curren t Configuration of Watts Ba r Nuclear Plant S pp l emen t a l Co n de n ser Cooling Water Sys t em ............................................................................... 25 M ixi n g Zone for Outfall 1 01 .......................................................................................... 36 Mi xing Zones fo r Outfall 113 ........................................................................................ 36 M easured T empera t ures for Out f all 1 13 E ffl uent and Bottom of M u sse l R e l oca t io n Zo n e ..................................................................................... ...................... 4 3 L ocation of Mussel Sanctuary in Chickamauga Reservoir Below f atts Bar Dam ...... 58 Archaeologica l Avoidance A r ea Within the Area o f Potential Effeo t.. .......................... 63 Pathways t o Man Due to Releases of Radioactive Material ......................... .............. 78 Plant Liquid Effluent Pathways and Release Points ........... ........................................ 82 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Liquid Radwaste System ................ ..................................... 83 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Gaseous Effluen t Release pO i nts ........... r ............................. 88 Li quid Radwaste Processing System -Simplif i ed F l ow D i agram f o r Tr itia t ed Wate r .............................. .................................................. f .......................... **. 92 Liquid Rad w aste P rocess in g S y s t e m -Si m p l ifie d F l o w Diagra m f r N o ntrit ia t ed W a t e r ............................................................................................ ........... 93 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement v

Acronyms, Abbr r ations, a nd Symb ols ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SY BOlS y § 1972 FES 1978 NRC FES 1 995IFSER 1995 NRC FES AEC APE ASME B/CTP BFN BMPs C&I CCS CCW CD COWE CFR cfs Ci CLWR CL WRFEIS CT B O DAW D MR DOE 001 D SE P E A e.g. EPRI EPZ Degree Celsius Degree Fahrenheit Plus or Minus Gamma Radiation Beta Radiation Section Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear R.1 1ant Units 1 and 2 (TVA 1972) Final Environmen!a/ Statement Related to the OperE/tion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Umts 1 and 2 NUREG-0498 (NRC 19 f 8) Final.supplemental Environmental Review , Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (TVA 1 995b) I Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0498 (NRC 1995a) Atomic Energy Commissio n Ar ea of Potential Effect American Society of Mechanical Engineers Biocide/Corrosion Treatment Plan Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 8est Management Practices Commercial and Industrial Component Cooling Water System condenser cooling water Compact Disc Condensate Demineral i zer Waste Evaporator Code of Federa l Regulation cubic feet per second Curi es Comm e rcial Light Wat er R ea ctor Fin a l Environm e nt a/lmp ac t Statement for the Produ tion of Tritium in a Comm erc i a l Light Reactor (DOE 1 999) Cooling Tow er B low Down Dry Active W as te Di sc h arge Monitoring Report U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of In terio r Detailed Scoping , Estimating, and Planning Env i r o nm ental A ssess m e nt Latin term, ex e mpli g r a ti a, m e aning "for ex a mple" Ele c tric Pow e r R esea rch In s t i tut e Emergency Planning Zone Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement vii Compl e tion a nd Op e r a ti o n of W a tt s B a r Nu clea r Pl a ht Un it 2 viii ERC W et al. ETA etc. FES FEIS FRP FEA FSEIS FSAR FSER FONSI gpm GWh Hg HP A HSP i.e. IMP IPEEE IRP FEIS IPS ISFSI kV k W LP L R W L VWTP M a x MIC Min M P C mrem mr ad MRZ msl MVA MW MWh/year N/A I 6ssential Raw Cooling Water U atin term , et alii (masculine), ef aliae (feminine), or et alia (ne u tral), +/-eanin g "and others" y atin term et cetera, meaning " and other things" "and so forth" Environmental Statement Pr inal Environmental I mpact Statement Risk Profile Environmental Assessment Pr inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Pr inal Safety Analysis Report Prinal Supplemental Environmental Review of No Significan t Impact iquare Feet Cfallons per Minute Hour Protec ti on Area igh Stress Polymer term, id est, meaning "that is" monitor i ng point Plant Examination for External Events qnergy Vision 2020 -Integrated Resource Management Plan and Final 'f rogrammatic Environmental Impact Statement (TVA 1995a) I f take Pumping Station Spent Fuel Storage Installation l1i1 owatt Pond Ui quid R ad w as t e Waste Treatment Pond Microbiologic a lly Induced Corrosion inimum ultipurpose Canister mirem iIIirad u sse l R e loc a tion Zone ea n Sea Lev e l eg avo Its-Am pere ega watt egawatt Hours per Year ot Applicable rinal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement N E I N EP A NHPA No (s). NO x NPDES NRC NRHP NR I NUREG pC ilL PMF PMP ppm PSAR Rad w aste RCS R C W Region RFA I RHP ROD ROS ROS FE I S R V SCC W SEIS SE PA S F P SGB SQ N SH P O SROS S02 TSD T 8SS TCA T enn. TPC TRM TRO TVA Nu clea r E n e r gy In stitu t e National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act Number(s) Nitrogen Oxide Acronyms, AbbrL.tions, and Symbols National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Register of Historic Places Nationwide Rivers Inventory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory G w idance Document Picocuries pe r Liter Probable Maximum F l ood Probable Maximum Precipitation parts per million Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Radioactive Waste Reactor Coolant System Raw Coo l ing Water TVA Power Service Area Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index Runoff Hold i ng Pond Record of Decision Reservoir Operations Study Reservoir Operations Study Final Programmatic Enllironmentallmpact Statement (TVA 2004a) r ec r eational vehicle Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water S u ppleme nt Enviro nm enta l Im pact State m e nt Sout h eas t e rn Po w e r Admin i s tr at i o n S p e nt Fu e l Poo l St e a m G e n e r a tor Slowdown Sequoyah Nu cl ea r Plant St a t e Hi s toric Pre s e r vatio n O ffice r Solid R a dwa s t e Disposa l System Sulfur Dioxide To Be D ete rmin ed Turbin e Building S t a tion Sump T e nn e s see Code Annotated T enne sse e Tri tiu m Production Core T en n essee River Mile Total Residual Oxidant Tennessee Valley Authority Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ix Compl e tion and Operation of W atts Bar Nu clea r Pla'n t Un i t 2 ULP J nlin ed Holding Pone U.S. Wn it ed States U SEPA Environmental Protection Agency USFWS Fish and Wildlife Service WAW 'f et Active Waste WET '{Vh0le Effluent Toxicity WBF 'f atts Bar Fossil Plant (also known as Watts Bar Steam Plant) WBH 't'atts Bar Hydro Plant WBN 'f atts Bar Nuclear Plant WMA \f'Iildlif e Management Area YHP Y ard Holding Pond x Supplemental Environmenta l Impact Statement I Ch a p te r 1 CHAPTER 1 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1. The Decision The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates the largest public powe r 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 from the TVA system twice exceeded the previous all-time high demand (peak 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 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 i s 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 I b Y completing and operating Watts Bar Nuclear P l ant (WBN) Unit 2 alongside its sister unit l , WBN Unit 1, which has been operating since 1996. This proposed action does not include (roducin g 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 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 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, recreationa l l, and socioeconomic resources, as appropriate. TVA is also conducting a scoping , estimating, and planning (DSEP) study to evaluate the cost and schedu l e for completing WBN Un i t 2. TVA will use information from the DSEP and this FSEIS pliOcess to make a n in formed dec i sion about the proposed completion of WBN U ni t 2. 1.2. B ac kground W B N is l oc a t e d in Rh ea County on 1700 a cr es at the north e rn e nd of R es ervoir a bo ut 8 mil es from S pring City , T e nn essee (se e Figure 1-1), ,t is adj ace nt to the TVA W atts B a r Dam Reservation at T ennessee Rive r Mile (T RM) 528 0T the w es tern s hor e of Chickamauga Re s ervoi r. The plant currently h as one W esting hou se pr essu ri zed-w ate r reactor with a capaclty of 1167 megawatts (MW)-enough el e ctricity to suppl y abou t 650,000 hom es. With the exception of the completion of Unit 2, the of WBN faciliti e s w e r e dev e lop e d as pl a nn e d in the 1972 FES, with the addition <pf training f a cilities. Oth e r chang e s have occurr e d s inc e the 1 995 s upplementa l environmenta l review (TVA 1995b). The tentative site plan, with a complete li sting of existing and propo sed 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 ope J on of W atts Bar Nucl ea r Pl a nt Unit 2 . . ... . ...... I .. "'-. '""';,.: .... ;. " " ." ....... ..,..,.: ... " .. \ : r":. ;' 'f' " j. ;-... . .!.i-¥ li ***. > *. .. -.... "., ... . ..... . ./ " .. " .. ,{ ::t :." ' , (.,., . /'" \'" '\ Figure 1-1. loea ion of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant N A ----C¢lJftty 2 inal Supp l emental Environmental Impact Statement I 000. 8. F, 't V "ijO'-0 a.roo m 212,1100 oI,eeo 0 4MO (1 ,,'jii:! MIItlli1.<LliAnbflN<; !Kll* 21!<1 1;,1).@ (!9 WAAatioUH .-, lliill TiMi-OilAi<Y j'MKri<ii 1/ @ WAAIOO.UI!I" (t) tZll liI,OOO 100 eTo!W)t lil.ixJ Ii i!Il.tOO b IITVJo4 cia_TOft eTOAAaI II 0.;00 0 0 1,2DQ iJ i.M!i Iii {!X} Tf'JOllfNll caNTER i!lO @ NOIlIftUll,QlII<l (i) .OVNM!IC llWilNQ 00 0 OI!OOH DTORAIII' !WDlNQ <D IIITl! rAlllUTlt5l1UI"OiOO 1 6 l'OJ!TN-I'I'IIMRY ¥!I OP1lAATlON' (0 "" ;, W:J eQi ;itOOij ni iI (i;) r iltIUl1i:5I1J1!111Gi!a IlJlUlIHa H>> :n.<<:¢ ItIW MIJI. r.PURPOII8UIl.CN1 Q'?,l Nm Q"ICli BUI'-DINCI i>> t M'w) 4j TIIoIPOIWIV CIIAJT TIllAThIlIIiTlJUiLDiNll @ TOlALPOWliR PiiolW!liiOij! '" /' riO) PGOllUlLOINI) iii NeW cONiT. A!li!lIi ,AllILITY t@

2 NJ;Wlf-l,PftOC;"I"IQ

!q MOO 1508 5UIlDlNO 1011 (i, DN(lIl!iJ!I!!IQlOW\un- !!l.DO. 2I\l lIO , OOO rorlL,liJ!Il'OI!T 1>>1 att,.. @ alWRln' MOIUlY 1,000 GOOLifl(l o* '" UVR MILL GIi NT£A !iI! I e,c.:>J Figur e 1*2. Un it 2 Site Plan

Ch ap t e r 1 Th e Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued construction permits (now th e responsibility of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]) for the two-unit, 254 b 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. of the plant was delayed due to new safety requirements following the 1979 aCciden l t at Three Mile I 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 f rom Unit 1 to be in creased. At the request of DOE , WBN Unit 1 began producing tritium I n 2003 to help meet national defense needs. In 2006, four s team generato r s associate 1 d with operation of WBN Unit 1 were replaced t o maintain full generation capability. reviews for th ese and other actions are l i sted in Table 1-1. TVA still holds a valid const ru ction permit for the completion of WBN Unit 2. Over time, components from WBN 2 have been used at TVA's WBN Unit 1 , Sequoyah , and Browns Ferry Nuclear Plants. If TVA decides to complete construc t ion of WBN Unit 2, TVA would first b otify the NRC of its intention to recommence construction. The next step, expected months later, would be to app l y to NRC for an operating license. This would occur while of the unit was still ongoing. The o! a Report (FSAR) and an EnVIronmental Report. NRt.,; I S expecIed 10 cono 1 uct Its own environmental review prior i ss uing an operating license. TVA i s the nation's largest public power provider and is completely 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 s t ates. TVA currently h as about 35,000 MW of dependable generating capacity net) on it s syste m. Thi s capacity consists of 3 nuclear plants, 11 coa l-fired plants, eight combustiotur b ine plant s , 29 hydro e l ec tric dam s , one pump e d-s t o r age facility, one k ind turbine energ y site, and one m e th a ne-g as co-firing facility. More than 60 p e r ce nt of TV t's in s tall e d g e n e r a ting c apac ity is from co a l, almos t 30 percent i s from nucl ea r , r ema ind e r i s produc e d by hydro, combustion turbin es , a nd r e n e wable e n e r gy r eso urc es turbin es. 1.3. Oth er P e rtinent Environmental Reviews and Tiering l-Over 15 environm e ntal.r e vi ews , and white fo r r e l ate d t o the constructIon and operatIon of WBN. T h e follOWing d esc no 1 es so me or Ihe mor e p e rtin e nt docum e nt s , and Table 1-1 provides a mo re compl e t e li s tiC9 of relevant environmenta l documents. As appropriate , TVA incorpora tes by r e f ere n 1 ce , utiliz es , ti e rs from , and upd ates inform atio n from these ea rli e r plant-specific analyses for the present FSE i S. Th e TVA 1972 FES reviewed the potential environmental and socioeco omic impacts of con s tructing a nd oper a ting th e two-unit pl a nt. TVA upd a t e d the 1972 FItS in November 1976 and submitted additional environmental information and analyses tp NRC in an environmental information suppl e m e nt in 1977 (TVA 1977a). In D e cem r 1978, NRC issued its FES, NUREG-0498, related to the licensing of the two-unit pia t. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 5 6 Completion a nd Operation of W a tts Bar Nu c l ea r PI 1nt Unit 2 T ab le 1-1. Environmental Revi ews and Docum e nts Pertin en t to Watts Bar Nu clea r Plant Unit2 FES Other Other FES EA Draft FEIS EA I Fin J I Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant November 1, 1972 Unit$ 1 and 2 (TVA 1972) I Envi r onmental Information, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Un i ts 1 and 2 (TVA 1976a) [Note: This is a supplement November 18 , 1976 to thb 1972 FESJ I Envi (o nmentallnformation, Supplement No.1, Res p onses to NRC Questions for Operating License Statk Environmental Review, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit11 and 2 (TVA 1977a) Environmenta l Statement Related to the Operation of V\f atts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 NUREG-0498 (NRC 1978) En J on m en t al Assessment for Low-Lever Radwas t e Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (TVA 1980a) I Watts Bar Waste Heat Park, Rhea County. Tennessee, VolJrnes 1 and 2 (TVA 1980b) May 1977 December 1 , 1978 July ii , 1980 October 20, 1980 Incinerator for Burning Low-Level Radioactive January 1989 Was: te (TVA 1989) FES Review Re Je w of Final Environmental statement, Walts Bar N uc l f]ar Plant , Units 1 & 2 (TVA 1993a) August 1 , 1993 FES F SER F SE IS Adoption FElS and ROD Fina} Environmental Statement Related to th e Operation of Wf.ltts Bar Nuclear Plant. Units 1 and 2 , Supplemen t N0.1 , NU REG-0498 , Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-39 1 1 995b) April 1, 19 95 Fina} Supp l emen t a l E nvironm e nt a l R e vi e w, Operation of Jun e 1,19 95 Ba r Nucf ea r Pl a nt (TVA 1 995b) AdoJtiOn of Final Suppl e ment a l Environmental Imp ac t Stat$ment , 60 FR 35577 (TVA 1 995c) R e ctd o f Deci s i o n -Operation of Watts Bar Nu clea r Unit!1 (TVA 1 995d) Ene)gy Vi s ion 2020 -Int egra ted Resource Management Plan I-a nd Ffnai Prog r ammatic En v ironmenta l impact (TVA 1 995a) I=inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement July 10,1995 August 9, 1995 December 21 , 1995 EA Adoptionl FONS I FEA/FO N S I FEAl F O N S I FE I S ROD/" Adoptio n FEIS/ROD F EA/FO N S I 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 Si nificantlm act, EA-121 0 TVA 1997 Final Environmental Assessment Related to the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water Pro 'ect (TVA 1998a Low Leve l Rad i oactive Waste Transport and Storage , Watts Bar and Se uo ah Nuclear Plants TVA 1999a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor DOE 1999 Record of Decision and Adoption of the Department of Energy Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production o f Tritium in a Commercial Ught Water Reactor TVA 2000 Reservoir Operat;ons Study Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decisio n (TVA 2004a) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Uni t 1 Replacement of Steam Generators , Rhea Co u nt, Tennessee TVA 2005a Ch apter 1 A r 9ust 19, 1997 I " A i 9ust 20, 1 998 I Ma r ch 1999 I I j ay 5, 2000 19,2004 2005 I FEAlF O N S I +y 1, 2 0 05 I n 1 993 , TVA conducted a th orough r e view of th e TVA a nd NRC docum L ts to d e t e rmine if additional env ir on m e nt al r e vi ew w as needed to inf orm decision m a kers wh e th e r to compl e te W B N Units 1 and 2. The 19 9 3 TVA r e vi e w, focusing on 1 0 se ttion s of the earlier docum e nts, conclud e d th a t neith e r the plant design nor e nvironm e nt a l cbndi tio n s had chang e d i n a manner that mat e ri ally a lt e r ed the e nvironm e nt a l imp ac t a l l a ly s is s et fort h in th e earlie r FES. In 1 994 , TVA provided add ition a l a n alyses and inf orma i o n in support of NRC's preparation of a n FES suppl e menting it s 1 978 FES r el a t e d to t he op e r a tion o f WBN U nits 1 a nd 2. That supp l e m enta l FES , is s ued by N RC in 1 995 , simi l a r l 1 concluded that th ere w e re no significan t ch a n ges in the pot e nti a l environmenta l impacts from th e propo se d compl e tion of W B N Un its 1 a n d 2. In J uly 1 995 , follo w ing in dependen t of the ad eq u a cy of the a n a ly se s a nd a n e w a n a ly sis of the n eed f or TV A adopt e d the 19 9 5 NRC FES s uppl e m e nt. In Augu s t 19 95 , TVA i ss u e d a r e cord of d ec i s ion (ROD) confirming the ag e ncy d e ci s ion to compl e te WBN Unit 1. In 199 , TVA prep a r e d a n environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FO SI) for a project to Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 7 C o m p l e ti o n a nd Operati o n of W atts Ba r Nucl ea r Pl a ht Unit 2 p rovide SCCW t o WBN fo r the pu r pose of in creasing powe r ge n e r atio n fr o m Unit 1 t h at w as constrained by cooli h g tower performance. In the late 1990s, T f 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 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 alternative l for tritium production in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Production of Tri 1 tium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor (DOE 1999), hereafter referred to as the C U WR FEIS. DOE issued a ROD in May 1999. TVA issued its own notice of adoption 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 management, healt l and safety, decommissioning, and other topics. I n December 1995, TVA completed a comprehensive environmental review of a l ternative means of meeting 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 Statement (hereafter referred to as IRP FEIS). Deferral and completion of WBN Unit 2 were embedded among t he suite of alternatives evaluated in this FEIS. To address f J ture demand for electricity, TVA decided to rely on a portfolio of energy resource options, new generation and conservation. Because of uncertainties about performance cost, however, completion of WBN Unit 2 was not inc l uded in the portfolio of resource l OPtions 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 co h sideration completing WBN Unit 2. This consideration is now occurring. The 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, Tv l made conservative assumptions about the expected performance of its nuclear units (i.e.1 the capacity fac t or-roughly how much a unit would be able t o r un). T h is capacity facto r was used in conducting the economic analyses of nuclear reso u rce options. TVA n u c f e Jr un i ts , cons i sten t with nuclea r i nd u stry pe rf ormance i n the U.S., n ow ro u t i nely exceed thi d earlie r assumed capacity facto r, w h ic h changes the ea rli e r ana l yses for W B N Unit 2, a nd l i s b e ing t a k e n int o accoun t in th e curr e nt co n s i de r a ti o n o f co mpl et ing th e u nit (see 1.6 , N ee d fo r Pow e r). Th e pr ese n t e nvironm e nt al r e vi e w and any r es ulting d ec i s ion s will se rv e to upd a te a ny p e rtin e nt portions of and r e l a t e d dec i s ions m a de aft e i compl e ting th e!RP FE I S. . In Febru a ry 2004, T A i ss u ed it s R ese Noir Op e r a ti o ns Study Final Progr a mmatic Environm e nt a l fm pa t Stat e m e nt (h er e afte r referred to as th e ROS FE I S) evaluating the p otential im pacts of a l t e rn a tiv e w a ys of operating the age ncy's r ese rvoir sy s t e m to produc e gr ea t e r public v a lue f o r th e p e ople of th e T e nness ee V a ll e y (TV A 2004a). That f E I S r e vi e w addr esse d th e w a t e r supp ly n ee ds o f TVA ge n e r ati ng f acilities , s uch as WBN, and complianCe with limi ts of their N P D ES and other p e rmit s. A ROD for the ROS was subsequently issued in May 2004. The assumptions fo r reservoir operations r esu l ting from the ROS FE I S r e vi ew a nd the cumUlative effects analy sis as it pertai s to the operation of WBN are incorporat e d by r efe rence in the present evaluation. 8 inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch ap t e r 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 scoping by a TVA interdisciplinary team included compilation and review of the listed in Table 1-1, the TVA 2002 FSEIS for operating license renewal of the Browns Ferry I Nuciear 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 Cultura l Resources (Archaeological and Historical) Soc i oeconomics Environmental Just i ce 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 Decomm i ssioning Other areas of potential impact were found to have been adequately evaluated in the pr ev iou s environmental reviews, and no substantive changes to either p i roposed activit i es or d esign , or additiona l i nformation relevant to the particular concern, were di scove r ed. I mpacts from tran sm i ss i on line construction , operation, maintenance are addressed in the 19 72 FES and the F in a l Supplemental Environmenta l f eview , Operation of W a tts Bar Nu clea r Plant , h ereafter r efe rr ed to as 1 995 FSER (fin a l s y pp l e m enta l environm enta l r e vi e w). Sinc e no changes in or additions to lin es a r e planned as a r es u l t of compl e tio n of W B N Unit 2, no further di sc u ss ion of th ese ilTIp ac t s a r e i n c lud e d in thi s document. U pgrade of the WBN t e mpo r a ry site pow er d i s tributio m system i s un d e r c ons i deratio n. W hile not a requirement fo r o r part of the propo sa l to c o plete an d op era te W BN Un i t 2, th e pot e n ti a l im pact s assoc i ate d wit h upgrading t h e site po e r d i s tributio n sy ste m a r e di sc u ssed in this document. 1.4.2. Dr aft S E/S Revie w The DSEIS for the Compl e tion a nd Operation of W a tt s B a r Nucl ea r Pia t Unit 2 w as po s t e d on TVA's w e b s ite on March 29, 2007. A notice of avail a bility was publis ed in the Federal Registeron March 30. In addition, the document was mail e d or e-maile to the st a te, 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 Fi n al Supplementa l Environmental Impact Statement 9 C omp l etio n a nd O pe r a ti o n o f W a tt s Ba r Nucl ea r Pl a h t Un i t 2 i ss u ed on April 6 (se l e Sec ti o n 5.2). Paid advertisements for th e open hou se (se e Sect i o n 5.3) were run i n the f o ll owing 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 inf ormation open house was held in the gymnasium of the Rhea County High School i n Evansville, Tennessee from 4:30 to 8: 00 pm eastern daylight ti me. Twenty seven peop l e r egistered. During open house, commen ts o n the draft could be m ade orally to a court reporter, on the by compute r, or by wr itt en comment form. A copy of the open house handout is inclu ded in Section 5.4. . I TVA accepted com rrr ents on the DSE I S f rom March 30 until May14, 2007. A total of 1258 comments were r eceived. These consisted of 1229 form l etters, 22 o th er comments from th e pub li c, and 7 l ett rr s from s t a t e and f ederal agencies. Many of th e commenters opposed nu clea r power and vpi ced general concerns about the use of nuc l ear powe r. Many comments focused on water qua lity, the safety of nuclea r powe r , spent fuel, radwaste, alternative sources tif energy and conservation, and socioeconomic impacts. Some comments raised co h cerns about, t he cost o f power and the adjacen t mussel sanc tu ary. A listing of a ll received, by author and TVA's r esponses to these comments are included in APpe n d i l D. Comments were responded to directly or by revising sections of the SEIS. 1.5. . Environmental Permits a nd Approval s Existing WBN permits an d approva l s are descr i bed in Table 1-1 in Sect ion 1.3 of TVA's 1 995 FSER (TVA 1 995b). Construction and operatio n ofWBN Un i t 2 m a y r equire that some of l th ese p e r mit s be a m e nded and add ition a l ap prov a l s obtained. For e xample , th e a ir em i f s ion ope r ating permi t for the p l ant might have to be a m ended t o add a ny n e w e mi ss i o n so u rces assoc i a t ed w i th W BN Unit 2 s u ch as eme r ge n c y d i ese l g e n e r ato r s. Beca u s k VV B N Unit 1 i s a lr ead y op erat ing a nd con s tru ct ion act iv i t ies a ss ociat e d w it h Unit 2 a r e exp e ct e d t o occ ur p ri m a r ily with in ex i s ting str u c tur es , th e r e s ho u l d be f e w add i ti' n a l p e r mi ts a n d a pp r o v a l s r e q uir e d. TVA w ou ld work wi th p e rtin e nt r egul a tory a g e nci es 0 obt a in a ny nec ess ary a m e ndm en t s and a p pro v als. N R C app r o v a l t o o p e r a t e t h e un it w o Id h a v e to b e ob t a in e d. F ed e r a l a n d state e vir o nm e n ta l age nci es co nt i nu e to cond uc t p e riodic in s p e ct i on s to v e rify th at W B N Unit 1 co pli e s wi t h a ll p e rmit and a pplic a bl e requir e m e nts. If W B N Unit 2 is compl e t e d, th ese in pections will includ e Unit 2. Th e 1972 FES desci'bes th e initi a l involv eme nt of oth e r state and f ede r a l agencies in con s id era tion of the onstruction of W B N Units 1 and 2. At that time, state a nd r eg ional input w as 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 C hapter 1 r esponse, U S FWS issued a biological opinion. Correspondence with U SFWS was in c lud ed as Appendix D in NRC 1995b. Further coordination with USFvyS occurred in the prepara ti on of the subsequent environmental reviews pertaining to WBN Units 1 and 2 li sted in Section 1.3. Based on the updated analysis of potential on federally listed as threatened or endangered species from construction and operation 0 l f WBN Unit 2, no effects on listed species are expected. TVA has communicated support i ng 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 a mount s , so the r esources 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, red ili ctions and I curtailments i n service-i.e., brownouts or blackouts-result. One of T'1A's most important responsibilities i s ensuring that it is able to meet the demand for electrici t y placed on its pow e r system. Thousands of businesses, indu stries and public facilities I , a nd lit e r a lly millions of peop l e depend on TVA to get this right. To meet this responsibility TVA forecasts the future demand and the need for addit i ona l generating resources in the region it serves. Today's load forecasting are superior to ti10se of two decades ago because they recognize that demand for electricity is a der iv ed demand determined by (1) the level of economic activity, (2) price of electr i city , (3) the prices of available alternative fuels, and (4) increased l efficiencies from n ew conservation and technology. Further, today's methodologies utiliz r an explici t uncertainty with ranges of inputs to investigate alternat iv e rd-9rowth A need for power exists when future demand exceeds the capabilities 0; currently available and future pl an n ed generating r eso u rces. Because pl ann ing, p ermitting r a nd construction of new generating capac ity typically tak es m a ny y ea r s , TVA mu s t mak e I tl ec i sio n s to build n e w ge n e r ating capacity we ll in atlva n ce of t he act u a l n ee d. Thi s sec t io r upd a t es t h e n ee d for p o w e r a n a l ys i s in Sec t io n 1 of t he 1995 FSER a nd sho w s th e cir c um sta n ces wh e n d e m a n d exceeds s u ppl y and additio n a l base l oa d ge n e r ation i s n eeded.i TVA'S metho d of for e c as ting d e m a nd a nd its a n a i ys i s of a i a r ge n um b er o f ge n e r a ting a nd d e m a nd-side manag e ment re s ources (option s) th a t could m ee t for e ca s t e d d e mand ar r l addressed in the I RP FEIS. I n addition to m eet ing incr ease d power dem a nd, a dding to nucl e ar c a p a fity improv es the div e r s ity of r eso urc es on th e TVA s y ste m, th ere by r e du ci ng th e ri sks inhrr e nt with a ny particular kind of re s ourc e; provid e s add e d fl e xibility to r e duce emi ss ions from TVA fo s sil gener a ting pl a nt s by r e ducing g e n e ration from those plants; and reduces the c os t of power t o cust?me r s. Futu r e de m an d, a nd f o r t h e TVA syst e m and the r es U"ln9 n ee d for acidlUonal power are discus s ed below I Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 11 C omp l e t i on a nd Op e rrtion of W a tt s Bar N u cl ea r Pl a nt 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 The major load centers are the cities of Memphis, Nashville, Chattanooga, and 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 custom l brs 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 4,394,60 1-TVA supplies almost all electricity needs in Tennessee, 32 percent in Mississippi, 27 perc 1 ent 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 l the U.S. average. This trend is forecast to continue as the Region benefits from its fav p rable 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. 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.1 Notable examp l es are corporate headquarters such as Nissan in Nashville and Service Master in Memphis, but also include such industries as the growing music 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 ret i rement l ocations. The increase in retiree population results in additional population g r owth i 1 service industries and the people needed to work in them. The expected l oad for TVA retail customers reflects histor i cal sales and announced p l ans of customers to use electric power. The actual and forecast net system requirements for TVA, inc l uding residential, distributor-served commercial and industria l (C&I), a n d served industria l customers are shown i n Figure 1-3. Net system requirements grew at an average rate o f 2.4 p ercentf r o m 1990 through 2006 , dr i ven by distributo r-served r esident i a l a n d C&ll oad growt ltl. The for e c as t p e riod i s s hown for thr ee a lt e rn a ti ve l oad-g r o wth sce n a ri os. TVA tr a diti o n a lly pl a n s tow a rd th e m ed ium-lo ad f o r ecas t, but th e low a n d h igh f o r ecasts h e lp inf o rm p o w e r supply Und e r th e m ed ium for ecas t , it i s ass um e d th a t d e m a nd a nd energy will grow a t r r ate b ase d on expected econom ic growth. The assumptions the lo ad forecasts fo r hi ghe r or low e r lo ads are the same as for th e m ed ium-lo ad except fo r economic growth: Demand and e n e rgy for the l oad foreca s t grow 1t a r a te b ase d on high econom ic g rowth and for th e lOW-lo a d foreca s t a t a r ate based on 10W I eco nomic growth. Net syst e m requ i reT e nts are project e d to grow at an average r ate of 2.0 percent through 20 1 0 fo r the medium-load forecast , but grow at a l ow e r rate in the long t e rm as compared to t he r ece nt pas t. 0 t ct-se rv ed i n d u strial growth i s to be assumed fla t. 12 Final Supplem e nta l Environmental Imp a ct St a tement Ch apter 1 225,000 200,000 175,000 150 , 000 125,000 /'-----' __ Actual ---""'-High '----I!--Medium -+-Low J: . .... ;: Cl 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 0 0 c;; SJ OJ on <t) /'-<XI C> 0 8 N OJ 8 '" <D ,... (Xl en 0 N '" " Ol Cl Cl Ol '" en 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" ;; (; 0 0 0 ;'! 0 0 0 0 0 c 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 ex i s ting and planned pow er supp ly consists of coal, nuclear, ga s , additional renewable r eso urces, and purchase s. Planned power supplies include under contmct or projects contemplated by TVA as future capacity add ition s o r uprates. The estimated capacity of the TVA portfolio by fuel type in 2008 and 2013 ar r shown in Figures 1-4 and 1-5, respectively. No long-term fuel availability problems are anticipated that would l imit the capability of r esources included in the capacity plan. and inte rru ptible l oad are considered a typ e of capacity because they are available to re i pond to demand. Nu c l ear 1 9% Hydro 1 7% No .... Hydro Renewables 0.01% Gas and Oil 14% 39% Pur c h a ses (Gas) 2% Int erruptib l Load 5% Figure 1-4. 2008 Estimated Capacity by Fuel Ty Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement REC'::EIVED AUG 1 8 2010 Perm't S . .,j., eCUon 13 C omple ti o n a nd Op e r a ti o n o f W atts Ba r Nu clea r P l a ht U nit 2 Nuclear 20% Non*Hydro Ren ewables 0,01% Gas and Oil 13% 35% Purchases (Gas) 4% Interrup ti b le load 4% Figure 1-5. 2 01 3 Estima ted Capacity by Fuel Type Capac ity additions t d TVA-owned resources are also i n cluded in Figures 1-4 and 1-5. For analytical purposes, t hese include additions that a r e currently being imp l emen t ed such as th e restart of TVA's , FN Unit 1 and the uprate of all t hree units at the plan t, a mix of energy resource options fr om the portfolio of options in TVA's I RP FEIS (TVA 1995a) that could be implemented, and co 1l mp!etion of WBN Unit 2. Demand-side management opt ion s are a l so included in this m i x. None of TVA's existing resources are expec t ed t o be r eti r ed during th e period analyzed here. Hydro capacity includes both conventional hydro and pumped sto r age. Additional resources include solar, wind, and landfi ll gas resources. Only the port i on of resources that are likely to be generating during the peak period h ours are counted to/", ard capacity n eeds. Small changes in t he capacity o f coa l un it s are inclu ded in the capa 9 ity plan to account for changes in TVA's pla n to meet emissions r equ ir eme nt s. These cha n ges include changes in fu e l source and ope r a ti o n of air pollution control eq uipm e nt affec t the net generating capabil ity of the unit s. The TVA nucl ea r units have an capacity f ac tor of approximate ly 90 percent going f orward-a s i g n if ic a nt improv e mLnt ov e r th e ass um ed c a pacit y facto r in t he I RP FE I S (67 p erce nt). Th e c a p ac ity pl a n s hew s a long-t e r m ba se load c apaci ty pur c h ase (R e d Hill s Pow e r P l a nt); l ong-t e rm int e rm e di a t e cap ac ity pur cha se (h yd ro m a rke te d by th e South eas t e rn Pow e r Admini s tration [SEP'rJ1 and hydro own e d by Tapoco , a sub s idi a ry of the Aluminum Company o f AmericCj), a nd s hort-t e rm int e rm e d i ate a nd p ea kin g capac i t y purchases from th e mark e t. In ter rupti ble lo ad contracts a r e includ e d a nd count e d toward r ese rv e r equirements. , Th e amount of gene ating c a p a city , th e sour ce for which i s y e t to be determi n e d (T BO), incr eas e s between 2 08 an d 2013. During thi s p e riod, the n e ed for capacity of a ny type (b aseload , int ermedirte or peaking) incr eases by 3800 MW s in that five y ear period; . 1 A substantial amount of the electricity provided by SEPA comes from the hydroel ectr ic units at Wolf Creek Dam (L ake Cumberland on the Cumberland R iv er s ystem. Output from the se 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 Ch apter 1 Completing WBN Unit 2 with its 11 50 MWs would only meet part of this I projected 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 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 Pla t.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 1 i 3). 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, suc h 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 sys f em due to the limitations on water supply. I T o assure that enough capacity is available to meet the peak demand the summe r, additional resources or planning reserves are required. Planned reserves in the utility i ndustry are typically 12-18 percent, depending on the age of current TVA targets a planned reserve of 15 percent, which includes 10 percent long-term reserves and 5 percent operating r eserves. TVA determines how much of the total capacity need should be baseload generation by comparing the expected generation of available resources to net 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 additiona l capacity needs should be met new baseload r esources. Any add iti onal capacity needs would be intermediate or peaking r esources. Add i t i onal bas e load generatio n is needed by 2010 under the m ed iu m-a 1 nd high-load f orecasts. Under the l ow-load forecast , bringing on WBN Unit 2 in 2013 1 provides additiona l fu e l diversity, operating flexibility , and a low er d e liv ered cost of power. Th e addition o f W B N Unit 2 in 20 13 would improv e the diversity of r eso urc e s serving TIA cu s tomers a nd r e duce the co s t of pow e r. It would provide TVA the fl e xibility of relying l ess on its coal-fired generation. TVA h a s in s t a ll e d and is continuing to inst a ll pollution contrfl d e vic es on its coa l-fired generating units to reduce the emissions of sulfur dioxide (SOp), n itrog e n oxides (NO x), and mercury (Hg) to respond to emissions reductio n requirements. I ncreas i ng nucl ea r generation beyond what may be n eeded to m eet n ea r-t e rm growth wou l d give TVA the flexibility to reduce generation from higher-cost coa l and reduce emissions this w a y, th ereby r ed ucing the se emissions d epend ing on ac 1 ua l demand in t h e future and the performance of TVA's othe r resources. 2 8aselo a d capacity is needed if ba s eload demand exceeds base load capacity. Baselo d demand is that portion of forecasted net syst em r e quir e ments occurring at lo a d s equ a l to or l ess th an v e r a ge lo a d (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi ss ion, Environmental Stand a rd R e vi e w Plan, NUREG 1555 October 1999). 8aseload c a p a city con s ists of aU resources with expected c a pacity factors greater tha 65 percent. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 15 Com p l e tion and Op e ratIon of W a tt s Ba r Nucl ea r Unit 2 Th e estimated percentage of generation by fuel type for 2008 and 2013, a r e show n in Figures 1-6 and 1-7, l respectively. 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 gene r ation percentage by fuel t ype because actual operation of installed capacity (how much I S generated* from a unit) depends on a number of different variables, including fuel costs, variable operating and maintenance expenses, and the type of demand being met (e.g., 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 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 oi l 3 produce 4 per ent to 5 percent of generation, depending on the year. Coal 54% Non*H ydro Renewables 0.05% Market 4% Interrupt i ble Load 0% Fig re 1*6. 2008 Estimated Generation by Fuel Type 3 Assumed to include gaJ and oil and mark e t, in Figure 1-3. 18 Supplemental Environmenta l I mpact Statement Coal 52% Non-Hydro Renewa b les 0.05% Gas and O i l 3% Market I 1% Interrupt i ble Load O!l. 2013 Estimated Generation by Fuel Type I Ch a p t er 1 The effect of the addition ofWBN Unit 2 on TVA delivered cost of in 2013-15 is shown in Table 1-2. The addition of WBN Unit 2 is projected to reduce de l ivered 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\:;*,-(.;; 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

Ch ap t e r 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 en y ironmental impacts of energy resource options were evaluated as part of the IRP FEIS. Because of I uncertainties about performance and cost, however, completion of WBN Unit 2 was not included in the portfolio of resource options selected by TVA for Keeping open a l ternatives that would meet the goals and objectives of the IRP FEIS, TVA did, I 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. jf his '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 original 1 1972 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 Pier i ion of WBN Unit 2 would he l p 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 minima l changes to the orig i na l p l ant design. U ni t 2 was about 80 percent complete when const r uction wo r k h a l ted in 1 1 985. However , a s u bs t a nti a l a m oun t o f equipment/compo n ents-including r eactor p u mp, r otating a sse mbli es , v a lv es , in s trum e nt a ti o n-h a v e b een r e m o v e d ov e r the y ea rs to su p port WBN U n i t 1 a nd SO N Unit s 1 a nd 2. As a r es ult of t h is a nd th e co rr ect iv e ac tipn s th a t mu s t be i mpl e m e nt e d s im i l a r to tho se p e rf o rm e d on Unit 1, W B N Unit 2 is now con s id e r e d a ppro x im a t e ly 60 per c e nt c omplete. I A r emoved equipm e nt l og h a s be en m a int a in e d on WBN Unit 2 , and lim i t e d scope w a l kdown conduct e d in 2005 s how e d good corr e l a tion between the r e m 1 0v e d equipment a n d t he i og. The e xi s ting equipm e nt in th e r e vi e w e d systems w a s foung to be i n good cond iti on , and th e h a rdwar e in s t a ll a tion app ea r e d to b e 75 to 80 p e rc e nt compl e te. A lim i t e d doc u mentation r e v i e w of randomly se l e ct e d records fo r two (chemica l and voiume c ontroi s y ste m a nd m ai n feedwater) d e mon s trat ed a hi gh of r e t r i e v able r e cords for compl eted f ie ldw o rk, d es i g n, a nd procur e m en t. In 2 000, the pr e v e ntive m aintenance 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 C o m p l e t io n a nd Op e r a tion of W a tt s Ba r Nu c l ea r Plan t U n it 2 systems are n o t currently in the pre v entive maintenance p r ogram. This equ i pme nt m a y need to be rePlaced l or 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 is l being 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 l operational 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 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 I for Unit 2 to produce tritium. _
  • Refurbishment of major nuclear steam supply systems equipment such as r eactor coolant pum r s and control and instrumentation.
  • Replacement of transmission system equipment utilized for Unit 2 operation such as switchyard b r eakers.
  • Upgrade of J nit 2 cooling tower consistent with the upgrades completed on the Unit 1 cooling tower.
  • Refurbish m l 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 s ili ch as feed pump turbine and feedwater flow regulating valves. I
  • Replacement of various obsolete instrumentation and contro l systems for both th e nuclear supply systems and secondary plant operation such as tu r b i ne superviso ry and core power mon i tors.
  • Co n st ru c ti o n of mi nor f ac il ities r equi r e d to s u pport constr u ctio n.
  • Cod e document a tion and r econcili a tion to m ee t Am e ric a n Soci e ty of M e ch a ni ca l (A S M E) III standards. (W B N is a n ASME III d es i g n e d a nd constructed pl a nt.) Since the reactor turbin e, control buildings, and cooling tow e rs h ave already been constructed, n0 new m ajo r construction activities would be iequired to complete Unit 2. No new water intak e s or outfalls are needed. As describ e d a bove , the majority of work I would invofve r e furb i s hm e nt or r e pl a c e m e nt of int e rior controls a nd e quipm e nt. All n e w support buildings (the t e ntative locations of which are shown in red on Figur e 1-2) and l aydown areas w ou! I be construct e d inside the existing vehicle barri e r wall. Temporary p ark ing a r eas would be established on the site p er im ete r on previou s ly disturbed l and. Equipment, material , and supplies for Unit 2 compl e tion would be d e liver e d 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 Chapt e r 2 wou l d b e applied for i s cumulative disturbances of greater than o r equa l to 1 acre occurs. All cons t ruction waste would be recycled or disposed of in an appropriate, licensed landfill. Four steam generators dedicated to the operation of WBN Unit 1 were 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 t ubing from other secondary heat exchangers are expected to the life of the exist i ng WBN Unit 2 steam generators. Construction activities are expected to last approximately five years. A design and construc t ion workforce of up to 3000 is anticipated, comprised of apprm b mately 1500 manual craft workers, 400 nonmanual craft workers, and 600 engineers. Additionally , TVA will hire approximately 200 staff augmentation contractors and an additi b nal 120 TVA employees dedicated to completion of Unit 2. The workforce peak is in years 2 and 3 of construction. Accommodation of the construction workforce is bi scussed in Sect ion 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 imp ortan t of which was the addition of an SCCW system. As expla in ed i n 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 and processes for handling liquid and solid radioact i ve waste and spent fuel J These changes are a ddre ssed in Sections 3.14 and 3.15. 2.2.1. Pl ant Water Use In t er m s of basic sources, water use for WBN has not changed since the 1972 FES. Steam I gene r ator m akeup water , service water, and co n dense r cooling water (GCW) are ob t aine d from the Tennessee River. In the original configuration of th e plant, all t h is water was obt ai n ed from an intake pumping station (IPS) located at TRM 528.0 , a90ut 1.9 mil es below W a tt s Ba r Dam. In 1999 , the SCCW system was placed into serv i ce , provides additiona l w a t er by g r avity flow fr om an int ake structure l oca t ed at TRM i mmedia t e ly up s tre a m of W atts Ba r Dam. The lo ca tion s of these w ate r int akes are s r ow n in F igur e 2-1. Potable w ater continu es to be obtained from groundwate r supplies provid e d by a loc a l utility, Watt s Bar U tility Di s trict. 2.2.2. H eat Di SSipat ion System Th e m a j o r com pon e nts of the W BN h ea t di ss ip atio n sy s tem are s hown sc h e m at ica lly in Fi g ur e 2-1. Th e origina l arrangement for dis s ip ating w aste h eat at W B N, described in th e 1 972 FES, in clud es a closed-mode cooling system with one n atura l draft coo ling tower pe r nu clea r unit. With this ar r a ng e m e nt, a ll w a t er r eq uir ed fo r the pl a nt coolih g s y ste ms in s ide th e r eac tor bu ildings and turbine building w as to be obta in ed from the Tenn essee R iv er Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 21 Completion and Operation of W a tts Ba r Nucl ea r Pla t t Unit 2 ponents of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Heat Dissipation System 22 inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch a pt e r 2 by the IP S l oca t e d at T R M 528.0. In th e syste m, n ea rly a ll the w as t e hea ti created by the pl ant is d i ssipated in the atmosphere by the cooling t owers. A small of the waste heat is dissipated in the Tennessee River by the cooling tower blowdow n.l. Cooling tower blowdown includes water that is continuously removed from the CCW 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 mi l: es below Watts Bar Dam at TRM 527.9. To provide adequate dilution of the plant discharge from the diffuse r s is permitted only when the release from Watts Bar Dam is 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 at Watts Bar Dam drops below 3500 cfs. To provide temporary storage of during these events, the blowdown discharge conduit also is connected to a yard holdi r g pond. When the flow from Watts Bar Dam drops below 3500 cfs, thereby closing the d Iff user 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 valves can be opened. When this occurs, the discharge from the diffusers would contai r blowdown from th e cooling towers and blowdown from the yard holding pond. To protect th e site from the consequences of exceeding the capacity of the yard holding pond , an emergency overflow weir is provided for the pond , which delivers the water to a l ocal stream C l i annel that empties int o the Ten n essee River at TRM 527.2. The operation of Watts Bar Dam and the W B N blowd own system are v ery care fully coordi n ated to avoid un expect d overflows from the yard holding pond. Previous studies estimated the average and maximum inflow for the I PS 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 fo r 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 un it and 85 cfs for the operation of both units (TVA 1977b). For the case where the diffusers are discharging blowdown from both the cooling t owers and the yard holding pond, th e maximum flow is expected to be abou t 135 cfs for the operation of one unit and 170 cfs for the operation o f both units (TVA, 19 77b). In gene r a l, apart.from unexpected emergency s itu at i ons , the dis t harge from the ov erflow w ei r of th e yard holding p o nd would be 0 cfs (for operation of o r both WBN unit s). I Prior to the startu p of the plant, engineer ing s tu d i es predict e d th a t th e cooling t owers would not r emove the desired amou nt of heat from the st ea m cycl e , r esul fing in g e ner a tion l os se s. This w as confirm e d by m eas ur e m en t s afte r Unit 1 began commercia! op e r at i o n in 19 96. Int erna l modif ications w e re made to the Unit 1 Cooling Tower SCCW syste m w as placed into service in July 1 999. The basic compon e nts of th e SCC system are shown in Fi gure 2-1. A more detailed schematic is shown in Figure 2-2. he SCCW system withdraws wat e r from the int ake structure loc ated imm ediately up tr ea m of W atts Ba r Dam at TRM 529.9, which form e rly se rv ed th e W atts Bar Fo ss il Pl a nt (now retir ed). A n e w SCCW int ake conduit w as construct ed b e tw ee n th e fo ss il int a ke and the cooling tower b asi n for WBN Unit 2. To r eac h Unit 1, the SCCW flow p asses through t e Unit 2 cooling tow e r ba s in a nd mix es 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 C ompletion and Op e r?tion of W a tt s Ba r Nu c l ea r Plant Unit 2 enha n ces th e o f the s t ea m cycle, r e ducing generation l osses cau se d by the deficiency in the cooling tower design. After passing th rou dh the condenser and cooling tower, the CCW flow ends up in the basin beneath the Unit 1 d ooling tower. The cooling tower basin includes a side-channel weir to remove blowdown f fr om the CCW system. Since the SCCW inflow exceeds the capacity of t he Unit 1 conduits, the SCCW system also includes a separate side-channel weir in the Unit 1 co p ling 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 des i gn of the blowdown system. In this manner, the amount of flow withdrawn from the Unit 1 cooling tor-er basin v ia the SCCW discharge conduit is roughly the same as that delivered to the by the SCCW int ake conduit: This SCCW discharge conduit r eleases the SCCW effluent the riv er through a discharge structure l ocated at TRM 529;2, about 0.7 miles below Bar Dam. As with the SCCWintake structu r e, the SCCW discharge s tru ctu r e formerly served th e Watts Bar Fossil Plant. Since t he SCCW system is operated by g r avi t y flow, the o f water ente r ing and exit in g the syste m depends o n the elevation of th e water surface behind Watts Bam. Based on des i gn computations , the fl ow through the SCCW is not expected to exceed about 365 cfs (high pool beh in d Watts Bar Dam). with one unit operation (I.e., Unit 1) identifies the ave r age SCCW flow to be abo ut cfs (Appendix B). The SCCW s y s t em designed and construc t ed as a discretionary system. In this manner, th e has no signif i cant impact on the or i gina l blowdown sys t em , allowing the plant t operate with or without the SCCW sys t em in service. If the SCCW system i s in service , the fr action of waste heat dissipa t ed in the Tennessee River can be high er th an that of origina l full , clos e d-mode operation. Control valves are provided in both the SCCW int ke conduit and the SCCW discharge conduit to a ll ow adjustme nt of the w ater level i n the c t owe r basins and p r ovide a proper balance of the fl ows en t ering and exiting the Unit 1 CCW syste m. Under certain condit i ons, r e l eases from th e SCCW discharge s tructure an approach environ m ental limits f or th e water t empe r atu r e in the T ennessee R iv er. 1 0 a v o id exceeding t h ese limit s , the SCCW sys t em includes a conduit w i th a cont rol v a lv e a ll ows p a rt of the coo l int ake flow t o bypass the plant and mix dir ec tly with the effluen t in the discharge co n duit. When there is a thre a t of exc eed in g th e t e mp f3rat u re limit in the river establ i she d by the plant's NPDES perm it, t h e byp ass co nduit i s o lP e n ed to prov i de pr ecooling o f the effl u e nt before it enters the SCCW di s ch a rge s tructure. 24 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 1;,Jr:4;; c;;I(lIl':19 'l*','lte#, h:lJ1lidia) Figure 2-2. , I,JM t {adt,lD'l Sch ematic of Current Configur a tion of W atts Bar Supplemental Condense r Cooling Wate r System Final Supplemental Environmental Imp a ct Stat e ment C h apte r 2 r Plant 25 C om p l e tio n an d of W a tts B a r Nu c l ea r P I n t Un i t 2 I f W B N Unit 2 i s co mp l e t e d , t h e curre nt pl a n i s to supp ly t h e S CCW to b oth th e Un it 1 a nd the Unit 2 CCW sys t ems. I n this manner, and with the SCCW sys t em in ope r a t io n , n eithe r Unit 1 nor Unit 2 wo p, ld be returned to the original full, cfosed-mode operat i on. Th u s, U n it 1 and Unit 2 would inalude heat dissipation primarily to the atmosphe r e, and if the SCCW system is in service I Unit 1 and Unit 2 could include a sizable amou n t of heat dissipation to the Tennessee The hydrotherma l analysis conducted to evaluate heat dissipation i s described and impacts evaluated in Sections 3.1 , 3.2, and 3.4. The WBN NPDES renewed in November 2004, i dentifies the diffuser discharge as Outfall 101 (TRM 527.9), the emergency overflow from the yard holding pond as Outfa ll 1 02 (TRM 527.2), and discharge from the SCCW system as Outfall 113 (TRM 529.2). As emphasized above, the permit stip ul ates that discha r ge from Outfall 101 can occur onl y when releases from the Watts Ba r Hydro Plant (WBH) a r e greate r than 3500 cfs. When releases drop belo I 3500 cfs , the diffuser discharge for Outfall 10 1 is automatica lly suspended and blm rd own f low is diverted to the yard holding pond. T he d i scha r ge f ro m Outfall 102 i s very im l f requen t; w h ereas , the d i scharge from Outfa ll 11 3 is co m mo n throughout t he yea r. Unlike Outfall 1 0 1 , the operation of Outfa ll 1 02 and Ou tf a ll 113 do n o t require a m inim um fl o w from WB H. . The NPDES pe r m it b f 1993 s t ip ul a t ed tha t TVA conduct t empera t u r e modeling s t udies t o determ i ne th e d ail y a v e r age discha r ge te m pe r atu r e lim it f r om O utf a ll 1 0 1 an d Outfall 102. In r es pp nse , TV A comple t ed stud i es and reported th e res ult s to t h e sta t e in December 1 993. r eport , titled Discharge Tempera t ure Limi t Eva lu atio n for W atts Ba r Nuclear Plant, reco rm ended a d a ily a v erage d i sc h arge tempera t ure li m it of 35 deg r ees Celsius (0C) (95 dewees Fahre nh eit [OF]) f o r Outfall 101 (TVA 1993b). A r eco mm endat i on a l so was pro v ided f 0r t h e size of th e mixing zone f e r t h e discha r ge diff u sers, pro vi d i ng ample space for th e l m ovement o f fis h in t h e river past the outfa ll. The stUdies an d recommendatio n s t he opera t ion o f o ne o r bot h nu clear u n i ts at WB N. The recommendat i o n s v,'e r e adopte d b y the per m i ttin g au t ho rity , as spec i f i e d i n the c urr en t N PDES permi t, Nove m ber 2004. Th e tempera t u r e f o r outfall 10 1 i s meas ur ed by a cont in uous moni tqr in t he bl o w down conduit befo r e th e w ate r e nt ers th e r i v e r. Th e current NPDES pe rr i n i t a l so specifies a discha r ge t e m pe r a tur e li mit o f 35°C (95°F) f o r O utfa ll 1 02. Since di sc h a r ge by the e m e r ge n c y o v e rf low i s in f r e q uent, t he te m pe r a tur e limi t f o r O u tfa ll 1 0 2 as a d a ily gr a b sa mpl e rath e r th a n a da ily a v e r age v a lu e o f c o ntinuou s m eas ur er ment s. Th e T VA mod el ing s tudi es d e m ons tr a t e d th a t o ut s i de o f th e r ecom m e nd e d z on e , th ese di sc h a r ge l imi t s will e n s u r e complia n ce with the S t a te o f T e nn essee w a t e r q , 11a li t y s ta n d a rd s fo r th e pr o t e ction of aqu a tic w il d l i fe. Th ese s t a n da rd s ar e as foll o w s: Th e r ece ivin w ate r s h a ll not e xc ee d (1) a m a ximum w a t er t e mp e r a tur e ch a n ge o f 3°C (5.4°F) e l a tive to a n up st r ea m control point, (2) a m a ximum t e mp e r a ture o f 3 0. 5°C (86. -O F), ex c ept wh e n up st r ea m (amb ie n t) t e m pe r a tur e s a ppro a ch or e x cee d thi s a lu e , a nd (3) a m a ximum r a t e of ch a n ge of 2°C (3. 6°F) p e r hour o ut s id e of a ix i n g zo n e. The s ame t e m pe r at re s t a nd a r ds a l s o apply to Outf a ll 113 a nd a re appli e d to as s igned mixing zones for th safe pa s sage of fish in the river. Outfall 113 also cont a ins a t empe rature limit of 33.5°C (92.3 C F) in the r eceiving stream bottom at the SCCW outlet (s ee 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 me as urements, fi e ld t es ts, and routine model redictions. 26 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apte r 2 2.3. Other Activities WBN i s the on l y 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 I functions including the wastewater treatment plant, offices and storage buildings and also serves as the power supply during outages. The distribution system consists of the 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 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 distribution system, it is not a requirement to go forward with completio n a nd operati<!m of WBN Unit 2. Currently, two options are currently under consideration for upgrad i ng th!.1 distribution system. Option 1-Under this option, TVA would abando n the ex i sting su sta ti o n at WBF and build a new 161-kv line and substation adjacent to the 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 substat i on foot print, possibly to the west. The new single circuit 161-kV li ne wou l d go fro m the new substation to the north and then northwest about mile until it taps into the existing WBH-Spring City 161-kV Line near Crosby road.1 The t ap 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 l arge portiol' of which would need clearing. The entire line would be on TVA property. The new substation would include a new 1 61-13-kV 10 MVA tranforme r, two circuit sw i tchers with isolation and bypass switches on the 161-kV s i de qf the transformer, a nd o n e 13-kV breaker along with associated isolation and bypasp sw it ches. This bre ake r would attach to the existing 13-kV bu s in th e "Corridor" s ub sta tion. Also , r e t a ying protection would be in s t alled for a ll n e w eq uipm e n t in the I n e w substatio n. O ption 2 -U nde r Optio n 2 TVA would build t h e n e w substatio n a! the r etired W BF, adjacent to the exist in g switch y a rd, t ap ping the ex i sting WBHP-v'rF 161-kV lin e for po wer s upply. Th e n e w s t a tton would occupy a pproxim ate ly 100 2. A t ap s tructure or flyin g t ap and a s hort spa n of lin e would be in sta ll e d to connec to the n e w substat ion. No up g r ade would b e r e quired to th e existing 13 kv li le s that bring pow e r from VV 8F to the Corridor Sub. . The n e w substation would include a 161-13-kV 10 MVA t r a nsfor e r, two circui t switchers with i so l a tion and byp ass s witch es on the 161-kV s i de f the tr a n s forme r, and one lowside breaker (13-kV) along with i solation & bypass s it ches. 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 Compl e tion and Operation of W a tt s Bar Nucl ea r Unit 2 Th e new and line connections described in Options 1 & 2 are n o t part of the proposed action in this SEIS, i.e. completion and ope r ation of WBN Unit 2. However, because upgrade the distribution system is anticipated some time in the future, the potential for cumula f ve impacts exists and is discussed below: Wildlife 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 comp l etion would not result in p umulative effects for any of these species: Additonally, three heron colonies , no caves had previously been located within 3 miles of sites for either power optio n. All of these heron colonies have moved because of pine beetle infestations, l and the nearest colony is 4 miles away. 28 Plant Resou i rees. Under Option 1, some distu r bance of existing plant communities would occur during the construction of a new substation and new 161 kV power line. Even clearing of vegetation would be necessary on a large portion of the proposed rig l ht-of-way, no uncommon terrestrial communities or otherwise unusual vegetation o f cur on the lands to be d i sturbed. Less disturbance of existing plant communities would occur under Option 2, which does not entail power line construction ! No new infestations of exotic invasive plan t species are expected as a result of the bither alternative. In addition, no occurrences of federally lis t ed as threatended or endangered or state-listed plant species a r e known on or immediately adjacent to the two proposed areas. No cumulative impacts to plant communities or to sensitive plant species from eithe r option in combination with completion t Unit 2 are expected. Aquatic Resources. No impacts to aquatic resources are an ti c i pated u n der e ith er option. offacilities and associa t ed lines wou ld u se BMPs t o avo id or r educe pote ljl tial impacts to streams and the reservoir. These BMP's a r e used routi nely in tr.e co n struction of TVA transmission line and dis tributi o n facilities a nd provid e go0 1 protection for aq u a ti c r esources. N ei th er op tion is expec t ed to a ff ec t any sensit ivr aquatic species or critic al h ab itat. N atu ra l Arer Resources. No Nationwid e Rivers I nv e ntory (N R I) streams o r Wild and Scenic are in the area. Five n at ur a l areas are in the vicinity of the pr opose d N atura l areas w i th in 3 miles of the proposed w or k de s cr i be d in Options 1 a d 2 a n d the approximate m il eage fr om t he p r oposed w ork a r eas , r espect i ve ly, are as follo'vvs: Chickamauga Reservoir State M u sse l Sanct u a ry -0.8 mil e (0.4 m il r), C h ickamauga Shoreline T V A Habitat Prot ec tio n Area -1.0 mile (1.3 m ile s), State Wildlife Manag e ment Ar ea Y e llow Cr ee k Unit -1.0 mile (1.5 miles), Meigs County Park -1.4 mil es (1.0 mile), a n d Yu chi W il d li fe Re f uge a t S m it h Be n d t 2.3 mi les (3.0 m il es). Because the distance f r o m eac h optio n to natural ar ea t is s uffici e nt for the work propo se d, no cumul a t i ve imp a cts from e ither 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. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apter 2 Hi sto ric Resources. Both Options 1 a nd 2 hav e the potentia l to effect pr e hi sto ric and/o r hi storic properties l is t ed or eligible for listing in the National l Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If TVA selected one of these any other option that would involve construction of new facilities-TVA would with Section 1 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). As appropr i ate, this would i nvolve conSUltation with the Tennessee State Historic preservatio t Officer (SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. Potential impacts on cul t ural r esources are not expected to be significant. Since no effect on historic reso 1 u rces are expected from the completion of WBN, no cumulative effects to t hese resources would be expected from sect i on of either upgrade option I Visual Resources. Option 1 involves construction of additional transmission structures , substation components, and lines. The visual impact df such inc r emental changes may not be individually significant, but when l add iti ons are seen in combination with similar existing features, the impact coul t! grow. Th i s cou ld r esult in a cumulative change in the visible landscape. The Jtructural changes o r additions r equired for Option 2 would be minimal a nd would lik e ly create a noticeab l e vi sual effect. J Based on thi s review, the potentia l for adverse cumulative affects would e sma ll from either of t hese options in combination with the completion of WBN Unit 2 more l ikely from Option 1 th an Option 2. If and whenTVA decides to up g r ade the existing t e mpor a ry site power distribution system at WBN, a more detailed environmental will be conducted and further consideration given to the potential fo r cumulative ffects. If adverse effects a id ent ifi ed, appropriate mitigation would be considered. 2.4. Su mm ary of Environmental Effects Table 2-1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects fro th e proposed completio n of WBN Unit 2, as updated by the present envi ronm e nt al r ev i ew. Table 2-1. S umm ary of Direct, Indir ect , and Cumulative EnVironme r l tal Effects From Completion of WBN Unit 2 Surface Wate r Quality In sign ifi cant hydroth e rm al effects tn n ea r-fi e ld and fi e ld t e mp e r a tures and on the OPlation of the suppl e m e nt a l conden se r co oling ater (SCC W), given compliance with N a tion a l Pollutan Di sc h a rge S y ste m (N PDES) p e rmit lim its. In s i gnifica t effects from r a w w ate r chemical tr eatme nt. W ate r Int ake would i ncr ease by 33 percent over pre se nt condltions but st!!l would be within the original d es ign ba s is of he plant for two-unit op era tion. A corr es ponding incr else of essentia l raw cooling w a ter and r a w COOling water chemical addit iv es o f 33 percent would occur. Towerbr pm treatment fo r C o n de n si n g Coolin g W a t er (CC W woul d in crease 1 0 0 p e rc e nt. Th es e incr eases a r e not e xp e c te d to affec t compliance with exi s ting NPDES ffluent limit a tion s that protect aquatic re s ourc es. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 29 Compi e lion and op.,ltlon of W a tts Ba r Nu c l ea r Plant Unit 2 Table 2-1

<,
,{:>'):':§;' ,.\': ... ' .* ,'. 30 Quality No impacts expected.

Aquat i c Eco ogy Terrestrial E f Ol09y Threatened Endangere d Spec i es W et l a nds N at ur a l Ar e" s Cultural Resources (Arch aeo log cal and Historical) Since no construction activities would occur within 500 feet of the reservoir, all construction activities would be subject to appropriate BMPs to ensure that t here are no impacts to surface water, intake flows would stay within 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 insignificant. Some minor dis t urbance of communities may occur during construction. No n ew infestat i ons o f exotic invasive plant species a r e expected. All construction work wou l d be cond u cted 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 anima ls o r th eir habitats. No impacts to threatened o r endangered terres tri al plant or animal species a r e expected. No occurrences of listed or federally listed plant species a r e known on , or adjacent to WBN. No impacts to bald eagles or gray bats are expected. No imp acts to wetlands are expected. No disturbance i s planned tha t would affect th e one for es ted w e t l and adjacent to th eQl'o j e ct footprint. No im pacts w o uld occur to the five natural areas within 5 mil es of WBN, in c luding th e Chickamauga State Mu sse l Sanctuary. Becau se n e w ground di s turbance would be minim a l and only minim a l n e w construction is planned, historic re so urc es on and adjace nt to the s ite and archaeological r esources within th e area of potential effect wouid not be adver se ly affecte d. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch a pt e r 2 Table 2-1 (con tinued) '.': .. . Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice and Land Use F l oodplains and Flood Risk Seismic Effects C lim atology and Meteorology Nuclear Plant Safety and Sec urity Radioloaical Effects Radiological Waste Spent Fuel Transportation and Storage Some impacts to population, including low income and minority groups due to influx of wd r kers; most impacts would be widespread and minor. } noticeable increase in demand for housing and mobile hIDusing locations would occur during peak construction. Sbme impacts are expected to schools. Minor are expected on land use. Beneficial effects on employrent and income, and local governments' revenues during construction. No antiCipated adverse impacts. No adverse seismic effects A slight change in local meteorology could affect wind dispersion values. Effects 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 to increase Significantly due to cOlfPietion of WBN Unit 2. Because WBN is an existing, nucl ear facility, the risks and potential consequences of a terrorist attack already exist, and safeguards have l' already been taken to protect against such risks. Anticioated effects unchanged since 1995; insignificant. Anticipated effects unchanaed 1995; insignificant. Insignificant effects anticipated frdm the transport or storage of spent fuel. 2.5. Identific at ion of Mitigation Measures Mitigation of pot en ti a l en vironm enta l Impacts Includes aVOiding, r ectifY ing, r educing , or compen sa ting for the imp acts. Miti gat i o n measures hav e bE1en i dentified in the 1 972 F ES and s ub seq u en t NEPA docum e nts. Those m eas ures are still 1n effec t. This suppl e menta l docum e nt i de nti fies mit igation m easures to address beyond what w ere di sc u sse d in tho se earlier r eviews. TVA will id entif y specif ic mitiga ons a nd commitments sele ct ed fo r impi e m e nt at ion in th e ROD for this proj e ct. TVA h as i dentifi e d the following me as ur es th a t could be impl e mented du ing construction or operation of W B N Unit 2 to addre SS those potential impacts. TVA will d esig n ate c e rt a in counties as imp acte d by th e construction roc ess so that th ey would become e ligibl e for a supp l eme nt a l a lloc atio n from TVA's ax e quiv a l e nt payments und er T e nn essee law .. Th ese funds could be u sed by c unti es to address imp acts on county se rvices. 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 C ompletio n and Op e r atio n of W atts Bar Nuclear Unit 2 counties. Thi s cou ld help wn h loca l planning to accom mod ate th e anticipated tem r rary pop ul atio n growth. 2.6. The Alternative Completion of Uni t 2 is TVA's preferred alternative. This alternative addresses the identified need in a bast-effective manner with only limited additional environmental I impacts. It permits TVA to make use of an existing asset, the partially completed Unit 2 and potentially helps the cost of TVA power. It also provides TVA flexibility to reduce emissions from its plants by reducing generation from those plants, depending on future events and the demand for energy. 32 Final Supplemental Erivironmentallmpact Statement Ch ap t er 3 CHAPTER 3 3.0 CHANGES IN THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES I The environmental consequences of constructing and operating WBN were comprehensively in the 1972 FES for WBN Units 1 and 2. Subsequent envin i>nmental reviews updated that analysis, as described in Section 1.3 of this FSEIS. By 1996, 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 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 site plan are not firm, any relocation would occur within the marked area to be disturbed. TV 1 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 sin b e that time. Chapter 3 summarizes the environmental effects assessed in past WBN-re l a t ed environmenta l reviews, identifies any new or additional effects that could result from the cO l1jl pletion and operation of WBN Unit 2, and assesses the potential for impacts. The review focused on the entire proposed area to be disturbed. Cumulative Effects . cumUlative effects of constructing and operating WBN Units 1 and 2 were co r 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 tied to emissions fr om WBF plant , which had not operated since 1983 and has since been retired. C u mulative effects are a l so cons i dered i n many o f the docume nts i n corpo r at l d by r eference a n d/o r ti e r ed from f or t h is s u pp l eme nt. M os t notably , cu m U l ative effects of f ue l storage and tr a n s port a tion w e r e addr esse d in th e CL WR FE I S; c umul at iv e effects 0 j ra n sportatio n o f r adioactive mat e ri a l s were a ddre sse d in NU RE G-7 5/0 3 8 {NRC 1975); a nd c mul a tiv e effe cts of hydroth e rmal and w a t e r s upply w e re a ddr essed in th e ROS FE I S. In thi s r e ji e w, TVA h as found th a t no new or additional cumul a tive e ff e ct s b e yond those identifi e d in , e a rli e r N E PA docum e nts are expected to r es ult from completing the con st ruction of WBN 4Jnit 2. As summarized in T abl e 2-1, for the mo s t part, only minor, t e mpor a ry, or effects are expected for most of the re so urces considered. As such, the s e effects are n t expected to contribute to cumul at ive imp a cts on affected r eso urces. The potential for ad itional operationa l cumul a tive effects are considered in the following assessments. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 33 Compl e tio n and Op e ration of W a tts Ba r Nu c l ea r Pl r Unit 2 3.1. Water Quality 3.1.1. Surface I water-Hydrothermal Effects Hydrothermal effect? primarily consist of the impact of the heated effluent from WB N on the Tennessee Rive r. 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 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 spec i fied by th e State of in the NPDES permit for the plant. Far-field effects consist of the impact on the receiving on a larger scale, in t his case all of Chickamauga Reservoir. Waste heat created I bY 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 of the system includes three outfalls to the river. Outfa ll 1 01 includes r egulated r eleases throu gh two multiport diffusers located on the bottom of t h e river at TRM 527.9 ,. O utf a ll 102 ih cludes emergency overflow from the plant yard holding pond and co n sis t s of a surface discha rg e from a l oca l stream channe l at TRM 527.2. Historically, releases from O utf all 102 have made on l y when maintenance is required for Outfa ll 101. Outfa ll 113 includes r eleases fr?m the WBN SCCW system through a d i scharge s tru cture a t TRM 529.2. Outfall 11 3 , th e outfall for t h e retired WBF , consists of a sho r eline r elease s ligh tly below the water sUrface o f the river. The current configuration of the SCCW sys t em prov i des water solely for WB t-J Unit 1. For the combined operation of Un it 1 and Unit 2 , th e cont r o l s tru ctures that regu l ate the amoun t SCCW flow between and out of the cooling tower basins would n eed 1 0 be modified to preserve the o ri ginal design bases for all t hree outfalls. An ex t ensive number of prev i ous stud i es on t he hydrothermal cha r acte r ist i cs o f releases from WBN have been co h ducted over the years. These stud i es are d escribed and th ei r results summarized i n A. In general, these studies have basically eva luated and documented: I 1. That ca n be effect iv el y opera t ed without ca u sing violations of w a ter t e mp er ature limits in th e T e nn esse e River (ne a r-field effect). 2. Th e of operat ing ass umpti ons made in previous a naly ses. 3. The v a li I ity of the assigned mi xi n g zones a nd mod eling r esu l ts f o r riv e r t e mp e r at ure. 4. Ev a lu a ti n s f o r cha n ges suc h as the add ition of th e SCC W s y s tem or th e R ese rvoir Op e r at i ns S tudy (ROS). 5. Th at op ration of WBN is not expected to h a ve an y notic ea bl e imp ac t on auga Res e rvoir (f a r-fie ld effect). NPDES River Tem erature Limits The curr e nt NPD E : permit limit s for man aging the n ea r-field impact o f the th e rm a l eff lu ent from WBN outfa ll s are s mmarized in T ab l e 3-1. Tho se for Outf a ll 1 01 and Outfall 1 02 apply to the t emperature of the ffluent before it enters the river (i.e., " end-of-pipe" limit ations). Those for Outfall 113 are in st ea m 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 Ch apte r 3 Releases from Outfa ll 11 3 do not require a minimum flow in the riv e r, excep t in e vents wh ere there i s a planned, sudden change in the thermal loading from the SCCW sys t em. Table 3-1. NPD ES Temperature Limits for WBN Outfalls to the TennesJ.e River I .

8eDQ rt < I
;
.:: :';" .' ** 101 Effluent Temperature 102 Effluent Temperature Instream Temperature I nstream Temperatu re Rise 2 . Dailv Ava Grab 1 35.0°C (95°F) 30.5°C (86.9°F) 1 3.0 C o (5.4°F) 113 Instream Temperature Rate-of-Change 1 Instream Temperature ReceivinQ Stream Bottom 3 Max Hourly Avg Max Hourly Avg Max Hourly Avg Max Hourly Avp. +/-2

(+/-3.6 P/hour) $3.5°C (92.3°F) Notes: 1 Downstream edge of mixing zone 2 Upstream ambient to downstream edge of mixing zone 3 Mussel re l ocation zone at SCCW outlet Mixing Zones The mixing zone for Outfall 101 is shown in Figure 3-1. The recommended d'mensions o f 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 ac hi eved a t a distance equiva l ent to roughly the length of the o utfl ow sectio n of the diffuser ports. The blowdown sys t em includes two diffuser legs, one containing an outflow sectio 1 n 80 feet long (upstream) and one containing an outflow section 160 feet long (dOwnstream? H ence, the assigned mixing zone for Outfall 101 is 240 feet wide and 240 feet The width of th e river a t Ou tf all 101 i s about 1100 feet, thus about 80 percent of the river is available for safe passage of fish. The design of the diffusers and mix i ng zone are based on operation of both units at WBN, and the extreme river condit i ons used for the design of the diff ili ser a r e still applicab l e (Le., minimum river flow of 3500 cfs). For the operation of one uni t , the performance of t he diffuser was confirmed by field stud i es after the startup of Unit 1 (TVA 1 998b). Similar studies would b e performed to confirm the performance of the diffusers with the operat i on of two un its a t WBN. . I S in ce r eleases r esulting from the emergency overflow of the yard holding are so in frequen t, a mixin g zone currently is not defined in the NPDES permit for o u l tf a II 102. For Outf a ll 113, sta nd a r ds for w a t e r t e mp e r at ure a r e enforced by m ea ns of !t o mixing zon es , active a nd p ass iv e , as s h ow n in Figur e 3-2. Two mix i n g zones a r e u sed to b ette r alig n m onito r ing of Outf a ll 11 3 with the b e havior o f th e effl u e nt in th e riv e r. Co mpyt at ion s and m eas ur e m e nts s how that spreading of th e effl u e nt from Outf a ll 1 1 3 vari es s ur' sta ntialiy b e tw ee n condition s wi t h and with o ut flow in th e riv e r from W atts Ba r Dam (TVA 1 9 97b 2001 , 2004b). For conditions with flow, th e effluen t t e nds to r es id e in th e r ight-hand-s ide of h e riv e r (f ac ing down s tr ea m) and is moni tored by the ac tiv e mixing zo n e , whi c h inciudes inst r ea m t e mp e rature m onito rs a t it s down s tr ea m edge. For conditions without fl o w, the efflu e nt ca r. s pr ea d ac ro ss th e riv e r and is m onitored by the .pas s ive mixing zone. Since th e p ass ive mijin g zone encomp asses r e gion s of th e riv e r that mu s t r e m a in clear for n avigat i o n, the of the p ass ive mixing zone is ch ecked bi a nnu a lly (';,',:inter an d s umm e r) b y specia l w a t e r t er mp e r at ure surv e ys (i.e., r athe r than instr ea m monitor s). Outf a ll 11 3 i s a n ea r-surface di charge , and comput ations and measurements confirm th a t the heated effluent from Outfa I 113 disp e r ses in the surface r eg ion of the w a ter 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 C o mp le ti o n a nd Op e r a tion of Nu c l ea r P I 1 nt Unit . . navigation channel a m the nght-hand-slde of the river. TVA would no t change th e dimensions o f the Outfall 113 mixi ! g zones with the completion and startup of Unit 2. Jut' 0. Y 1. Ir ,'!Q"t. fl f tl .. 1h]ffi .. --"\:> ( --. '0 , ::::., ** , ... ".. *

.::,,'" >L /:: ,#:!-;;' .. --Figure Mixing Zone for Outfall 101 F igure 3-2. Mixing Zon es f o r O utf a ll 113 It is important to no e th at since the startup of WBN Unit 1, the pl a nt has operated s ucc essfull y through a wide ran I e of river flow conditions, w itho ut any exceedences of the NPDES limit s for the near-field impa t of thermal effl u e nt on th e Tennessee River. Concurrently, no significant 36 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apte r 3 adverse imp a ct s hav e b een r epo rt ed on the ecological h ea lth of th e river as a r esu lt of r e l eases from a ny of the WBN discharge struct ur es-Outfall 101, Outfall 102 , or Outfal' 113. Up dated Hydr othermal Analyses In depth near-f i eld 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 I to 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 with the dual mixing zone for Outfall 113, as depicted in Figure 3-2, had not been performe<i:l. Third , previous I model evaluations had not considered the combined operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2 coupled with t he r iv er ope r a t ing policy of the ROS FEIS or the cha r acteristics of new generators r ecently installed for WBN Unit 1. Appendix A includes more deta il about prev 1 ious model evalua tion s and th e modifications to th e Outfa ll 113 mixing zone. Th e updated ana l yses 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 Uni t 2 , (2) discharges from Outfall 113 with dua l m i xing zo n es, (3) amb i en t river conditions based on the ri ver operations policies of the ROS) and (4) performance characteristics of the new steam generators for WBN Unit 1. In t his process, the following modeling assumptions are e mp hasized: performance as that of the cooling tower for Unit 1. WBN Unit 2 would operate wi th the origina l steam generato r s. The SCCW system current l y serves Unit 1. With the combined operation p f Unit 1 and Unit 2 , the SCCW system would serve both units. While some modificat i o n s to the SCCW system would be required for combined operatio n (see above), these would be limit ed to installed plan t systems and would not change the volume of water delivered and rem oved by the SCCW system. The following ana l ys i s assumes that the syste m would be c hang ed to prov i de serv ic e solely to Unit 2. This assumption prpvides a su it able bounding es tim a te of th e potential order o f magnitude of the hydroth e rmal l imp ac t o n th e T ennessee Riv e r from the op era tion of Unit 2 while both Units are i n op e ratio n. Although oth e r optio ns a r e p ossi bl e , n o n e would r es ul t i n a s u bsta n tia l ch a n ge in v 1 1ume and/o r t e m pe r a tur e of fl o w r e l ease d to th e r i v e r through Ou tfalls 1 0 1, 10 2 , a n d 1.1 3. Mi x i ng o f th e r m a l e fflu e n t f rom Outf a ll 1 0 1 i s ad e qu a t e ly d es crib ed b y th e e b se rv e d b e h avio ur in t he p h y s i ca l m od e l st u d y of th e d isc h arg e d i ff u se r s (TVA 1 97 7b; TVA 1 9 97c), a nd i n a fi e l d s t ud y cond u cted aft e r the s t a rt u p o f Uni t 1 (T VA 1 99 8 c). M ix i ng of ther m a l e ffl u e n t fr om Outf a ll 113 i s ad e q u a t e ly d e sc ri b e d b y a n . n a ly s i s t oo l r ecommend ed b y th e U.S. E P A k n ow n as CORMIX (Jirk a , e t a l. 1 9 96). Mod e l s imul a tions w ere p e rform ed f or a 30-y ear p e r i o d ba se d on ob se rv e hydrol o gy a nd m e teorology in the upp e r Tennes see River watersh e d for y ea rs 1976 thro gh 2005. Th e mod e l input require s 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 h e lp 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 Compl e tion and of W atts Bar Nucl ea r Plant Unit 2 bodies in the River r eservo ir sys t em. Th e r ese rvoir sc h edu ling model a nd SysTemp w ere previous l y calibrated as a part of the ROS FEIS rrVA 2004a). An important aspec J 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 Outfalls 101, 102 , and 113. That is, the maximum volume of flow and heat from the outfalls wo ul d 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 whether from Unit 1, Unit 2, or both Unit 1 and Unit 2. In this manner , the updated analyses would prima r ily 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 tem fll erature and provide safe passage for aquatic species in Chickamauga Reservoir. I Two operating cases for WBN were considered as part of the updated hydrotherma l Unit 1 only (i.e., cur t ent, base case conditions) and combined operation of Unit 1 a n d Unit 2, with the SCCW system serving only Unit 2. For both cases , the key statistical properties of fl ow and temperature of r-ater released from Watts Bar Dam are summarized in Table 3-2. As shown , daily average releases ranged from a m ini mum of 3300 cfs in M ay to a maximum of over 150,000 cfs in l 60th Ma r ch and April. Flows over about 45 , 000 cfs would be due to spill operations in sUPPo i rt of flood control. On an hourly basis, releases can be 0 cfs, due to peaking operations of the un it s. The overall average release f or the ent ir e 3D-year per i od was abo ut 27,000 cfs. hourly release temperature varied between a minimum of 36.3°F in February and a maximum o f 84.6°F in August. Thus, based on historical hydrology and me t eorology , the ri ve r temperature is not expecte d to exceed the state standard of 86.9°F. 38 Tab l e 3-2. Estimated Hydrotherma l Conditions for Release From W atts Bar Da m I Jan 5,$00 36,900 1 22,400 0 36 , 900 1 22 , 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 M a r 36 , 600 1 56 , 600 0 36 , 600 1 56 , 600 38.9 48.9 60.0 Apr 3,$00 2 1, 000 15 6 , 60 0 0 21,000 1 56 , 600 47.8 56.3 65.4 M a y 3,$00 17, 300 11 9,300 0 17, 300 11 9 , 300 5 4.4 63.9 73.2 Jun 5,200 21, 600 81 , 30 0 0 2 1, 60 0 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 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 ,0 00 0 29,700 85,000 47.1 58.5 68.1 Dec 4,MO 32,300 1 02,300 0 32,300 102 , 300 37.7 49.3 59.5 No tes: 1. Results pe SysTemp hydroth e rm a l mod e l s imuiation

2. Re se rvoir c perating p o l icy p e r the ROS FEIS 3. Historical hvdrology and meteorology for 1976 th rough 2005 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statemen t Ch ap ter 3 Th e following summaries are provided for the r esults of the updated h ydrothe rrm a l analyses.

Outfall 101 The estimated hydrothermal conditions for the thermal effluent from Outfall10 h 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 both Unit 1 and Unit 2. For the sole operation of Unit 1, the hourly discharge t hrough Outfall 101 varied between 0 cfs and about 108 cfs. Discha r ges of 0 efs occur for pe1riods when the release from WBH is less than 3500 cfs. With both WBN units in service, the I h OurlY discharge from Outfall 101 can be as large as 175 cfs , as shown in Table 3-4. This is a ti>out 3 percent larger than the maximum value cited in previous design studies (TVA 1977b), l but is not considered significant with respect to the as-built size of the blowdown 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 the statistical properties of the resulting hourly river temperature and riv er rise also are given in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. As shown , the maximum values are well below state standards of 86.9°F for maximum river temperature and 5.4 FO f or maximum river t emPi r ature 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 Un it 1 and Unit 2. At these levels, tre maximum instream temperature rate-of-change would be w e ll below the s t ate standard of +/-3.6 FO per hour. Table 3 M 3. Estimated Hydrothermal Conditions for Therma l Effluent From , Outfall 101 With Un i t 1 Operation .:,' Jan 0 44 102 49.0 64,0 79.4 38 , 2 45.8 53.8 1 0.0 0.1 1.1 Feb 0 44 102 49.2 65.9 78.4 37.9 45.6 55.7 1 0.0 0.1 1.1 Mar 0 43 102 53.2 69.6 82, 1 40,3 50,5 61.0 1 0.0 0.1 1.1 Apr 0 43 108 62.5 74.2 84.6 48.9 58.2 66.9 1 0.0 0.2 1.3 May 0 43 108 70.7 78.9 85.8 57 , 3 66.1 73 , 8 1 0.0 0.2 0.9 Jun 0 43 108 75.3 83.6 89.0 62.7 72.8 79.6 1 0.0 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 7 1.6 8 1,8 88.2 69.9 76.8 83.0 -0.3 0.0 0.5 Oct 0 43 10 2 63.7 75.3 83.9 58.3 68,8 79,3 -0.3 0.0 0.6 Nov 0 43 10 2 56.2 69.5 83,3 47.9 59 , 3 69.7 -0.1 0.0 1.0 Dec 0 43 1 02 49.4 65.2 8 1.2 38.2 50.7 6 1.7 -0.1 0.1 1,2 Not es: 1. R esu lts p e r W B N hydroth e rm a l mod e l s imul a tion 2. WBN Unit 1 with new s t ea m generators of 2006 3. WBN Unit 2 idl e 4, SCCW se rvin g Unit 1 5. R ese rv o ir operating policy p e r th e ROS FE f S 6. Hi s t orica l hydrology and m e t eo rology for 1976 through 2005 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 39 Compl e tion a nd Op e r a t ion of W a tt s Bar N ucl e a r Plant U n it 2 T a bl e 3*4. Est im a t L Hy d r o th e rm a l Conditi ons for Th e rm a l Efflu e nt From o uif a II 1 0 1 With U nit 1 a+d Unit 2 Op e r a tion 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 . 0 166 53.1 69.6 82.1 40.3 50.6 6 1.2 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 8 0 170 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 Ju t 0 175 80.1 85.5 89.0 70.2 77.6 84.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 Aug 0 172 77.3 85.5 89.8 73.9 78.8 84.7 -0.2 0.1 0.6 Sep 0 8 0 170 7 1.6 81.7 88.2 69.9 76.8 83.1 -0.4 0.1 0.6 Oct 0 8b 1 66 63.6 75.2 83.8 58.4 68.9 79.3 -0.4 0.1 0.9 Nov 0 8 0 166 56.1 69.4 83.2 4 7.9 59.4 69.8 -0.2 0.1 1.1 De c 0 166 49.3 65.1 8 1.1 38.4 50.8 61.8 -0.2 0.2 1.5 No t es: I 1. R e s u lts per WB N hy d ro th e r mal m ode l s imul at i o n 2. WBN Un it 1 w ith n e w[s t ea m genera t o r s of 2 006 3. WB N Un it 2 w ith o ri g i[nal s t ea m ge n e r a tor s 4. SCCW servin g Unit 2 5. Un it 2 coo l ing t o w er p e rform a n ce t he same as U n it 1 cooling to w e r perfo rm a n ce 6. Reservo i r operat i ng p er t he ROS FE I S 7. H i stor i ca l h y dro l ogy an d me te orology f or 1976 thro u gh 2005 Outfa ll 102 r For both the sale oRe r a t ion of Unit 1 (b ase case) and t h e comb i ned operation of bo t h Un it 1 and Uni t 2 , the r e w e r e n p events w ith o v e rfl ow fro m t h e p lant ya r d holding pond. As a r esult , u nder n orma l o p era t i ng c o r n d iti o n s, re l eases fr o m Outfall 102 are no t ex p ected. Outfa ll 11 3 Th e es tim a t e d hy d roth e rm a l co n d iti o n s for t h e th e rm a l effl u e nt from Outfa ll 113 a re g iv e n in T ab l e 3-5 fo r s o l e O f I e r a ti o n o f Unit 1 (b ase c ase) a nd T a bl e 3-6 f o r t h e co m b in e d o p e r a tion of b o th U nit 1 a nd Uni 2. Fo r both c ase s , th e ho u rl y d i sc h a r ge th r ough O u tfa ll 113 v a r ied b e tw ee n abo ut 222 c fs a n d 2 9 4 cfs. Thi s d e mo n s t r a t es th a t the fl o w from th e S CC W s y s t em i s i n d e p e n den t of th e u nit se rv e d by the s y s t e m (i.e., Unit 1 f or t he b as e ca se a nd Uni t 2 f o r th e ca se with b o t h in o p e r a ti o n). In a s imi l ar f as h i o n, f o r b o th c ases , th e h o u r ly e fflu e nt t e mper a ture Outf a ll 113 v a ri e d b e tvl ee n a bo ut 39.5°F a nd 97.3°F. Sinc e t h e flow a n d t e mp e r a tur e of th e e fflu e nt a r e es s e nti a lly th e sa m e for b o th c ases , s imil a r condi t ions ar e found fo r t e mp e r a tu r e co n dit i o n s. The e s tim a t e d maximum hourly in st r ea m rive r t e mp e r a tur e fo r c as es i s 84.r F , w e ll b e l ow th e NPD ES limit o f 86.9°F. The e s ti m a t e d m a ximum h ou r ly instrea m ri v e r t e mp e r a ture ri s e for b oth c a s es is 5.4 FO, whi ch i s t he s a me as the c urr e nt N P D ES limit. T h e est im a t e d l a r ges t hourly in st r ea m riv er t e m p e r a tur e r at e-o fch a n ge (u p/+ o r do n/-) fo r b o th c ase s is -3.6 P p er h o ur , which is t he s a m e as th e curr e nt N PDES li mi t. Th e xtre m e v al u es for th e t e m p e r a tur e r i se and t e mp e r a tur e r a t e-of-ch a n ge occur in the cool e r wint e r months" of the y ea r, wh e n the buoy a ncy-r e l a t e d mixing of t h e the rmal effluent is reduc e d. In practice, TVA would not ri s k op e r a tion of th e SCCW s y s t e m with th e effluent parameters so close to the NPDES limit s. In extreme temp e rature events, the SCCW system would be a erated in a more conservative manner than what has be e n assumed in the hydrothermal mode. In particular, the temperature of the Outfall 113 effluent would be reduced 40 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ta b l e 3-5. E stimated Co nditions for Thermal Effluent From Outfall 113 With Unit 1 Operation "'T1 5' !:!!. en c: :g Jan 222 iii 3 ro :J F eb I 2 22 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 Ma r 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 l[ m ::l 3 ro :J .... 3' "0 Q) A pr I 22 6 I 256 I 277 I 5 7.5 I 72.7 I 90.2 I 48.9 M ay I 2 40 I 286 I 2 92 I 6 3.6 I 79.3 I 90.9 I 56.8 Jun 2 57 291 292 68.6 83.8 94.2 62.7 J ul 2 7 5 292 2 9 3 71.6 86.1 97.3 70.2 I I I A u g I 2 84 I 292 I 2 9 3 I 73.2 I 85.5 I 94.9 I 73.6 65.7 81.7 92.6 69.6 O ct 2 87 291 292 5 7.7 75.0 89.7 58.3 N ov 226 258 2 88 52.7 69.7 85.7 47.9 D e c 2 22 222 226 44.5 64.7 84.4 39.1 1Am ou nt of cha nge in m i ver temp erature, up or down, in one hour. ill A d d i tiona l Notes: CD 1. Res u l ts per WBN hydrothemlal mo d e l simu lation 2. WBN Unit 1 wi th n e w stea m ge n era tor s of 2006 :J 3. WBN Un i t 2 i d l e 58.6 68.5 0.0 2.3 66.3 74.6 0.0 2.4 73.1 79.8 0.0 1.8 77.8 84.5 0.0 1.4 -2.2 0.0 78.9 84.7 0.0 0.9 -2.0 0.0 76.9 83.0 0.0 0.7 -1.7 0.0 I 76.9 I 83.0 I 0.0 I 0.7 I 2.9 I -1.7 I 0.0 I 1.3 69.3 80.4 0.0 1.0 4.8 -2.8 0.0 2.0 59.8 70.9 0.0 1.3 5.4 -3.4 0.0 2.1 51.0 63.2 0.0 1.7 5.4 -3.5 0.0 2.1 -------'-'--'---4. See W-s ervi n g-tl n i t-1----------------------------------------5. R eservoir operat in g policy per the ROS FE IS 6. Hi s torical hydro l ogy and me t.eoro l ogy for 1976 through 2005 .t:>. () ::; Q) ro ., C,...) N " ::;. (/) C 0 m 3 (I) :::l ![ m ::I < a' :::l 3 (I) :::l [ 3" -0 III (/) ![ (I) 3 (I) a Table 3-6. Hyd rot h erm al C onditions for Thermal Effluent F rom Outfall 113 With Unit 1 and Unit 2 O peratio n ::::3 C/l-o OJm ru !:!" * .., 0 z:::l C ru () :::l m o. ruO -"-0 1_1_* ___ _ J a n I 222 I 222 I 2 2 2 I 3 9.5 I 62.6 I 82.6 I I 45.8 I 53.7 I 0.0 I 1.8 I 5.4 I -3.6 I 0.0 I 2.7 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 May I 24 0 285 292 6 3.5 79.2 90.8 56.7 66.2 74.6 0.0 2.3 5.3 -3.0 0.0 1.8 29'1 292 6 8.5 I 6 8.5 I 83.7 I 94.1 I 62.7 I 73.0 79.8 0.0 1.7 5.2 -2.8 0.0 1.7 291 2 94 7 1 I 7 1.5 I 86.0 I 97.2 I 70.2 I 77.8 84.5 0.0 1,4 4.3 -2.2 0.0 1.7 292 2 9 2 84.7 0.0 0.9 3.4 -2.0 0.0 1.5 2 9 2 2! 83.0 0.0 0.7 2.9 -1.7 0.0 1.3 Oct I 287 I 2 9 1 I 2 9 2 I 5 7.5 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 No v I 226 I 258 I 2 88 I 5 2.6 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 D ec 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 No t e s: 1. R esul ts perWBN hydrotherm al m odel s imulation

2. WBN Un i t 1 wit h new steam ge n e r at or s of 2006 3. WBN Unit 2 w it h or i g i nal steam ge n e r a to rs 4. S CC W s e rv i n g Un it 2 5. U n i t 2 co o li ng towe r performance the s ame as Unit 1 cooling towe r performance
6. R eser v o i r ope r at ing p oli cy per th e R O S FEIS 7. H istorical h ydrology a n d me te o rology f or 1976 through 2005 E E .:: Q. E l-s.. g Ch ap t e r 3 by passing addi t ional water throu g h the SCCW bypass condu it or by r emoving the SCCW system from operation.

I For Outfall 113 the NPDES permit also includes a limitation on the maxinrum temperature of the r eceiving stream bottom (mussel relocation zone). This temperatu r e 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 fo r the Outfall 113 effluent b nd river bottom in the mussel relocation zone (MRZ) are shown in Figure 3-3. Data are shd 1 wn 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 allowable t emperature of essential raw cooling water (ERCW) for continued of WBN Unit 1 cu rr ently is 85°F, which is needed to guarantee a safe shutdown of the rE1actor i n the event of an emergency. Efforts cu rr ently 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 t emperature at the plant pumping station located 1.3 miles of Outfall 113 approaches 88°F , the operation ofWBN would be suspended , and thus t r e heat load from the SCCW system would be dramatically reduced. Therefore , in terms o f protecting bottom-dwelling species and fish passage, the i mpact to the r i ve r from Outfall 113 would by necessity be reduced by WBN suspension of operat i ons should the bottom t emperature ever reach 88'F, still well below the MRZ temperature limtt r 92.3'F. 90 80 70 --60 50 1999 Figure 3-3. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Measured Temperatures for Outfall 113 Effluent a d Bottom of Mussel Relocation Zone Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 43 C o mpl e ti o n and Operation of W atts Ba r Nu c l ear PI1nt Unit 2 I mpact on WBN Operation As emphasized i n 2.2.1 , the purpose of the WBN SCCW is to enhance the performance of the J mit(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 F i gure 2-2). If the temperature of the Outfall 113 effluent cannot be sufficiently reduced py this process, the SCCW system is removed from service. I n 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 fr om 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 i n the hours of required bypass opera ti on , 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 opera f ion of the SCCW system. The average annual generation for case conditions wit H Unit 1 obtained by the updated analyses was about 10,602,000 megawatt hours per l year (MWh/year). For the combined operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2 , the average annual ge n e I ration obtained by the analyses was about 21 , 182,000 MWh/yea r , w hich is less than 0'1 01 pe r cent less than twice the amount of gene r atio n 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 Un i t 1 verses the original steam generators for Unit 2. Table 3-7. Pre 1 icted SCCW Impact on WBN Operation 525 10 5 1 5 10 Low River Flow It is important to notr that the simu l ati o n p e riod from 1976 through 2005 cont a ins four of the five driest y ea rs r ecorded in E as t Tenn e ss e e, 1 988 , 19 86 , 2000 , and 2005 (1 S t, 3 rd , 4 th , and 5 th driest for o f record from 1 875 to present). Thus , the s imul ations su mm a ri zed h erei n enco mpa ss n ea r th e mo s t extreme conditions expect e d for th e imp ac t o f WBN th erma l effluept on the riv e r. For Outfail 1 01, th e exte nt of diY conditions i s of little significance the therma l effluent can be rel eased from Outfall 101 on ly when the discharge from Watt s Bar Dam is a t l e a s t 3500 cfs. That is, even in the dri e st years, there will be at l eas t 3500 1 efs of flow in the river for the assimilation of w a s te h ea t from WBN. Th e minimum daily rverage r elease in Table 3-2 , 3300 cfs , would allow a r e l ease of 3500 cf s for at l eas t 22 in a single day. In pr ac tice, hydro r e l eases from W atts 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 th e numb e r 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 Outfa ll 102. But as presented earlie r , in the 30-year 44 Final Supplementa l Environmenta l I mpact Statemen t Ch ap t e r 3 I si mul ations, th ere were no e v en t s wh e r e it was found necessary to provide releases from the yard holding pond via the emergency overflow (i.e., including years as 1988). For Outfa ll 113, the impact of a low flow year would be to increase the d J 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 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 o r 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 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 Ten n essee River. Over all Near-Field Effects Overall, w i th 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 l R iv er (i.e., ROS), the updated hydrotherma l analyses reconfirm, as concluded in the 1972 FES, that the I 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 I riv er 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 impact on near-field conditions in river, far-field impacts on Chickamauga also are expected t o be insignificant, for both the operation of one or two units at WBN. is supported by th e WBN discharge temperature limit evaluation conducted in 1993 (TV'l 1993b), by water qu a lity modeling performed as part of the ROS FEIS (TVA 2004a), and b r operati n g experience s inc e the start up of Unit 1 in 1 996. Ongoing activit i es und e r th e TVA Reservoir R e l eases Improv e m e nt Program a nd th e TVA Vit a l Signs Monitoring Program would continu e to provid e clo se scr utiny of a ny pot e ntia l far-field imp acts from 1 e h ea t e d effluen t fr omWB N. . Th e n ea r-fi e ld a nd f a r-field effects s umm a ri ze d ab ove a r e b ase d on th e ydroth e rm a l an a ly ses d esc ribed h e r e in, a nd a r e ju dge d to h a v e no sig ni fica nt imp ac t pn t e mp e ratur es in Chick a m a u ga Reservoir. That conclu s i o n, how e v e r, i s Hm!t e d to the imPficts of di s ch a rge to th e Tenn essee River from Outf a ll s 101: 102, an d 113 ass oci ate d with th e pre s um e d simult a n eous op e r at ion of Watts Ba r Unit s 1 and 2. Th e potentia l for cu ul at lv e effects of th e compl et ion o f W BN Unit 2 in conjun ctio n with ot h e r f ac tors that could imp a ct Tennes se e Riv er t emp e r atu r es w as a l s o consid e r ed. 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 included turbine discharges and associated temperatures , residence times , thermal Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 45 Compl et ion a nd Opeiation of W atts Bar Nu clea r Plaht Unit 2 stratification, both co ld a nd warm water volum es, disso l ved oxygen , a nd a l gae. Th e 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 has l had or will have any contribution to cumulative effects in Chickamauga ReseNoir. Whereas the ROS studies included only the operation of WBN Unit 1, t h e 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 Un it 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 c i hem i cals used at the plan t and associated envi r onmen t a l impacts. Proposed chemical additives and their respective toxicological data are presented to the state for approval 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 is maintained, the state reviews the chemical usage request and evaluates the reaso h able potentia l environmental impacts of a specific chemical discharge to determine the NPDES permit monitoring requirements and discharge limits. Upon start of operation in I May 1996, WBN was issued NPDES permit number TN0020168 (TVA 2005d). WBN is au t horized 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 reverse osmosis reject water, drum dewatering water , wate r purification plant w,ter, and storm water runoff from internal monitoring point (IMP) 103; metal cleaning was t ewater, turb i ne building station sump water, diesel generato r coolant, and storm water thrbugh IMP 1 07; treated sanitary wastewater through IMP 111; HVAC cooling water , water, and fire protection wastewater through Outfall 11 2; and SCCW from Outfall 113 to th e Tennessee River (refer to Figure 1-2, Unit 2 Site Plan and Appendix B , NPDES Flow In addition to revisions to the B/CTP , the potential sources of chemicals and c h e rr ica l quantities are reviewed and updated in connection with th e app li catio n for NPDES Permit r enewa l. Compliance with the State Water Quality crite ri a is al so confirmed by r?,u tine sem i-a nnu a l Wh ole Effluent Toxicity (WET) t es ting at O utf a ll 101, Outf a ll 112, and our a l! 113. TVA applied to r ene w the WBN permit in May 2006. To support the applicat i o n for this permit rei ss uanc e , detailed walkdown of the pl an t w as conduct e d to e n su re that r previou s ly identifi e d discharge poin t sources remain valid. A comprehensive samp ling and analysis e v e nt conducted to characterize w aste water discharges from the authori zed dischar e pOints. As a component of he NPDES Permit, Part III, S e ction G , B/CT P, WBN is authoriz e d to condu c t treatments P'f int ake or process waters with biocid es , di s persants, surfactan ts, corrosion inhibiting fh emicals , and detoxification chemic a ls. To ensure prot ec tion of the r ece iving stream, w ate r tre at ment processes are controll ed to comply with State Water Qu alit y criteria and kpplicable N PDES permit conditions. WBN monitors effluen t di sc harges and reports to the s;te the s p e cific ch emicals inj ected a long with the r espec tive active ingr edient 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 Ch ap t er 3 th e IPS to ensure all r a w water systems a r e protecte d. Se v era l o f t h ese sy b tems, the High Pressure Fire Protection and the ERCW systems in particular , are essentia l l for the safe operatio n of the plant. While WBN has requested modifications to the B/CTP over the years, the approach and active i ngredients 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 different i formuiations of the same active ingredients or constituents and the processes or frequenc i es of applying those products occasionally have been changed. These StCTP modifica t i ons continue to provide the same high level of protection for aquatic life in the River while increasing the flexibility of plant eqUipment treatment options. Most WBN submitted a B/CTP modification request to the state in December 2006. TVA sought approva l (1) to replace the dispersant PCL-401 with 73200, (2) for use of ox i dizing biocides, and (3) to chlorinate using sodium hypochlorite. In addition , TVA requested to add th e non-oxidizing biocide H150M to the B/CTP list. This request was approved by the state on April 30 , 2007. The history of the use of for treatment during the same time period is shown in Table 3-8 and Table 3-9. Table 3-8. Hi sto ry of Betz Chemical Treatment of Raw Water at WBN r 1996-pr esen t Chemicals ,':.: : i '. <; Clamtrol CT1300* 1996 1998 '6,.RCW/RCW Spectrus NX 1 104';' i 998 Present ERCWfRC'v"J CopperTro l CU-1 1996 1998 Biotrol 88P 1996 1998 ERCW/RCW *Vendor global chemical name change from Clamtrol CT1300 to Spectrus NX 1 1b4 in 1998 **E RCW = Essential Raw Cooling Water; RCW = Raw Cooling Water T ab l e 3-9. Hi sto ry of Nalco Chemica l Tr eatment of Raw W ate r at WBN 1 996-P r esent 1 I H-90 1G 1 996 Pre se nt E'RCW 3 tRCW C oppertro l .1 996 1 999 FfRCW/RC W PCL-1 0Z 1 996 2002 F;.RCW/RCW PCL-60K 1 996 2002 ERCW/RCW PCL-401 1 996 20 06 T ow e rbrom 960 1 999 Pr esen t qo oling T owe r H-1 30M2 2002 2002 $ RCW/RC W M SW-109 2003 Pr esen t fiRCW/RCW H-1 30 M 2004 2004 ERCW/RCW Coagul a nt Aid-35 2004 P r esent IERCW/RCW H1 50 M 2005 Pr esen t tr-RCW/RCW 1 Known as Calgon C o rpor a tion, 19 96-200 1, Ond e o-Nalco, 2 001-2003 , N a lco, 2 H-130M u s ed with no detoxification in 2002 3 ERCW = E ss enti a l Raw Co o ling W a t e r 4 RCW = Raw Cooling W ater Final Supplemental Env i ronmenta l Impact Statement 47 Compl etio n and Operation of W atts Bar Nu clea r Unit 2 Raw Water Chemhtal Treatment Summary for the W8N Unit 1 B/CTP The following sumniarizes chem i cal treatment programs currently in use or availab l e for future use at WBN W nit 1 and/or Unit 2 for corrosion, deposit, microbiological, and macrofouling contr 91 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 biocide treatments to control macro invertebrates and microbiologically induced corrosion (MIG). WBN currently uses products from Nalco, a major industrial treatment company. Raw Water corrosi ln and Deposit Treatment Mild Steel Corrosio 1 and Deposit Control. WBN uses a zinc/orthophosphate-based program for mild steel corrosion control of the ERCWand raw cooling water (RCW) systems. MSW-109 contains 12.6 percent zinc chloride and 36 percen t orthophosphate. A 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 I to exceed 0.2 parts per million (ppm) at effluent discharges Outfall 101 and Outfall 113. . WBN has the oPtio ri to feed a dispersant (73200) to the ERCWand RCW systems th a t controls deposits o f l calc i um phosphate , z in c, iron, manganese, and suspended solids. Dispersant 73200 contains 36 percent high stress polymer (H SP). The active H SP leve l will not exceed 0.2 ppm i at effluent discharges Outfall 101 and Outfall 113. Copper Corrosion Control. WBN has th e option to feed tolytriazole (Nalco 1336) o n a continuous basis to I smail portions of the ERCW and RCW systems f or copper corrosion control. Nalco contains 42.8 percent tolytriazo!e. Tolytriazo!e !evel will not exceed 0.25 ppm at effluent discharges Outfall 101 and O utfall 113. Raw Water MicrObi l lOgiCal/MacrofOUling Treatment Microbiol ogical con i trol. Microbiological and macrofouling refers to the undesirable accumulat i on of microorganisms, plants, algae , and aquatic animals on submerged st ru ctures and systems. WBN curren tly injects on a continuous basis the oxidizing biocide BCDMH (H-1 901 G) for microbiologic a l and macrofouling contro l in the ERCW a nd RCW systems. oxidation is necessary to ensure plant safety as TVA h as r ecently observed yrar-ro und veliger (mu sse l l arvae) infestations. H-90 1G puts 57 percent of its acti ve h a log e'l ingr ed i e nt into solut i o n as bro min e and chlorine. C hl orine , o r Total R es idu a l Oxid a nt (1RO) i s monitor ed five (5) days p er w eek a t Outf a ll 1 01 and Outf a ll 1 1 3 in accordance with ermit r e quir e m ents to ens u re disc h ar ge lim i ts of 0.10 ppm or 0.1 58 m g l/ d aily m aximu (r e s pecti v e ly) am m e t. As a n a l te rn a tiv e to H-901G, W BN h as the option to f ee d li q uid bl ea ch in th e form of sodium hypo ch l o ri te. U q ui bl e a c h, c o nt a in ing 10.2 p e rc e nt a v a il able chlorin e , c a n a l so b e f e d o n a c on tin uo u s b as i s. Monitoring for c hl o rin e l e v e l s in th e effl u e nt would r e m a in th e s a me a s for H-901G. An opti on t o f eed a iod e t e rg e nt (7 35 51) to incr eas e the e ff i c a cy of eith e r H-901 G or liquid bleach with control has been retained by WBN. The 73551 biodetergent consists of a 20 blend of non-ionic surfactants and is fed for 30 minutes one to three times per to the ERCW and RCW systems. The active s urf actant l e v e l will not exceed 2.0 ppm to re effluent discharges Outfall 1 01 and Outfall 113. 48 I Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apte r 3 W BN de-chlorinates as r eq uir ed using sodiu m bisulfite (Nalco 7408) to the c urr en t discha r ge 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 a 1 d Outfall 113. Macrofouling Control. When rive r temperatures are greater than or equal to 60°F, WBN terminates oxidizing biocides treatment and performs a periodic (minimum of 4 times per train I per year) 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 and zebra mussel populations in the raw water system , the presence of which can sign i ficarhl y affect ERCW and RCW system performance. H150M is a quaternary amine (quat) whi 1 ch consists of 25 percent dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride and 25 percent dimethyl ethyl benzy l ammonium chloride. H150M is used to treat the A and B trains of ERC VVj 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 (pipih g which j oins 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 th e Unit 1 cooling tower basin prior to effluent discharge to the river via NPDES outfalls Outfall 101 or Outfall 1 13. Coagulant Aid-35 is fed at a ratio of 5 parts to 1 part H150M during l eaCh mollusk treatment. Totai clay ievel is not to eXCeed 10 ppm at effluent discharges Outta!! 101 and Outfa ll 113. The effectiveness of detoxification is confirmed w ith twice dJily sampling for t he ac ti ve ing r edient in the discharge during the treatment period. Cooling Tower Treatments WBN currently adds Towerbrom 960 to the cooling tower basin on a peri (])di c basis for mi crobiologica l contro l for CCW. Towerbrom 960 is an oxidizing biocide'l conta i nin g 57 p erce nt available halogen , and generates bromine and c hlorin e so luti ons wh e n dissolved in w ate r. WBN" also h as the opt ion to f eed liq uid bleach in plac e of Tow er bli l om 960. This t r eatment is performed with th e diffusers a nd the SCC W s y s t em i so lat e d (closed). To e n s u re t he c u rrent d i scharge limit of 0.1 ppm TRO is no t exceeded at discharg es O utf a ll 1 0 1 o r 0.1 58 m g ll da i ly m ax i m um at Ou tfa ll 11 3, the ch e mica ll y treat ed w a t e r is n o t r e l ease d to the r iv e r un til the di s cha r ge co n centratio n o f ch l orine i s t he NPDES . p e rm it li m it. To e nh a n c e the effectiveness o f this program, W BN h as th e optio n to f ee d B i o d e t e r ge nt 73 551 w it h Tow e r b r o m 96 0. W BN d e-chlorin a t es as n ee d e d using s odiun: 7 4 0 8) to e n s ur e th e curr e nt limit 0: 0.1 ppm is not e x ceeae a a t efflu e nt discharg e s Ou tfa ll 101 or 0.1 5 8 mg!1 da:ly maximum a t Outfa ll 113. N a lco 7408 is ratio-f e d at a r a t e of 4 ppm product for e v e ry 1.0 ppm of c l orine. Additional Chemicals Used in WBN Proces s es In addition to t he r aw water additives for biocide and corro s ion tieatm e nt chemic a ls di sc u ssed abo v e , other chemical additives are u sed in plant processes. h ese chemicals may be found in trace qu a ntiti es at the v a rious NPDES discharge points Outfall 1 01, Outf a ll 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 Compl e tion and Operation o f W a tts Bar Nucl ea r Plant Unit 2 Outfall 11 3 does n0 1 r eceive these d i sc h a r ges. The s umm ary of potentia l chemica l s discharged by NPDES outfa ll number is shown in Table 3*1 0. Table 3-10. Chemical Discharge to NPDES Outfalls atWBN .-. 'Outfall ' ' 'f"': ' '-' ',-.. ' ;." .. ;'.' ' ' , " , NlImb'er . , ', Qujlfall."D es crlption' ,', --,I' '-' '" C',", ':' ,-Ammonium Hydroxide , Ammonium Chloride, Alpha Cellulose, Boric Acid , Sodium Tetraborate , Bromine, Chlorine, Copolymer Dispersant , :'-', Ethylene Glycol , Hydrazine , Laboratory Chemical 101 Diffuser Discharge Wastes , Lithium, Molybdate, Monoethanolamine, Mol/usc i cide H150M , O il and Grease , Phosphates, p h osphate Cleaning Agen t s , Paint Compounds , Sodium Hydroxide, Surfactan t -Dimethylamide and Alcohol, Tolyltriazole, Zi nc Sulfate, Zinc Acetate Dihydrate, LCS-60 1 02 YHP Overflow We ir Alternate discharge path for Outfa ll 101 Ammonium Hydroxide , Ammonium Chloride , Boric Acid, Sodium Tetrabora t e, Bromine, Chlorine, Copo lym e r Dispersant, E thylene Glyco l, Hydrazine, Laboratory Chemica l Wa stes , 1 03 LVWTP Molybdate, Monoethanolamine, Mol/uscicide H150M, O il and Grease , Phosphates, Phosphate Cleaning Agen t s, P ain t Co mp ounds, Sodium Hyd r oxide, Surfactant -Dimethy l am id e and Alcohol, Tolyltriazole, Z in c Su lf ate Metals* Iron and Copper, Acids and Ca u st i cs, Ammonium Hydroxide, Ammonium C hl o rid e, Boric Acid , Sodi um Tetraborate, Brom i ne , Chlo ri ne, Copo lym e r Dispersant, H yd r azine , 1 07 LP and ULP Laboratory Chemica l Wastes, M olybdate, Monoethanolamine, M o llu sc icid e H1 50 M, Oil a nd G r ease , Phosphates , Phosphate Cleaning Agents, Sodium , So dium Hydroxide , Surfacta nt -Dim e thylamide and Alcohol, Tolyltriazole, Zinc Sulfate 1 1 1 Se N age Treatment Chlorine, Organic M atte r , Labor a tory Chemical Plant Wast es , P ain t Compounds R J Off Ho!d i ng Pond Ch l orine , Org a nic Matter , Pain t Compounds , 112 Pot a ble W ate r (Coofing Tow e r at T raining I C ente r), Hig h P re ss ure Fi r e P r otect i o n flu s h es , Superior SWS 4550 Prim a ry Syste m c hl mica l Additions Th e Prim a ry S y s t e m s a r e g e n e r a lly loc a t e d in th e r a diolo g ic a lly controll e d ar e as of the pl a nt and support the Re cto r Coofing System (RCS). These systems include the Component Cooling Water Syst m eCCS) and the Ice Condenser. RCS Corrosion a n pH Control. At plant s t artup lithium hydro xide is added to the ReS via components in the uxiliary Building to establish the initial pH and corrosion control. After 50 Final Supplemental Environmental Imp act Statemen t Ch a pt e i 3 th e reactor becomes critical, lithium is a byproduct o f a neutron-boron re l 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 t 1 adiation exposure to maintenance personnel and ensure water clarity. Hydrazine is added stOich i ometrically prior to heat-up from a refueling outage to scavenge oxygen and minimize system corrosion. The ReS is a closed system, therefore any l eakage or letdow 1 1 n from the ReS system would be processed through the liquid radiological waste system. RCS Corrosion Control and Radioactive Dose Reduction. WBN receive J 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 p l ant dose rates and reduce primary water stress corrosion crack in g in plant materials. Zinc would also reduce the corrosion rate and release of corrosion products to the 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 until a zinc r esidual was observed in RCS samples. As the residual built in and the crud layer abso rpti on of zinc slowed, WBN lowered the feed r ate to maintain 5 ppb 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 <; .. ,:., Zinc Acetate 2006 Present I RCS 1 Dihydrate I Superio r SWS 4550 2006 1 RC S = Reactor Coolan t System Presen t T r aining Center Goo lin g Tower Component Cooling Wat e r Corro s ion and pH control. Sodium molybd a te , t olyltri azo l e , sodium hydroxid e are a dded to this system in the Auxili a ry B uildin g to c3ntro' pH a nd corro s ion. L ea k age from this s y s t e m would b e proc esse d thr ough th e ra;dw as t e syste m whil e compl ete syst e m dr a ining i s rout e d to the Tur b ine B uiiding Stat ion I sump (T BSS). Th e T BSS is norm a lly rout e d to the di s cha r ge to t he Low V olume W as te Tr ea tm e nt Pond (L VWTP), but can b e rout e d to the Li ned Pond (LP), the Unlin e d Pond (lIJ LP), o r th e Y HP. I ce Conde n se r. Sodium t e tr a bor a te is used i n the I ce Cond e nser fo r emj3rgency bor a t i o n. The Ice Cond enser i s lo cated in th e Reactor Buildi ng a nd the components to mix a nd i n i ti a lly fr eeze th e t e tr a borate solution are l oc ate d in the Addition a l B uilding. I ce m e l t bypas ses the r ad w as te demin e ralizer beds , i s routed to a r adwaste discharge t an k, and is di sc h a r ge d thr o u g h th e r a dw aste sy s t e m. Ethyl e ne glycol i s u se d in th e ice condenser chiller pack a ges. Leakage with concentrations less than10 p rcent is discharged to the ULP for degradation, while greater than or equa l to 10 percent i s collected in drums and shipped to a vendor to be recycled. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 51 C omplet i o n an d Op e r a ii o n of W a tt s Bar Nucl ea r Plant Unit 2 Secondary System Chemica l Additions The main Seconda ry Systems are the Condensate System, the Main Feedwater System and the Main Steam l 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 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 l ETA 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 preven t ion of stress corrosion cracking in the steam generators. The reduc t ion of stress corrosion d rack i ng assists in the maintenance of steam generator i ntegrity thereby realizing their lifespan. Up to 300 pounds of modified alpha cellulose may be added t o the condenser intake channel to temporarily plug pinhole tube leaks in the condenser. I Other Plant Systems Chemicals are a l so added to othe r plant syste ms a nd include Chilled Water Systems , Turbine Building Heating System, Auxiliary Boilers, and Diesel Jacket Cooling Systems.

  • Hydrazine ammonia are added to the Chilled Water Systems, Turbine Building Heating System, and Auxi l ia r y Boi l ers for pH and corrosion control:
  • LCS-60 is added to the diesel jacket cooling water for corrosion control and consists I of sodium nitrite, sodium tetraborate and tolytriazole.

These chemicals incidental discharges that are are controlled via BMPs. D i scharges occu r via l eakage 0)1 maintenance activities and are discharged to the LP , ULP, LVWTP, or YHP. . Superio r SWS 45 5 q i s added t o th e Training Cent e r Cooling Tow e r Water System t o n e utr al i ze the c h e m I ca l depos it s in the Tr a ini ng Cente r Cooling T ower and inh ibit corrosio n. Any blow down d i s crrge i s rout e d to th e Runoff Holding Pond (RH P) a nd Ou tfa ll 112. Environment a l Cop seque nc es of Ch e mical Additions to Raw Water U nd e r the preferred l alte rn at ive , TVA would compl e te the con s truction ofWBN Unit 2 and th e pl a nt would operate at it s fu ll cap aci ty as ori gina lly designed. Prior to construction activity , WBN would dev e lop a n eros ion and sedimentation contro l plan as part of a n application for a Ge r eral NPDES Permit for Storm W ate r Discharg es Associ ate d with Con s truction Activity although it i s expected that most of the construction work wou ld occu r in s ide constructed Duildings, and a ll of the work is expected to occur within th e ex isting plant site footprint. !op e r atio n of Unit 2 along with Unit 1 would r es ult in an incr ease of raw w ater i n t ake u sage the iPS b y a n estimated 33 percent compared to sole operation of Unit 1, wi t h a i nc r ease o f ER CW a nd R CW r aw w ate r c h e mi ca l a d d itiv es by an e s tim a t e d 33 p e c e nt. Thi s incr eas e is within original de s ign ba s is for op e ration of Units 1 and 2. Since an ddition a l e xisting cooling tower would be plac e d in service, Towerbrom 960 treatment for CfW treatment would increase by an estimated 100 percent. 52 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apte r 3 Th e current NPDES permit contains pro vi sions requiring authorization of the B/CT P 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 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 treatment period. The state retains the authority to require WBN to conduct additional moni l torin g 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 sign i ficant as compliance with appl i cable regulatory safeguards and internal assessments would ensure that resulting effects to water quality are insignificant.

3.1.3. Groundwater

The 1 995 FSER updated the groundwater information in the 1972 FES, and the descriptive information about groundwater systems in the vicinity of WBN provided that update is still accurate. In August 2002 , tritium was detected in one of the on-site environmental monitoring l ocations at levels that were just at the detectable level. At that time, TVA notified the NRC and State of Tennessee environmental and radiological l 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 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 eports to NRC and the state of Tennessee. Samp l es t aken 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 I an underground r adioactive effluent piping and leakage from a bellows for the Unit 2 fuel transfer tube. In or der to s t op th e tritium ingress int o the groundwate r, the radioactive piping was r ep la ced with a n ew 4-inch pipe. In addition, the Unit 2 fuel transfer tube l was sealed , and th e fu e l tr a n sfe r canal was coated. Th ese activities were completed by N ovembe r 2005. Re s ult s from two of the n e w individual sample loc a tion s , t aken in 2005 a nd June 2005 , wer e greater th a n the NRC 30-da y r e porting l eve l of 30 , 000 picocJries per tit er (p Ci/L). Furth e r in spections r e veal e d no l eakage in und erg round radio ac tive effl u e nt piping. TVA's inv estigat i o n d e t e rmin ed that th e so urc e of the in creased tritium w as a r esu lt of th e pr e viou s effl u e nt pipin g l ea k, which h a d be en r epa ir e d. The hi g h es t a mount of tritium detect ed w as approximat e ly 550 ,000 pCi!L. I Some r es i dua l tritium will remain in the grou n dwate r until th e tritium eithe r decays o r is dilut e d. Eventually , thi s gro undw a t e r will migrate into th e riv e r wh ere d eg r ade d tri tium l e v e l s will be e v en further r educed and therefore p ose no public hf a lth h aza rd. TVA continu es to monitor w ells monthly to v erify past r epairs and d ete ct any sources of contaminated groundwater. Routine r eports are made to t he NRC an d tre st a te. Complet ion of WBN Unit 2 would not impact groundwater resources in vicinity ofWBN. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 53 Compl etio n and Op e rrtion of W atts B a r Nu c l ea r Pl an t Unit 2 3.2. Aqu atic Ecology The characte r istics 1 of 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 TV 1 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 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 a n d 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. Pl ankto n Recent studies indi cate that the majority of planktonic organisms (including fish eggs , larva l fi sh, microinvertebrates , algae, etc.) in the vicinity of WBN origi n ate in the Watts Ba r Reservoir and pass through th e turbines a t Watts Bar Dam. Plankton density varies g r ea tly fr om day to day. Sampling surveys (1973-1985) indicate that plankton populations decreased rapidly distance from Watts Bar Dam increased due to the swift-flow i n g , riveri n e nature of thk upper portions of Ch i ckamauga Reservoir. As water ente r s th e r eservoir pool of Chickamauga Reservo ir (25-30 miles downs tr eam ofWBN), velocit i es decrease and plan W ton densities gradually in c r ease to !evels co mp arable t o those i n the Watts Bar Dam f orebay (TVA 1986). Th o ug h there are n l data on phytoplankton densities in the v i cin ity of the WBN si te, comparisons betwe 1 en preoperational (1976-1985) and operat ion al (1996-1997) de n si ti es o f fi sh eggs and l arva! fish show sim il ar patte rn s (Appendix C, Table C-1) (TVA 1998d). An ent r a i nment st udy conducted during the spri n g and summer of 1975 est im ated the average l oss of fish larvae in th e vicinity o f WBF as a result of water divers i on to the plant w as 0.24 percent of the tot al p opulation (TVA 1976b). In th e TV A FEA for SSCW , TVA eva lu ated one-unit operation and co n c lud ed th at the pr o po sed project w ou ld r es ult in lo ss of fi sh eggs and larvae throu g h entrai nment at approximately the 9 ame rate as previously st udied in 1 976 (TVA 1 998a). Si milar results w e r e r eporte d in th e 200 1 fi s h monitoring pr og r a m for the SCCW and i t w as concluded that no sign i fican t imp a at to ichthy o pl an kt o n popul at i o n s from WBN SCC W ope r atio n would o cc ur (Baxte r e t a I.1 2001). Th ese e ntra in m e nt r ates in di cate the operation o f both W B N Unit 1 and Unit 2 would have li tt l e o r no effec t on l a rv a l fi s h and egg popul at ion s in Chi c k a maug a because the WBN con de n se r cooling w ater syste m (C CW) i s comm e n surate a clo se d cycle cooling s yst e m. Inv as ive and Aquatic Plants Aquatic plants pi esr nt in Chick a m a uga Reservo ir includ e the inv asive species Eurasian w ate r milfoil spicatum), spinyleat n aia d (N a j as minor), an d the n ative southern nai ad (N a j as gu a d a/u pensis) (TVA 1 994a). Excessi v e aquat ic pl a nt coverage can c ause r ese rvoir-u se conflict s in areas around i ndustria l w ate r int a k es , public access and r ecreation sites , ant! l a ke s hore developments. The se effects have not been seen in the vicinity of WBN bedause the WBN site is loc ated in the riverine tailwater area of the reservoir 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 Ch apter 3 coverag e i n Chickamauga Reservoir occurs in s h a ll ow , overbank l akelike h ab it a t far downstream of WBN. Combined operation of WBN Units 1 and 2 would not have effects on the occu r rence of in vasive 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 canadense), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomiew), white bass (Morone chrysops) and possibly yellow perch (Perea flavescens). However, the evaluat i on of information l in 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 spaw nin g activity for these species (NRC 1995a). TVA began a program to sys t ematically monitor the ecolog i cal condit i ons of its reservoirs in 1 990 , though no samples were taken on the Watts Bar or Chickamauga Reservoirs unti l 1 993. Previously, r eservoir s tudi es h ad been con fin ed to assessments to meet specific n eeds as t hey arose. Reservoi r (and stream) monitoring programs were combined with TVA's fish t issue and bacteriological studies to fo rm an integrated Vital S i gns Monitoring Program. Part of the monitoring consisted o f 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 vicini ty o f the WBN site has r ema in ed relatively constant with an average rating of "good" (see Append i x C , Tables C-2 and C-3). I Anot h e r aspect of the Vita l Signs Monitoring Program is the benthic index, which assesses th e quality of benthic commun i ties in the reservoirs (in cluding upstream i h fiow areas such as that around WBN). The tailwaters of Watts Bar Dam support a of benthic organisms including several large mussel beds. One of these beds has been documented a l ong th e ri ght-descend i ng shoreline i mmediately downstream from t he mouth of Yellow C r ee k. To prot ec t th ese beds, the state h as established a mussel extending 10 mil es from TRM 520 to TRM 529.9. Since the in stitut i on o f th e Vital Signs M onitoring Program, th e quality of the benthic community in the vicinity of the WBN site has remained relativ e ly constant. The riv er in e tailwater r each downstream of Watts B9 r Dam an d WBN r ated " good" in 2001 a nd th e r a ting h as incr eased to " exce ll e nt" in 2003-2 005 (App e ndix C , Tabl es C-4 and C-5). I Un de r the propo se d actio n, no constructio n act ivi ties w ou ld occur within pOO f ee t of the r ese rvoir, an d a ll construction activit i es would be subj ec t to approp ri ate BMPs to ensure th a t th e re are no impacts to surf ace w ate r qu a lity. NPD ES discharge as outlin e d in the 1995 NRC FES and in this document would not be r evised. No discharges exceeding curr e nt NPDES limits would occur during op e r ati on of WBN Unit s 1 and 2. Th e amount of cooling w ater r e quired for op e ration of both WBN Unit 1 and WBN Unit 2 1 would r es ult in incr eases in cooling w a t e r int a ke a nd discharge volum es , but th e rmal di s charg e rat e s ,/,{ould rem a in below m axi mum allow ed lev e l s outlin e d in the 1978 NRC FES (ske section 3.1). Becau se ail construction work would be conduct ed u sing appropriate m1ps , and no additiona l discharge-related i mpacts would occur, there would be no effjc t on aquatic a nim a l s or th e ir h a bit a t s in th e vicinity of W B N. Because in ta ke f l o w s w"(uld not b e in crease d a bove l e v e l s outlin e d in th e 1 978 N R C F ES , fi s h e n t r a inm e nt r a t e s would not exc ee d maximum levels previou s ly evaluat e d in that FES for op e ration df both WBN Units 1 and2. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 55 Com ple ti on a nd Op e ration of W at t s Bar Nucl ea r Plant Un i t 2 In vasive and Exotic Aquatic Animals At the time the 1972 1 FES 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-wate r piping systems, and attach l 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 t he 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. 3.3.1. Ecology Plants The terrestria l plant I communities 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 l terrestrial 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 l isted as oak-hickory forest, oak-gum fores t, yellow pine-hardwood forest, Viiginia pine fOiest, sumac shrJb community, early old-field community , community, fescue meadow commun i ty, and a marsh community (TVA 19;76a). Of the 967 acres acres identified for building WBN, 210 wooded acres were t o remai 1 n u ndisturbed (approximately 80 pe r cent of the existing woodlands). More than 70 percent of the plant area was already dis t urbed in the form of cultiva t ed or old fields. Th e t errestria l plant 1 commun iti es of the WBN site have changed very little over the past 34 y ears. T h e m ajo rity ofthe project area (ov er 70 percent) is composed of herbaceous v egetation typ es fo und in old fi elds , gravel parking areas , r oadside rights-of-w ay a nd v ar iou s other di s turbed s i tes. Approxim ate ly 30 p e rc e n t of the s it e is s till fo r este d with th e following for es t e d v egetatio n cla sses: d e ciduo u s for es t and everg r ee n-d e c iduou s f orest. Th e d e ciduo u s for est c an b e char ac t erize d as two sepa r ate community typ es , oak-hi cko ry for est and bottoml a hd hardwood for es t. Inv as ive spec i es in c lu d ing J apa n ese s tilt grass, J apanese hon e y s u(];kle, multiflora ro se , and Ru ssia n olive occur on W BN R ese rv at ion. Some distu r bance J f ex i sting plant communities may occur If con s tructio n of W B N Unit 2 r ecomm e nc es alth du gh m ost construction activiti e s are expected to occur in a lr ea dy con s tru cted or within th e pr e viou s ly di st urb e d plant f ootpr int. Because no unc ommon terrestri a l communi ties o r oth erw i se unu sual v egetat ion occurs on the l a nd s to b e di sturbed under I t he propos e d actio n, imp acts to the t e rr est ri a l eco l ogy of the r egio n are exp ec t ed to b e in s i@nificant as a re s ult of th e propo se d actions. No n e w infe s t at ions of exotic invasive Pla1t species are expected as a resu It of the Action Alternative. 56 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch ap te r 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 cormoran t s, 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 amoun t 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 o r uncommon habitats exist at the site. 3.4. Threatened and Endangered Species As discussed i n 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. Aqu atic Animals Four mussel species federally listed as endangered, dromedary pearlymussel, pink mucket, r ough pigtoe, and fanshell, are known to occur in mussel beds in the vicinity of WBN (Appendi x 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 (A ppendix C , T ab le C-7) (TVA 1 998 b). Figure 3-4 shows th e l ocatio n of the mu sse l sanctuary r elat iv e to W B N. Th e snail darter, f ede r a lly li s t e d as threat e n ed , is a l s o known to occur occ as ion a lly in thi s r eac h of the T e nn essee R iv e r. Th e m a jorit y of the snail d a rt e r popul at ion in the area i s con fi ned to Sewee Cr ee k , a tribut a ry to the T e nn essee Riv e r, which en t e r s th e riv e r a t TRM 524.6. Th e larv ae OT snail dart e r s are pelagic and c a n drift substantia! distances (mil es) d!.lf!ng early lif e stag e s. Spawning of snai l darters h a s not b ee n docum ented in the m a in s t em of th e T e nn essee Riv e r downstre a m of W a tts Bar D a m, a nd no snail darter l a rvae hav e b ee n collected during entra inm e nt sampling. Two mu ssel spec i es con s id e red sensit ive by the State of Tenn essee; pyramid p i gtoe and Tenn essee clubshell, and one state-li sted threatened fish species; blue s uck er , are also known from this reach ofthe Tennessee River (Appendix C, Table C-6). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 57 Completion and Op era tion of Watts Bar Nu c l ea r Plan t Unit 2 .. ilia TVA Watts, Bd{ NUiC/llta r-Pl a rn. Prop srt 1 o State Musse l S3nclkta l)/ I'll. A Figure 3-4. Loc a tion of Mussel Sanctuary in Chickamauga Reservoir Below Watts Bar Dam 58 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apter 3 U nder the pro p osed action, work would be conducted on WBN Unit 2 in order to bring it to fu ll operational capacity. No construction activities would occur within 500 feet of the re servoi r, and all constructio n 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 of minimum 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 unless it has already been diverted to the condensate system. When the minimum riverflow of 3500 cfs i s available, t h e YHP d i scharges through outfall 101. The Y H P has a n 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 , b nd no additional discharge-related impacts would occur, there would be no effect on state-listed o r 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 wou l d not exceed maximum l evels previous l y evaluated in t hat FES for operation of both WBN U nits 1 and 2. Beca u se sna il darter l arvae h ave n o t bee n e n countered in e n trainment sampling a t WBN , th e r e i s n o pote n t i al fo r snai l darter l arvae t o be e n tra i ned at t he COO li ng wate r i ntake fo r WB N ev e n und er the incr ease d withdrawal rat e s r e quir e d to s upport op e r a tion of both W B N Uni ts 1 and 2. 3.4.2. Plants Historically. one pl a nt species, spider lily, Hym e nocaflis occid e ntalis (now H. carolinensis), was i dentified as b ei ng 9 proposed rare and endangered pecies by the U SFWS in the original FES crv A 1972). This d e signatio n was mad e prior to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the speci es w a s not li s t e d a s thr ea t e ned or end a ng e red und e r thi s act nor is it given any specia l status within the st a te of T ennessee. In addition , fi e ld surveys in 1 994 fail e d to find any popul at ions of spider lilies in the vicinity of WBN (TVA 1 995a; 1995b). The FEA for the WBN Unit 1 Replacem e nt of Steam Generators documents six Tennessee state-list e d 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 C ompletio n a nd Operation of W atts Bar Nuc lea r Pl an t Unit 2 The six Tennessee state-listed plant spe cies known from within 5 miles of WBN a re shown in Table 3-12. The r e are no known federally listed as threatened or endangered plant species within Rhea County, I Tennessee. 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 , ..*.*.***. ; .'. 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 = cr iti cally 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-li sted 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 rev i ews ind icated that federally li sted as threatened o r endangered gray bats (Myotis gr;sescens) and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocepha/us) were reported within 5 miles o f the project. Small numbers (less than 500) of gray bats continue to roost in a cave approximately

3.3 miles

from the project. Bald eag l es nest on Chickamauga and Watts Bar Reservoirs approximately 1.8 ahd 4.7 miles, respectively, from the project site. Gray bats and bald eagles f o r age over th e Tenne ssee River in the vicinity. S evera l h ero n colo n ies have been r eported from the v ic in ity since the l ate 1 980s. M an y of th ese coloni es w e re destroyed during r ece nt pine b ee t l e inf es t at ion s. Th e clo ses t active colony i s l ocated 4 mil es north of W B N. H ellbenders (Cryptobr anchus a ll eganiens i s), l ist e d as in n eed of m a n age m e nt by the State of T e nn essee, h a v e been r e ported from the up per r eac h es of Sewee Cr ee k, app r oximate ly 2,5 mil es from th e proje r t site. The s p ec i es m a y continu e to inh abi t st r eams in th e vicinity. Compl e tio n of WBN I Unit 2 i s not expected to r es ult in imp acts to a ny f ede r a lly li s t e d or stat6-li s t e d as threatened or e nd angere d species of t e rre s tri a l anima l s or th e ir h a bit ats. No su it ab le h abit a t for gray bats or ba l d eagles exists on or ad j ace nt t o th e project s ite. Construction and op e r atio n of WBN Unit 2 woul d not re su lt in impacts to bald eagl e s and gray b ats in the r eg ion. 60 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apte r 3 3.5. Wetland s Wet l and communities were assessed during the initia l environmental review for th e 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 s ur vey 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 a l der, sycamore , and black wi llo w. The remainder of the site is composed of upland plant communities, gravel p a r king areas , a nd developed areas. Since there are no plans to disturb the above-mentioned forested wetland, no impacts to wetlands wou l d occur as the result of construction activities related to the comp l etion of WBN Unit 2. I f project plans are modified and impacts to thi s wetland are unavoidable, mitigation may be r eq uired as a condition of state and/or federal wetland protection regulations (Section 404 , Clean Wa t er 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 we t lands in the projec t area would be insignificant due to the small size and limited ecolog i ca l function of the wetland. 3.S. Natural Areas Changes (s i nce the 1 978 NRC FES; NRC 1995b; and TVA 1998a) in natural areas and the environmenta l impact on natural areas w ith i n 3 miles of WBN a r e assessed below for the pur pose of updating previous documentation to current conditions. Thr ee of five n atu r a l a r eas currently listed in the Natu r a l H e rit age database and within 3 mil es of W B N were r e vi ewe d in pr e viou s docum e nt s. Th ese a r eas a r e Yell o w Creek unit of the Chick a m a uga State Wil dlife M anagemen t Ar ea (WM A), th e Ch i ckamauga Re se rvoir S tat e Mu sse l Sanctuary, and the Chickamauga S hor e line TVA H ab it a t P rot ect ion Ar ea (H P A). TVA 1 9 98a found no dir e ct or indir e ct effects to Yellow Cre e k WMA or th e TVA HPA. NRC 199 5 b, whi ch r e vi e wed th e 1978 NRC FES, not e d no s i gn ifi ca nt ch a n ges in, and th e r efo re no signific a nt impacts to , the aq u atic environment in the vicinity of WBN. Additionaliy , no imp acts to the mu sse l sanctuary (a n area d es i gnate d by the State of T e nn essee to be a biological pr ese rve for mus se l species) are anticipated from the propo se d action (St e phanie Chance, TVA, p ers onal communic at ion, Nov embe r ;4 , 2006). No significa nt changes in a r ea Oi m anagement obj e ctives of the WMA and TVA HPA h a ve occurr ed since they were l as t revi e wed, and th e refore , no direct or indirect imp acts to th ese areas are anticipat e d from the propo se d actio n. Two additiona l natural a r eas within 3 mil es of WBN includ e Meigs County Park, a 240-ac re public recreation area approximately

1.5 miles

north of the s ite, and Yuchi Wildlife Refuge at Smith Be nd, a 2600-acre haven for migratory wat e rfowl and shorebirds. This r e fuge, managed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, is approximately

2.2 miles

south of the site. The Final Supplementa l Environmental Impact Statement 61

Compl e tio n an d Op e r at ion of W a tts B a r Nu c l ear Pl a nt Unit 2 distance f rom the site t o these two a r eas is s uffici e nt s u ch that no dir ec t or ind i r ec t im pacts a r e antic i pated. 3.7. Cultura l Resources As part of the extensive history of environmental review of constructing and operating WBN , TVA has cons i dered the potential impact on historic and archaeological resources associated with eac h undertaking. It was determined during the initial environmental review that two archaeolog i ca l s i tes (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 construc t ion. Two graves were removed in 1974 and placed in Ewing Cemetery. Subsequent e n vironmental reviews conducted resulted in a "no-effect finding" for archaeological resources. In the 1998 review of the WBN SCCW projec t (TVA 1998a), TVA determined that WBF was e li g i ble for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). However, it was dete r mined th a t this property would not be adversely affected. Four archaeo lo gical sites are l oca t ed 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 si t es was excavated , the sites remain elig i ble 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 r econnaissance 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 fu t ure 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 r esu lt in some additional ground-disturbing activities but largely would be restricted to the ex i sting disturbed portion of the p l ant property. A field visit conducted confirmed the prior disturbance in th ese a r eas. Project plans submitted include a larger footprin t surrounding the pl ant th a t h as be e n id entified as th e area." A portion of thi s footp ri nt east of the co o ling tow e rs (the a v oida n ce a r ea s hown on Figure 3-5) in cl ud es parts of a rcha eo l og ic a l s it e 40RH6 a nd it i s unkn ow n if thi s site cont a ins signific a nt a rch ae ological d e pO Sits. Although this s it e i s within the a r ea id e ntifi e d as pot e nti a lly to b e distu rb e d, curr e nt plans act u a lly would not di s turb it. If those pl a ns c h ange and this a r e a would be di s turbe d, a n a rch aeo l ogica l s urv e y of the affected a r ea would be conducted to d e termine th e significance of the site and if determined to b e archaeo l ogically sig nific an t, approp ri ate measures would be taken to avoid adversely imp act ing id entified resources. This would include coordin a tion with the SHPO. 62 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apte r 3 --.... ... --._-"'-:..-.. Figure 3*5. Archaeological Avoidance Area Within the Area of Potential Effect Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 63 Compl e tion and Op e ration of W atts Ba r N uclear P l a nt Un i t 2 A s 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 th is 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 1 995, 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 1 0 miles and 1,066,580 within 50 miles. Based o n the 2000 Census of Population, the population for 2000 i s estimated t o be 16 , 392 within 10 miles and 1 , 064 , 513 within 50 miles, i ndicating that the area around the site has been growing f aster than projected. Based on these trends , the population in 2040 is projected to be about 29,300 within 10 miles a n d 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 sur r ounding 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 1 6.7 percent f rom 1990 t o 2000. Meigs County experienced a similar increase in growth rate, from 8.1 p ercent 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 b ot h sides , and t he area to the east toward Athens, T ennessee. In creases from 1990 to 20 00 in s urroundin g count ie s within the 50-mile range varied from 4.5 percent in Anderson County to 34.7 percen t in Cumberland County. Population esti m ates for 2005 sho w con ti nuin g growth in the area a n d specifically in Rhea an d M eigs Counti es , but at a somewhat s lower r ate th a n during the 19 90s. During con st ruction, popul a tion would incr ease due to th e infiux of w orke r s. At pea k con structio n employmen t, the total con s truction and d es ign employment could be as hi g h as 3000; howev e r, m a ny of th ese are e ngin ee rs, nonm a nu a l craft, and other work e r s who li kely would not r e loc ate to the site. TVA is conduc t ing a mOie detailed study of con s tiUction requir eme nt s , which w i ll provide a mor e precise estimate. For thi s analysis, a con se rv a tiv e estimate i s m ade by assuming th a t the p eak on-site w orkforce w ould be 2200. Ba se d on pr e vious expe ri e nce at the site , it is assumed th a t 40 p e rcent of these w o uld mov e into the area. Give n thi s assumption , the totaf numbe r of mov e rs would be 880. The r emaining 60 percent or m ore of the workers would either be loc a l r esidents or would commute from the surrounding area, including the Chattanooga and Knoxville areas. Impacts of this incr eas e in population should be similar to those described in th e earlier documents referenced above. 64 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch a pt er 3 Based on experience during construction at Unit 1 from 1982 to 1986, abou t two-th i rds o f 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 coun t ies w i thin 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 manufactur i ng generally had Significant increases throughout the area, as in the state and in the nation. The 1995 NRC FES noted that r eal 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 l ower than the state and national averages of 46.3 and 49.4 percent, respect i vely. Much of the income received by t hese workers on the WBN Unit 2 project would be spent in t he area , especially by those who move families into the area and those who are already r esidents. This would increase income of businesses i n the area, especially those oriented dir ect ly t o c onsumers , and cou l d l ead to a small tempora r y i ncrease in emp l o y me nt. Afte r con s tr uc tion i s com p l ete d , th ere woul d s till b e so m e i nc r ease in in co me a nd e mpl o ym e n t in th e ar e a from op e r a t i on of Unit 2 , altho u g h th e s i ze of th e in cr ease would be mu c h s m a ll e r. 3.8.3. L ow-Income and Minority Popul a tions In Rhea a nd M e ig s Counties in 2000 , the minority population w a s 5.4 and 2.7 p e rc e nt , r espective l y , of th e tot a l popu l a tion. Within 10 mil e s of the s it e , th e a v e r age w as 3.5 p e rc e nt and wit h in 50 mil e s , 1 1.5 p e rc e nt. Min o rity popul a tion in the area of Rh ea County i mm ediate ly a roun d the s it e in 2000 w a s 2.7 p e rc e nt of t o t a l popu l a tion (C e nsus Tract 975 1, Block G r oup 2) a nd was 4.5 p e rc e nt in the area of M e igs County imm ed i a t e ly across th e Te nn essee River (Census T r act 960 1, Block GiOUp 2). I n both bloc k groups , the minority p o pul a ti on i s some wh a t g eog r ap hi ca lly di s t ri but e d, not hi g hly con ce ntr a t e d in one loc a tion. All of th ese a v e r a g e s are well below the state average of 20.8 percent and the national aver a ge of 30.9 percent. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 65 C o mpl e tion and Oper a tion of W a tt s Ba r Nu c l ea r P l a nt U nit 2 A ccording t o th e 2000 Census of Popu l a tion , the poverty l e v e l in Rhea County is 1 4.7 percent and in Meigs County, 18.3 percent. These rates are higher than both the statewide r ate 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 l evels of the estimates, little or no change seems to be indicated since the 2000 Census. Poverty levels wi t h i n the 1 O-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 Tr act 9751, Block Group 2) is 18.1. This was a decrease from 19.0 percent 10 years ear l ier, although the number of persons below the poverty level increased from 237 to 282. I n 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 ear li er a nd an increase in the number of persons below poverty from 184 to 333. With in the 10-mile area around the site, the poverty level decreased from 16.2 percent in 1989 to 1 5.1 percent i n 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 point s, b ut l ess th a n the s tat e wid e decrease of 2.2 percentage points. Thus, t he p overty levels in the area around the site have been declining , as have the rates statewide and nationally, whi l e t he number of persons in poverty has continued to increase in some of the a r eas around the site as it has statewide and nationally. Howeve r, the overall poverty level in the area is still above the state and national averages and also above the leve l for the 50-miie a r ea around the site. The low minority population share, along with the diffused nature of potentia l negative i mpacts, makes it unlikely that there would be disproportionate impacts to m i nority or income populations. However, such impacts are pOSSible, particularly impacts a ri sing from housing n eeds and increased traffic during the const r uction period. TVA wou l d work with l ocal r ep r esen t atives and officials to help reduce impacts from these sou r ces by providing m o r e d etailed i nformation about th e antiCipated workforce. A mitigating action cou ld be i d e ntific at ion of th e area as a n im pac t a r ea und e r the ex i st ing sta t e t a x code (s ee Sectio n 3.8.7). Thi s would allo w more of the t a x equ i v a l e nt paym e nts t h a t TVA annua ll y mak es to Tenn essee to b e allocat e d to th ese counti es. 3.8.4. Housing and Community S e rvices Both Rh ea a nd M e i gs Counti es h ave expe ri e nc e d not ab l e incr eases in th e numb e r of hou sing unit s in r ece nt y ea r s. Thi s increa s e from 19 9 0 to 2000 w as 2204 hou si ng units , 21.3 percent, in Rhea Coun ly and 1 499 un its , 40.6 percent in M e ig s County. Bot h cou nti es experienced a high e r r a te of incr ease than the state as a whole, which increas e d by 20.4 p ercent. Thi s growth may r es ul t in mor e difficulty in finding s it es for t e mpo r ary hou s ing , such as RVs and trail e rs. H ow e v e r, th e t e mpor a ry influx of work e rs during construction would be sp r ea d out a mong not only Rhea and Meigs Counti es, but n earb y counties also , espec i ally those withi n 30 t o 35 miles away. In addition, many of the workers wo ul d be commut i ng from th e ir e xi s tin g h o m es in this a r ea o r slight ly farther away , espbciall y t h e Chatt a nooga a nd Knoxville are a s. Th e r es ult w o uld be s om e incr ease in t em p o r a ry housing ne e ds, including ap a rtm e nts a nd facilit ies for tr a il e rs a nd R V s. To the e xt e nt th a t the p a tt e rn from con s truction in th e 1980s is followed, Rhea and Meig s likely would see 66 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apte r 3 close t o 600 temporary workers l ocat in g in those two counties; of these, abou t thr ee-f ou rth s would bring fam ili es 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 impac t, nearby counties would also be impacted. These impacts should be similar to those tha t 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 o f approximately 150 in permanent employment at the site; this increase would be sma ll 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 l ocation patterns and mover characteristics of workers during construct i on of Unit 1 in the 1980s is followed , there would be an increase of approximately 660 schoo l-age children in the broader area around the site, of which an estimated 434 likely would reside in Rhea and Meigs Counties. Tota l public school enrollment in these two counties is approximately 6800. There is some capacity for certain grade levels in some of the schools. However, th e 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 schoo l s in th ese count i es have been experiencing a steady growth in enrollment fo r several years, and thi s growth i s expected t o continue. Additional growth due to an influx o f cons tr uc tion* work e r s would in crease the ove rcrowdin g already being expe ri enced. TVA would work with l ocal representativ es and offici a ls to h e lp r ed uc e imp acts by providing mor e detailed in formatio n about the anticipated workforce. A mitigating action could be id e ntification of th e area as a n im pac t area under the existing sta t e t ax code (see Sectio n 3.8.7). 3.8.6. L a nd U se Land u se in the a r ea a round the s ite w as discussed in ea rli e r studies, particu l arly in the TVA 1972 FES. S in ce that time , th e same general p atte rn of l a nd u se and i a nd use change h as continu ed , wi th s i gnif i cant i ncr eases in f a nd u se d for hou sing and for comm e rcial purpo ses , along with ongoing decrea ses in ope n space and l and u sed f o r f arm ing. Compl e tion a nd operation of Unit 2 a r e not likely to h ave a m ajo r imp ac t on thi s tr e nd, although it might accelerate it slightly. As discu sse d a bove, the numb e r of con s truction work ers and their families that would l ocate in the area during the construction period is expected to be l ess th a n 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 67 Com p l e tion a nd Op e r a tion of W atts Ba r Nu clea r Pla nt Unit 2 3.8.7. L oca l Governmen t Revenues Under Section 13 of the TVA Act, TVA makes tax equivalent payments to the State of Tennessee, w i th 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 equiva l ent 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 i ncrease 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 provis i ons 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 serv i ces discussed above. I n 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. T he 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. C u mu l at i ve Effects N o cum ul ative socioeconomic effects were i dentified i n ear l ier WBN-related env i ronmenta l r eview s. The ma j or ch a n ge i n the a r e a's soc i oeco n om i c environme n t since those earlier docum e nts w e r e pr e p a r e d is th e mor e r ap i d p op ul a ti o n g r owt h the a r ea h as see n a nd i s exp e ct e d to continu e to ex p e ri e nc e , es p ecia lly in the a r eas a long th e T e nn essee Riv e r in Rh e a a nd M e i gs Counti es (Sec tion 3.8.1). Much of thi s ar ea is s p a r se ly p o pul a t e d a nd c apab l e of s upporting additiona l growth. Alon g with this population growth, th e area economy i s diverse and growing; how eve r , this growth h a s r esu lt ed in so m e imp ac t to communiiy services, m os t not abl y in i n creas e d overcrowding in c e rtai n public s chool . The incr ea s e from the infiux of v/ork e rs during con s truction of WBN Unit 2 would t e mpor a rily add to these imp acts , es p ec i a lly to th e s choo l s y ste m s in Rhea and M eigs Counti es. TVA is currently upd at ing the dr a ft l and pla n and draft environmenta l impact statemen t (TVA 2 0 05d) f or W atts Ba r Rese rvoir. TVA pl a n s t o iss ue a n a m e n ded DE I S fo r the W a tt s Bar R e s e rvoir Land M a n a g e m e nt P l a n in th e summ e r of 200 7. In the e v e nt th at n earb y TVA land is allocated for indu s trial or recreational d e velopm e nt in th e r e vis e d land pl a n, potential cumUlative effects from subsequent development in conjunction with con s truction 68 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement o r operat ion of W B N Unit 2 would be add r essed when proposals for development are reviewed. Ch ap t e r 3 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 cou l d be impacted by the temporary influx of construct i on workers in conjunction with the curren t 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 a t some l ocations. There could also be noticeable impacts to other community seNices such as medical facilities and pub l ic safety. The extent of all these cumulative impacts would depend grea tl y on the residential locations of the in-moving workers. As noted above, TVA i s co ndu cting a l abo r study , the results of wh ich will be provided to officials in the impacted count i es to help with local p l anning to accommodate the anticipated impacts In ad d it i on , TVA would work with the local communities to facilitate plann i ng for these potential impacts. 3.9. Fl oodplains and F l ood R i sk In the TVA 1 972 FES for WBN Units 1 and 2, a letter was included to Mr. Gartre ll, with the U.S. Departme nt of the Int erior, regarding siting of these units. The l etter sta t es: " P l ant Siting--The Geological SUNey is reviewing geo l ogic a nd hy drologic data relevant to WBN Units 1 and 2, as supplied by TVA in a preliminary safety a n alysis report (PSA R) to the AEC. Th i s r ev i ew pertains to geologic and hydrolog i c aspects of the site such as earthquake effects , foundation conditions, and flooding potentiaL" The PSAR became the FSAR o n June 30, 1976, with the sub m itta l of amendmen t 23 (TVA 1 976c). Th e FSAR cont a ins information r elate d to potential fl ooding of the W atts Bar si t e from th e T e nn essee Riv e r and lo ca l probable m axim um p r ec i pitation 4 (P MP) site drainage and is s till cu rr e nt. Sectio n 3.7 Floodplains and F l ood Risk of the FEA for the W B N Unit 1 Rep l acemen t ofthe St ea m Generators describ es th e curr e nt conditions at WBN (T VA 2005a). WBN is locat ed on th e ri gh t bank of Chickam a uga Rese Noir b e tw ee n TRM 528.0 and 528.6 in Rhea County , T e nn essee. The a r ea potentially imp a ct e d by thi s proj ec t would extend from about TRM 528.4 to 529.0. Th e proposed proj ec t area could po ss ibly be flood e d from the T e nn essee Riv e r a nd ioc a i PiviP site d r ainage. 4 The Probable Maximum PreCipitation is defined as th e theoretically greatest depth of pr eC ipit atio n for a given duration that is physically possible over a particular drainage area a t a certa in time of year (Am erica n M e t eoro logical Society , 19 59). In consideration of th e limit e d knowledge ofthe complicated processes and int errelationships in sto rms, PMP value s are id ent ifi e d as estimates. Final Supplemental Environmental Imp act Statement 69 C omp l et i o n and Op e r a tion o f W atts Ba r Nucl ea r P l a nt Unit 2 The 100-year floodpla i n for the Tennessee River would be the area below ele v a tio n 697.3 feet above m ean sea l eve l (m s l) at TRM 528.4 and elevation 697.6-foot msl a t TRM 529.0. The T ennessee River TVA flood risk profile (FRP) elevation wou ld 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 equa l to the 500-year flood elevations. Under curren t conditions, the estimated Tennessee River Probable Max i mum Floods (PMF) level would be elevation 734.9-feet msl at WBN. Consequent wave run-up a b ove th e flood level would be 2.0 feet, which would produce a maximum flood l evel 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 c riti cal 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 b e sited to pr o vid e a r easo nabl e l eve l o f protection from flood ing. In doing this, th e requirements of Execu tiv e Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) would be fulfilled. Due to th e f ac t that the proposed project could potentially impact flood elevations at several b uil dings at a nuclear generating facility, th e NRC r equires a flood risk evaluat i on o f possib l e impac t s from the PMF and PMP site drainage for all alternatives. Th e following propo sed activities could be impacted by flood cond iti ons: materia l handling buildings, materials s t orage building, a multipurpose building, a new construc ti o n access facility, temporary outage building, and an in-processing center would be co n structed; temporary craft trailers would be added; and temporary parking and laydown areas would be developed. A!! proposed facilities would be located outside th e l imits of the Ten n essee River 100-and 500-year floodplains, but many of the proposed structures would be located o n ground below th e Tennessee River PMF eleva ti on of 734.9-fee t msl. For th ose s tru c tur es l ocated b elow the Tennessee River PMF , an acceptable level of flood ri sk would be provided because the probability of flooding would be extremely low, and flooding of t hese structures would not impact the safe operation o f the plant. Non e of the proposed activities would r es ult in changes to th e Tennessee Rive r PMF ele v atio n. A ll existi n g safety-related faciliti es , systems, and equipment are housed in st r uct ur es th a t would p r ovide protection from flooding for all flood condit i ons up to plant grade at elevation 72 8-f ee t m s l. Othe r r ai n fa ll f l oods wou l d exceed plant g r ade elevation 728-feet ms l and r e quir e pl a nt s hut do wn. H oweve r , fl ood w a rni ng c r iter ia a n d f o r ecas t i n g t ec hni q u es h ave b ee n de v e l o p ed t o ass ur e th a t th e r e will a l ways be adeq u ate tim e to s hut the pl a nt d o wn and b e r ea dy for floodw a t e rs a bove pl a nt g r ade (TVA 2 004d). Th e placement of temporary and permanent st r uctures both i nside and outside the security fence would be r e quir e d to compl e te Unit 2. The tentative locations of th e propos e d n e w structures are s hown on the site plan (Figure 1-2). The building numbers in the following analy s i s c o rr es p o nd to the le ge nd o f Fi g ur e 1-2. The mat e rial h a ndling buildings (2), m aterials storag e building (4), a nd in-proce ss ing c e nter (32) would be located outside of the 5 The Prob a ble Maximum Flood i s d e fin ed a s th e mo s t s ev e r e flood that ca n r e asonably be predicted to occur at a site as result of hydromet e orological conditi o ns. It a ss um e s 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 ap t er 3 security fence. T hese structures would not be located within cri t ica l areas f o r 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 de t ermined the elevation resul ti ng 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. Construct i on of the t emporary 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 t he switchyard area (30), this area has bee n identified as critical for PMP drainage. Therefore, any structural modifications that are proposed in the switchyard should be reviewed pr i or t o construction to ensure they would not adversely impact PMP dra i nage elevations. Based on the current design and site plan, the proposed project would be consistent with Executive Orde r 11988, and t here would be no anticipated adverse flood-related impacts. Any changes to the tentative site plan would be reviewed to determine the potential f or f lood r elated impac t s. 3.10. S eismic Effec t s Th e 1 9 72 F E S d esc rib ed th e m a ximum hi s toric a l M od i fie d M e r ca lli In te n s ity (a s c a l e of ea rth q u a k e effects th a t r a n ges fr o m Rom a n num e r a l I thr o u g h X II) expe ri e n ce d a t WBN from l oca l qu a k e s and the origin s of this g round motion. Th e 1 99 5 F SE R d es crib e d th e safe s hutdown earthquake for W B N and its basis a nd discu s se d se i s mic analyses of W B N u s i ng a sit e-specific earthquake mo de l and a r ev i e w l eve l eart hqu ake (TVA 1 995b). Th e W B N FSAR (T VA 2004d) provldes a thorough d e scription of the geo!o g y and sei s m i cit y in th e vici nity of W BN in S e ct i o n 2.5. Th e basic conclu s ions of the 1 995 FSER a nd the 1972 FES with re s p e ct to th e r eg ion a l s e ismolo g y of W B N a nd it s se i s mic d es ign r e main v a lid. Th e r e are two it e ms that r e quire updating. Fir s t , the l a r ges t earthquak e in the s outhe rn App alac hians since the 1 972 FES is now the April 29 , 2003 , Fort P a yne, Al aba m a , 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 low er than the design basis earthquake, which has a body wave magnitude of 5.8; therefore, the occurrence of the 2003 Fo rt Payne earthquake has no Significant impact on previous findings. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 71 Compl e tion and Op erat i o n of W at ts Ba r Nucl ea r Pl an t Unit 2 Second, preliminary r esults of th e I ndividua l 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 Lev el Earthquake exceeds 0.3g 6 , the minimum level required by NRC. Therefore, n o 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 i onal climate description in the 1972 FES remained valid. Some of the information was updated ba sed 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 inf ormation in the 1972 FES was judged to be valid except for an update t o the tornado data. Regional Climatology The regiona l climate description in the 1972 FES remains accurate as discussed in this section. This conc l usion is based on information conta i ned 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 1 971-2000 period as for the 1961-1990 period. Wind speed data from Chattanooga for the 1 971-2000 period of record indicate a n average win d speed of 5.9 miles per hour. This i s s li gh tly l ower th an data fo r the 1961-1990 period of record. Loc al Meteorology The on e y ear of data collected from the temporary WBN m e teorological facility is supplement e d wi t h more r ep res e nt ative data from th e 20-year period from 1 986-2 005. Th ese da t a were collected from th e p e rm a n e nt m eteo rological facility. On an a nnu a l ba s is , th e most frequent wind directions at 10 meters are south-southwest and southwest at 16.0 p e rc e nt and 8.4 percent, r espective ly. This r e fl ec ts a sma ll sh ift from easterly to w este rly dir ections from the on-site data from 19 74-1 993 used in th ..... 1995 FSER. The annua! average wind sp ee d decrea se d from 4.1 mil es per hour to 3.7 mil es per hour at the 10-m eter l e v e l in the more r ece nt 20-year d a ta period. In addition, the a nnu a l fr e quency of calm s , defin e d as wind speeds le ss than 0.6 milh, incr ease d from 3.0 percent to 3.4 p e r cen t. The imp act of these changes on disp ersio n v alues is discussed below und e r the he ading 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 Ch a pte r 3 Severe Wea th e r Based on Section 2.3.1.3 of t he WBN FSAR (TVA 2004d), the severe weather i nformation 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. Th i s 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 interva l of 3703 years. During the period from 1950-2005, 44 t ornadoes 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 annua l 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-yea r period of meteorologica l 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 me t ers and shifts the critical downw i nd secto r from southeast to east-southeas

t. The impact of this inc r ease is d iscussed in Section 3.1 3. Air Q u ality Two oil-fired boilers used fo r building hea t and startup steam emit small amou n ts of air pollutants as a d dressed in the 1972 FES. These emissions a r e controlled to m eet app l icab l e regu l atory require m ents, a n d resulting impacts are insignificant.

3.12. N uc l ea r Pl a nt Sa f ety a n d Secur ity 3.12.1. Severe Acciden t Analysis TVA ma i n t ai ns a proba bi listic safety assessment mode l to u se i n eva l ua t i ng t h e most significan t risks o f radiological re l ease from WBN fuel i n t o the r eactor and fro m the reactor int o the con t a i nment s tr uctu r e. In 1995 , both TVA and NRC conclude d t h a t, except for a f ew p rocedu r a l ch a n ges im p l e m en t ed as p art of the WB N ope r ation, none of t h e seve r e accide nt m i t i ga ti on d esig n a lt e rn atives w e r e be n e fi cia l to mi tiga t i ng t h e r isk o f se v e r e a cc i de nt s furt he r. Th e t e rm " a c c id e nt" r e f e r s to any unint e nti o n a l e v e nt (i.e., out s i de th e norm a l or e xp e ct e d plant op e ration env e l o p e) th at r es ult s in a r e l ease or a pot e nti al f o r a r e l e a s e of r a di o active m a t e rial to the environm e nt. Th e NRC c a t ego ri zes a cc i d e nts as e ith e r de s i gn ba s is or s e v e r e. De s ign ba s is accidents are tho s e for whi c h the ri s k i s gr e a t e n ough that NRC r eq uir es plan t design and con str uction to pr e v e nt un acceptable accide nt con seq u e nc es. Seve r e acciden ts a r e tho se th at NRC considers too unlik e ly to w a rr an t norm a l design control . Since 1 995 , T VA h a s i mplemented the indu st ry-require d design and corr es pond in g de s ign and corr espon ding miti ga ting action changes as r equ ir e d by NRC for continu ed operation o f WBN Unit 1 an d would im p l e m e nt th e m for o peratio n of Unit 2. The desig n chang es have already been impl e mented in the W B N Unit 1 probabilistic safety assessment mod e l. The analysis is based on the WBN Unit 1 probabilistiC safe ty assessment model, which is considered applicable for Unit 2 operations because of its similarity to Unit 1. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 73 Compl e tion a nd Op e r a tion of W a tt s Ba r Nu cl e ar P l a nt Un i t 2 An a n a l ysis was performed fo r this FSEIS t o estimate t he h u ma n health i mpacts f rom potentia l 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 signif i cantly less. The MACCS2 computer code (Version 1.13.1) was used to perform probabilistic analyses of radiolog i ca l impacts. The generic input parameters given with the MACCS2 computer code tha t 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 r elease (evac u at i on pa r ameters) was based on dec l a r ation of a general eme r gency and the emergency planning zone (EPZ) evacuation time. These data in comb i nation with specific meteorology were used to simulate the probability distribution of impact risks (exposure and fatalities) to the surrounding 80-kilometer (within 50 miles) population. Th e consequences of a beyond-des i gn-basis accident , with mean meteoro l ogica l cond i tions , to the maximally exposed off-site individual, an average ind i vidual, and the population r esiding 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 nonessentia l site person n e l would have evacuated t'1e site in accordance \vfth site emergency procedures before any radio l ogica! releases to t he environmen t occurred. In addition, emergency action guideli n es would have been implemented to initiate evacuation of 99.5 percent of the public with i n 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the plant. The location of t he maximally exposed off-site individ u al mayor may not be at the site boundary for these accident sequences because emergency action guide li nes would have been implemented and the population would be evacuating from the p a t h of the rad i ological plume released by the acciden t. T a bl e 3-13. S e v e r e Ac cide nt Annu a l Ris k s i -Eariy Containm e ni f a ilure (3.4 x 10-7) 2.2 x 10-5 2.0 x 10-8 1.8 10-7 1.1 x 10-10 (I -C onta inm e nt B yp as s (1.4 x 10.6) 2.2 X 10-5 1.3 X 10-8 8.2 X 10-7 4.9 X 1 0-1 0 III -Late C o nt a inm e nt Failure (3.0 x 10.6) 4.6 X 10-7 2.8 X 10-10 1.3 X 10-7 7.8 x 10-11 a I ncludes the likelihood of occurrence of eac h rel ease category b In creased l ike lihood of cancer fatal ity p er y ea r 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 Chapte r 3 h ighest ri s k to a n average individu a l member o f th e public i s one f ata lity eve ry 2 billion years (or 4.9 x 1 0-10 per year). Overall , the risk results presented above are smal l. 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 radioac ti ve releases beyond those analyzed here would be extremely low. This is consistent w it h the conclusions of N RC'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 acc i dents initiated by external events as tornadoes, floods, earthquakes , and fires traditionally have not been discussed in quantitative terms i n final environmen t al 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 i n the United States and concluded that the risk from design-basis earthquakes at existing nuclear power plants is small. Additiona lly, the staff concluded t h at th e risks from other external events a r e adequately addressed by a generic cons id eration of in ternally initiated severe accidents. 3.12.2. Terrori sm Some nongovernmental entities and members of the pub li c have expressed conce rn about the risks posed by nuclear generating faci lit ies in light of the th r eat of terrorism. Because WBN is a lr ead y an active nuclear generat in g facility, the risks posed by adding a secon d generating unit are not the same as the r isks that may be associated with locating a nuc l ear generating facility at a new location. The risk posed by a terrorist attack alrea dy exists at this s it e. R ega r dless, TVA believes that the possibility of a terrorist attack affecting operation of WBN Unit 2 or the combined operation of both WBN unit s is very r emo t e and th at postula tin g potential health and env i ronmental impacts fr om a terrorist attack involves subs t antia l speculat i on. TVA has in place detailed, sophisticated security measures to prevent physica l intrusion into its nuclear plant sites , including WBN , by hostile forces seeking to gain access to plant nucl ea r re actors or ot h er sensi tiv e facilities or materials. TVA contract secu rity personne l are trained and r etra in ed t o react to and repel hostile forces threatening TVA nuclear f ac ilitie s. TVA's sec urity m easu r es and p e r sonnel are inspected and tested by the NR C. It i s highly unlik e ly that a host il e for ce could successfully overcome t hese sec urity mea s ure s a nd gai n entry i nto se n s itiv e f ac iliti es , a nd e v en l ess lik e ly that th e y cou ld do this q ui ck l y enough to pr e vent ope r ato r s from putting pl a nt r eacto r s into sa f e shutdow n mod e. How e ver , the sec urity thr ea t th at i s m o re fr e quently i dentified by m e mbe rs o f th e p ublic or in t h e m ed ia a re not host il e forc es inv ad ing nucl ea r plan t si t es but attacks using h ijacked j e t a i rliners, the method u sed on S e pt e mber 1 1, 200 1, against the World Trade Cente r a nd th e P en t ag on. Th e l i ke lih o od of thi s n o w occurrin g i s eq u a lly r emo t e in l i g ht of t o d a y's h e i g ht e n e d security a w a r e n ess , bu t th i s thr eat h as b e e n ca r ef u ll y studi e d. Th e Nu c l ea r E n e r g y In stit ut e (N E I) co m m i ss i o n e d th e E l ect ri c Pow er R esea r c h I n s ti t ut e (EPR I) to c on d u c t a n i m pact analys i s of a l arge j e t a i r li ne b eing p u rposefu lly c r as h e d into s e n sit iv e nucl ear f ac il i ti es or containe r s i n cludi n g nu c l ear r eactor co n tainme nt buil d in gs , u se d fu e l sto r a g e pond s, u se d fu e l dry s t o r age f a cili t i es , a nd u se d f u e l tr a n sp ort at ion cont ai n e rs. T h e E PRI a n a ly s is w as p e er r e v i e wed w h en i t w as fini s hed. U s ing con se rv a tive analy se s, EPRI con c lu de d th a t th e r e would b e no r e l ease of r a d i onuclid e s from a ny of these f a ciliti e s or cont a in e rs. Th e y are already d e signed to withstand pot e nti a lly de s tructive events. Nucl ea r reactor containment buildings,for example, have thick concrete walls with heavy reinforcing steel and are designed to withstand large Final Supplemental Environmenta l Impact Statement 75 Completion and Op e r at i o n of W atts Ba r Nu c l ea r Plan t Unit 2 earthquakes, ex t reme 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 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 secu r ity measures were taken in response to advisor i es issued by NRC. TVA continues to enhance security a t its plants in response to NRC guidance. The security measures TVA h as taken at WBN are complemented by the measures taken throughout the United States t o impr ove sec urity and reduce the risk of successful terrorist attacks. This includes m eas ur es designed to r espond t o and r educe the thre ats posed by hijacking l arge j e t airlin e r s. In th e v e-ry r e mot e lik e lihood th at a terrori s t attack did successfu lly br each t h e physica l a nd oth e r safeguards at W S N r es u l ting in the r e l ease of r adionuclides , the consequences of such a r e l ease are r easonably captured by the discussion of the imp acts of severe acc:dents discussed abcve in th!s section. 3.13. Radiological Effects T his section d i scusses the potential expec t e d radiologica l dose exposure of the public durin g n o rm al o pe r atio n s of W BN U n i ts 1 an d 2. Base d o n o p e r a ti o n a l da ta f rom W B N Unit 1 , TVA exp e cts W B N Unit 2 dos e d ata to b e of th e sa m e m a gnitude a s tho se proj e ct e d in its 1972 F E S for a s in g l e unit. TVA has d e t e rmin e d that the do se s to the public r es ulting from the discharge of radioactive effluents from WBN would likely be less than two p e rcent of the NRC guid e lines 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 r eleases than from th ose discussed in the FES. NRC addressed potential radiological effects in detail in its SEIS, at pp. 5-11 to (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 severa l orders of magnitude l ower than the dose received from shoreline recreation. The exclusion of these externa l dose pathways for the analysis does no t significantly change the calculated dose commitments to individuals or populations s i nce 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 potentia l 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 a r e essentially those used in the 1972 FES, and are based on the International Commission of Radiological Protection Publication

2. Changes in the model assumptions s in ce the release of the 1972 FES in clude: The calcula t ion o f doses to additional o r gans (ki dney and lung). Riv e r wat er u se (in gest ion, fi sh h arvest), a nd r ecreat ional use data h a ve be e n upd a ted u s in g more r ecent informatio n (Tabl es 3-14 and 3-15). D eca y time b etwee n the sou rc e and consumption i s handl e d as describe in Reg ul ato ry Guide 1.1 09 (NRC 1 977). Only tho se do ses within a 50-mile r a dius of W B N a re con s id e r e d in the population do se. The popu l ation data are updated and proj e ct e d through the year 2040. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 77 C o m p l e tion a nd Op e r a ti o n of W at t s B a r Nu c l ea r Pl a nt Unit 2 i.NVIRDNMI!NTAL.

aXlla.URI! PATHWAYS DP 'MAN GUll TD A.LIIA *** OF RADtaAcTIV. NATERIAL TD THB ATMQ_PH8RB AND LA,K ** ... ... , . , \.: ..:/ ............ D'i'llted 1ly AtmDs, ** ,e AirbJrae R el'.'ts U PII .. ' Expas.re L7 t. iilah i ReS"lsIS D iluted 8y : Lake ...... "'!II',' S IUIAIU '1 , **. *. -'0 t:\ Cansu "ldB, Man \ \ _____ S ** r.line Expesur, ::J Driak.illg W ater . V.g. n U,take F r.m So il Figure 3-6. Pathways to Man D ue t o Releases of Radioactive Mate r ia l 78 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Stat e ment . : . *n*** C h a pt e r 3 Table 3-14. Public Water Supplies Within a 50-Mile Radius Downstream of WBN Dayton, Tennessee Soddy-Daisy/Falling Water Utility District East Side Utility, Tennessee Chattanooga, Tennessee 504 19,170 487 11,452 473 49,700 465 237,048 Table 3-15. Estimated Recreationa l Use of Tennessee River Withi n a 50-Mile Radius Downstream of WBN Chickamauga Reservoir (from 100 percent mixing point to SQN) Chickamauga Reservoir (from SQN to ChickamauQa Dam) Nickajack Reservoir (from Chickamauga Dam to WBN 50-mile radius) 1Tennessee River M ile 510 484 484 471 471 460 22,101 1 ,297 , 880 9,889 7,421 , 905 1,799 284,000 Transfer coefficients , consumption rates, and bioaccumulation factors used are those presented i n the documents listed above, or more recen t data , if avai l able. The mode l s and inpu t variable used are those presented in the Watts Bar Off-Site Dose Calculation Manua l (TVA 1994b), which was approved by t he NRC on July 26, 1 994. The est i ma t ed liqu i d r ad i oactive releases u sed in th e ana l ys i s a re g i ve n in T ab l e 3-1 6. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 79 Completio n an d Operation of W a tts Ba r Nu clea r Plant Unit 2 80 Table 3*16. WBN Total Annual Discharge-Liquid Wa ste Proces sing 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 N a-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 F e-59 2.42E-03 9.05E-03 1.1SE-02 2.29E-02 Co-58 2.20E-02 1.44E-01 1.6 SE-01 3.3 1 E-01 Co-60 1.4 4E-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 3.37 E-04 Y-91 9.00E-05 3.00E-04 3.90E-04 7.80 E-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 2.68 E-0 2 N b-95 2.10E-03 8.98E-03 1.1 1E-0 2 2.22E-02 Mo-99 4.20 E-03 9.95E-02 1.04 E-0 1 2.07E-01 Tc-99m 3.35E-03 O.OE+OO 3.3 5E-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-12 9 m 1.41 E-04 O.O E+OO 1.41 E-04 2.82E-0 4 Te-1 29 7.30 E-04 O.OE+OO 7.30E-04 1.4 SE-03 T e-1 31m 8.05E-04 O.OE+OO 8.0 5E-04 I 1.61 E-03 T e-131 2.0 3E-0 4 O.O E+OO 2.0 3E-04 4.06E-04 T e-1 32 1.11 E-03 2.93E-02 3.0 5E-02 6.0 9E-0 2 8 a-1 4 0 *i.021.::-02 3.4 8E-O*1 3.58E-0 1 7.1 6E-0 1 L a-140 1.62E-02 4.98E-0 1 5.1 4E-0 1 1.0 3E+O O C e-141 3.41E-04 O.OE+OO 3.4 1 E-04 6.81E-04 Ce-143 1.S3E-03 O.O E+OO 1.53E-03 3.0SE-03 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch a pt er 3 Table 3*16 (continued)

  • .**." *. * .** **:* .. Ce-144 6.B4 E-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 Total w H-3 (TPC 3) 3.33E+03 3.33E+03 4.S9E+03 1 Liquid Radwaste 2 S1eam Genera10r Blowdown 3 Tritium Production Core (single un i t) 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 r elease 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 Uni t 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 mater i al from nuclear power reactors to unrestricted areas during normal conditions, including expected occurrences, are kept as low as prac ti cable. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 81 C omple t io n a nd Op e r a ti o n of W atts Ba r Nucl ea r Pl a nt U nit 2 tlI.:Jw.l(Ml1 LK't D I L F f; -:.'], w GPM = Gallons per M i nute .. -' ..-.-. .*. i ), :, Wr,p -"' ..... 01'".->0' Figure 3-7. Pl a nt Liquid Efflu e nt P a thw a ys a nd R e l eas e Point s 82 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 'ilnd AtlXiliary 9uUdirrg F!lOor eves eves Mon'il cr is.OOO 1Il_. t_.....; __ V_ .. __ ** .... Tank.1t 3 , $I)tl9 i101 . " ''-j I f-l. . ! 1&10'&11' Figure 3-8. Watts Bar Nucle a r Plant Liquid R adwas te System Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 83 Compl e tion and Oper a t i o n o f W a tts Bar Nuclear Plant U nit 2 T ab l e 3*17. Watt s B a r Nu c l ea r Pl a nt Do se s From Liqu i d Efflu e nts p e r Unit f or Y ea r 2040 .': ... :,:: .... , ... '.:, .. :::; .. :;. . "'. ":' '/.:' .. .. -,: ... , ,.y .. ,: ... ,'.:.'. ,. ,.: ,": ".'?:', :i ,!;:::;::',()::'*.c. ADULT TB1 Bone GIT 2 Thyroid Liver Kidney Lung Skin 0.72 0.56 0,132 0.88 0.96 0.352 0.136 0,031 TEE N 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 I NFA N T T8 Bone GIT Thyroid Liver Kid n ey Lung Skin 0.032 0.036 0.033 0.264 0.036 0.034 0.032 0.031 <;> ' " :/?( , .. '< .... :: . ..\ ::")f;,:'::;V;'::i;';'f::('" i:': ':. ;" .. ,<; ,.:, ., ....... ' :.-, '.,' .. '.,.,,' :. '. ':. :**:f .r:n a rt,T.e m* ;;,,, ... : .. ,' .... : .. , ,. .',-:,::: , ," .. '.: c' ., ..... '. ,\ . >'.: ' .. ,:.. " .. :: ..... ;." POP3 DO S E T8 Bone G I T Thyroid L iv er Kidney LunQ Skin 1.14 1.24 1 10.8 1 , 5 0.98 0.7 3 0.222 TB Bone GIT Thyroid Liver Kidney Lung Skin POP DOSE 2 04 0 1.619 1.761 1.420 1 5.336 2.130 1.392 1.037 0.3 1 5 1 T otal bo d y 2 Gastro in t est i nal t r act 3 Popula t ion T ab l e 3-18. C o mp a ri s on o f Es t i m a t e d Annu a l Liquid R e l eases a nd R es ulting Doses U n it a t W B N A ctivity Re l e ased (e i) 1 Tot a l Bo dy Do s e (mr e m)3 Maximum Organ Dose (mr e m)3 1 Ci = Curi es 2 N/A = Not Applicable 3 mrem = millirem 84 3.2E-0 1 4.84 4.84 9.68 1.7E-02 7.2E-01 7.2E-01 1.44 E+OO 5.SE-02 1.0 E+OO 1.0E+OO 2.0E+OO Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 2.2E*01 10 3.1 E-02 3 4.25E-02 10 Ch a pt er 3 Several conc lu sio n s can b e drawn fr om th e data in T ab l e 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 t o 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 materia l released in gaseous effluents are expanded from those used in the 1972 FES. The pathways considered are illustrated in Figure These pathways include external doses due to noble gases, and internal doses from particulates due to inhalation, and the ingestion o f milk, meat, and vegetables from t he 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 t he models presented in NUREG-0 1 33 (NRC 1996b) and Regulatory Guide 1.109 , Revision 1 (NRC 1977). These models are those used in the TVA FES , and a r e based on th e International Commission of Radiological Protection Publication
2. Transfer coefficie nt s, consumption rates, and bioaccumulation factors used are those presented in the documen t s listed above, or more recent data, if availab l e. The mode l s and input variable used are those presented in th e WBN Off-Site Dose Ca l culation Manual, which was approved by the NRC on July 26, 1994. The est imat ed gaseous radioactive releases use d in the analysis are given in Table 3-20. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 85 Compl e tion and Oper a tion of W atts Ba r Nucl ea r Plant Unit 2 86 Table 3-19. Rec eptors from Actual L and U se Surve y Results Used for Potentia l Gaseous Releases From WBN Unit 2 *. 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 1 979 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 Ga r den 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 Garde n SSW 2286 27 Nearest Garde n SW 8100 28 N ea r es t Ga r de n W S W 4 667 29 N ea re s t Garde n W 5150 30 N ea r es t G a rd e n WNW 5793 3 1 N ea r es t Garden NW 3170 32 N ea r es t Garde n NNW 4698 33 Milk Cow ESE 6096 34 Milk Cow ESE 6706 35 Milk Co w SSW 2286 36 Milk Cow SS W 3353 37 Milk Co w NW 8 1 0 0 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement T able 3-2 0. K r-85m Kr-85 Kr-87 Kr-88 Xe-131m Xe-133m Xe-133 Xe-13Sm xXe-135 Xe-137 Xe-138 Ar-41 Br-84 1-131 I 1-132 1-133 1-1 34 1-135 H-3 H-3 (TPC) Cr-5 1 Mn-54 Co-57 Co-S8 Co-60 F e-59 Sr-89 Sr-90 Zr-95 N b-9S Ru103 Ru-1 06 Sb-1 25 C s-1 34 C s-1 36 C s-1 3 7 8 a-140 C e-141 C-14 WBN Tot a l Annual Gaseous Discharge Per Operating Unit (curi es/year/reactor) 1.99E+01 4.S3E+00 1.23E+00 2.S7E+01 6.90E+02 7.0SE+OO 1.8SE+OO 6.99E+02 1.09E+01 4.27E+OO 1.09E+00 1.63E+01 2.83E+01 7.9SE+OO 2.13E+OO 3.84E+01 1.17E+03 1.73E+01 4.53E+OO 1.19E+03 4.63E+01 1.90E+OO S.21E-01 4.87E+01 3.12E+03 6.70E+01 1.77E+01 3.20E+03 3.85E+OO 3.68E+OO 9.80E-01 B.51E+OO 1.S5E+02 2.40E+01 6.46E+OO 1.8SE+02 3.18E-01 9.67E-01 2.S8E-01 1.S4E+OO 3.32E+OO 3.42E+00 9.0SE-01 7.SSE+OO 3.40E+01 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3.40E+01 6.OOE-OS S.01E-02 4.81E-0 4 S.06E-02 7.29E-03 1.39E-01 7.08E-03 1.S3E-0 1 1.60E-03 6.56E-0 1 1.70E-02 6.7SE-01 3.5SE-03 4.3SE-01 2.03E-02 4.59E-01 1.66E-03 1.0SE+OO 1.47E-02 1.08E+OO 3.1SE-03 8.101::-01 3.13E-02 8.44E-01 1.37E+02 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 1.37E+02 3.70E+02 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 3.70E+02 9.21 E-05 5.00E-04 O.OOE+OO 5. 92 E-04 S.30E-OS 3. 78E-04 O.OOE+OO 4.31E-04 8.20E-06 O.OOE+OO O.OOE+OO 8.20E-06 2.S0E-04 2.29E-02 O.OOE+OO 2. 32E-02 2.S1E-05 8.71E-03 O.OOE+OO B.74E-03 2.70E-05 5.00E-05 O.OOE+OO 7.70E-OS 1.30E-04 2.85E-03 O.OOE+OO 2.98E-03 S.22E-OS 1.09E-03 O.OOE+OO 1.1 4E-03 4.80E-08 1.00E-03 O.O OE+OO 1.00E-03 1.80E-OS 2.4 3E-0 3 O.O OE+OO 2.4 SE-03 1.60E-OS 6.10E-05 O.O OE+OO 7.7 0E-OS 2.70E-08 7.S0E-05 O.O OE+OO 7.S0E-OS O.OO E+O O 6.0 9E-05 I O.OO E+OO 6.09E-05 2.53E-OS 2.24E-03 I O.O OE+OO 2.27E-03 3.21E-05 4.80E-0 5 O.O OE+OO 8.0 1E-OS 5.S8E-OS 3.42E-03 O.OOE+OO 3.4 8E-03 4.00E-04 O.OO E+OO 4.00E-0 4 1.30E-OS 2.64E-OS O.OO E+OO 3.94 E-OS 2.80E+OO 4.50E+OO O.OO E+OO 7.30 E+O O Chapt er 3 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 Completio n and Op e r a tion of W atts Bar Nucl ea r Plant Unit 2 '\ Auxiljary Building vent Condenser VacuUrtl Ex;haus t {one per l..Jnft) Sef'\lice Building Vent (common) (common) ...".J. ....... ! i Ptlrge t System ! per uni_) j ..",' ----""""""" ... --__ !I!II!IiIIIIII' Figure 3*9. Watts Ba r Nuclear Piant Gaseous Effluent Release Points 88 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Building V en t (o ne pa r unrt)

Chapt e r 3 A tab ul a ti o n of the re s ulting calcul ated gaseous do ses to individu a l s p e r operationa l unit i s give n in T ab le 3-2 1. Table 3-21. WBN Doses From Gaseous Effluent For Unit 2 Without Tritium Production for Year 2040 Effluent Pathway Guideline 1 Location Noble Gases y A i r dose 10 mrad Maximum Exposed Individual 2 Ai r dose 20 mrad Maximum Exposed Individual 2 Total body 5mrem Maximum Residence 3.4 l od i nesl Skin 10 m r em Maximum Residence 3.4 Particulate Thyroid 15 mrem Maximum Real Pathwa/ (critical organ) Breakdown of I odine/Parti cu l ate Doses (m r em/yr) Cow Milk with Feeding Factor of 0.65 2.44 Inhalation 0.1 74 Ground Contamination 0.0405 Submersion 0.0603 Beef In gestio n 2 0.00 Total 2.7 14 8 1 Guidelines are defined in Appendix I to 10 CFR P art 50. ;M aximum exposu r e point is a t 1250 meters in th e ESE sec tor. Dose from air sub mer s i on. 4Maximum exposed re s idence is a t 1 372 meters in the SE sector. 5Maximum exposed i ndividual is a n infant at 3353 meter s in the SSW sec t o r. Dose 0.801 mrad/year 2.710 mrad/year 0.571 mrem/year 1.540 mrem/year 2.7 1 5 mrem/year Th e es timat e d a nnu a l a irborne r eleases and r esu lting do ses as presented by th e 1972 FES, the W BN Unit 1 F SAR , Un it 2, Unit 1 and 2 tot a ls, and r ecen t hi st orical data from W B N Unit 1 (as submitted in the Annual Radioact iv e Effl u e nt Repo rt s to the N RC) with NRC guideli n es g iv e n in 10 CFR 50 Ap pend ix I a r e compared in Tabl e 3-22. These guidelines are designed to ass ure th at r e l eases of radio act iv e m ate ri a l from nucl ea r pow er r eactors to unrestricted areas during norm a l cond iti ons , includin g expected occurrences , a re kept as low as practic ab l e. Fina l Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 89 Compl e tion and Op e r a tion of W a tts Bar Nu clea r Pl a nt Unit 2 T able 3-22. Comparison o f Estimated Annual Airborne Releases and Resulting Do ses Particulate Activity (Cj1) 3.0E-01 7.6E+QO 4.70E-02 7.6E+OO 9.29E-OS Noble Gas Activity (Ci1) 7.0E+03 1.4E+04 4.84E+03 4.84E+03 2.7E-03 External Dose (mrad 3) 6.6E+OO 6.2E+OO 3.5E+OO 9.7E+OO 3.69E-01 Organ Dose 3.SE+OO 2.82E+OO 1.38E+01 8.3E-02 (mrem 4) (inhalation 1.1E+01 (all (all (all 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: 10 N/A2 10 15

  • 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 o r gan) to the public are a small fraction of the Appendix I guideline (averaging about 1 percent or less). Based on these conclusions, t he analyses of radiological impact from airborne release in the 1 972 FES continue to be valid , and operat i on of WBN Unit 2 would not materially change the r esults. Po p ul at ion Doses TVA h as es tim a t e d the r a diologica l impact from the norm a l op e r at ion of WBN Unit 2 u sing a 50-mil e r eg ion a l population proj ec tion for th e yea r 2040 of 1, 523 , 385. Th e estimated popul a tion do ses as presented by the 1972 FES, the WBN Unit 1 FSAR , Unit 2 , Unit 1 a nd Unit 2 tot a ls , and r ecen t historical data from WBN (as s ubmitt ed in th e Annu a l Radioactive Effluen t Reports to the NRC) are pre se nt e d in Table 3-23. Table 3-23. Estimated Population Doses From Operation of Watts Bar Nuciear Piant ....*. 3.1 E+01 12.8E+OO 2.362E+01 3.64E+01 3.38E-01 N/A 90 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch a pt e r 3 Releases to Sani t ary 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 uni t s or would be similar , the processing of radioactive waste produced by the operation of Unit 2 would be performed in t he 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 a l te r the conclusions previously reached. Liquid Radioactive W aste Treatment Systems The 1995 FSER discussed attributes such as separation and processing o f tritiated and n o n tr i t i ated li quids, l abo r atory sample processing , and p r ocessing of was t e from r egeneration of condensate polishing demineralizer and spe n t 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 Figu r e 3-10 for trit i ated water and F i gure 3-11 for nOiitiit i ated wate r (revised from Figure 4-1, TV,fl, 1995b). The conclusion in the FSER that any re l eases from these systems would meet the requirements of the NPDES permit, 10 CFR 20 , Append i x B; 10 CFR 50 , Appendix I; and 40 CFR 190, as applicable , remain valid, and operation of WBN Unit 2 would not change this co n clusion. Gaseo u s Radioac ti ve W as te T r ea t ment Systems T he gaseous waste process i ng system is designed to remove fiss i on produc t gases f rom the nu c l ea r s t eam s u pply system and to pe r mit operation with pe ri odic discharges of small quan t ities of fi ss i o n gasses throu g h th e m onito r ed plan t ve nt. N o ch a n ges to e qui p m e nt or op e r a tion h a v e occurr e d and , th e r e f o r e , th e con c lu s i o n s r e m a in v a lid. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 91 Compl et ion and Oper atio n o f W atts Bar Nuclear Pl an t Unit 2 lIQUID RADWASTE PROCESSING SYSTEM ; l I 1 IJ:llf A , IU:kCitlR lILC lr.J ((lIeH 'J!\I!T) ; f I I ! t ( 11.1))( II L ) [ C F'S -CON r ,q 'Nt,lf,; ftl :':-'1 T R: 8; HJFiS - 9 L O(,; HC'!()A' oJ. f.'iP FOI..-:K.tT fm r Ii: I n::; RfACTOR BLDG FLC'<1R do (Qtj]P v RA I n Stlt.lp* ft;Ci)T - COOtAt H ORAlli' rA NK TFf1 TfO' fmJ DRAlN 51JtJ.f' t otT Hi' j HAT f /} tlRA 1 N-COLL EC TOR i M i K G\.'(:'S CH(lAi(:Al CON S'YS t,I'Hl} MO B iif \l,l,:Sif [im ? M:JNl TOR TAN K {e v es) F f [1.. TE:R (nCT CASK !}[CON-T MJi[NAnO},i tO lt.£cmR TANK Figure 3*10. Liquid Radwaste Processing System -Simplified Flow Diagram for Tritiated Water 92 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement AS fro$. ArB ff[}S CDT If'l$'i FDCT COCT MI F S P LIQUID RADWASTE PROCESSING SYSTEM AUXIUAR:'1' BlJltO!:NG fLOOR ;of( Eql,Hf'Mt'NT {lRAlti SUUf' A 001llO"A1. EQPTB(J1LOING HOOR 4. EOOIPf£Fii DRAIM SUMP ,.. CHEt.A:ICAl D R A rN H tcK -lAti N!}RY AHO HOi SH OI'£R UHt( -FLOOR ORAIH COtLEC TOR -weilL WASH D£MINE'lUl.:ER ."Sl£ -CA S;\ DECONTJ,M3NAiiON -fOR " r MH( -'I n.. -"$ /tf;;R -PltW' Figure 3*11. Liquid R a dw aste Proc ess ing Sy s tem -Simplifi e d Flow Diagram for Nontriti a t ed W ate r Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch ap t er 3 I 93 Compl etio n and Op eration of W a tts Bar Nuclear Pl a nt Unit 2 Solid Radio ac tiv e W astes Radioactive waste (radwaste) generated from the operation of WBN Unit 2 wou ld 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 rubbe r boots. Noncompactable wastes incl u de tools, pumps , motors, valves , piping, and other large radioactive components. The we t 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 ot h er 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 v ermiculi t e. Evaporator co n centrates are no longer generated a t WBN due to the deactivation o f th e CDWE (see Liquid Rad i oact iv e Waste'Treatment Systems, above). H and ling o f resins has n o t changed. In 1995, TVA planned t o send l ow-l eve l radwaste to Barnwe ll, South Caro lin a, until a n e w disposal facility at Wake Co unty, North Ca r olina , opened in mid-1998. Thi s facility wa s not constructed. TVA has cont inu ed to ship all WAW (Classes A, 8 , and C) to the Barnwe ll facility and will do so through 2008 when that facility is scheduled to close. All DAW is c urr ently shipped to a processor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for compaction and then by the processor t o Clive , Utah, for disposal. Following 2008 , Class A WAWwiJl also be shipped t o 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 ano th er licensed Class Band C radwaste disposal facility. WBN also has t he op ti on of compacting DAW on site. The shipping distances to these facilities are comparable or shorte r than those a n a ly zed in previous env ironm e ntal r eviews. Tr a n spo rtation of Soli d Wa ste In the 1995 FSER, TVA used records documenting radioactive efflue nt s and the results o f off-s it e r ad iologic a l monit o ring a t SQ N to co nfirm the 19 72 FES concl u sio n th a t in significa nt environmental ri s k would r es ult from th e tr a n spo rt atio n of low-l eve l wa ste to off-site disposa l grounds is s till v a lid. The exposu r es in Tabl e 4-1 of the 1972 FS E R w e re calc ulat e d from a n estimated 43 shipments and 1 5 , 119 cubic feet of waste from SQN. WBN now h as over 10 y ea rs of r adwaste shipment r ecor ds. During a one-year period ranging from May 2005-May 2006 , th e r e were eight sh i pments from WBN , for a total of 5120 cubic feet of w aste. Th e addit i o n of a second unit at WBN would r es ult in a tot a l of 1 6 s hipm e nt s per y ea r and 11,0 60 cubic f ee t of w aste (T able 3-24). Th ese fi gu r es r ep r ese nt 37.2 p e rc e nt and 73.1 p e rc e nt of the v a lu es pr esente d in th e 1 995 FSER , and th erefo r e , it c a n be expected th a t exposures to th e truck driv e r and to th e public would a l so ran ge from 37.2 p e rc e nt a nd 73.1 p er c ent of the exposure estimated in the 1995 FSER. The 1 995 FSER conf irmed the conclus i on in th e 1 972 FES th a t the environm e nt a l ri s k from tr a n sporta tion of l ow-I e v e! wa ste to off-site dispo sa l grou nd s would b e in s i g nificant. Given that the numb e r and s i ze of s hipments per year are l ess th a n previously projected, this conclusion is not changed. 94 Final Supplemental Environment a l Impact Statement Chapt e r 3 Table 3-24. M a ximum Anticip a t e d Two-Unit Annual Solid Ra dw as t e t o be Pr ocesse d Compactable and Noncom actable Trash Contaminated Oil Total 3.1 5. Spen t F u e l Storage The 1972 FES assumed that spent fuel would be shipped t o the reprocessing plant i n Barnwell, So u th Carol in a. The 1993 review of the FES noted that r eprocessing was no longer likely, and t hat TVA the n "expected t o store spent fuel on-site until the DOE completed the cons t ruct ion o f storage or p e r ma n ent disposa l facilities in accordance w i th t he N uclear Waste Polic y Ac t of 1 982" (TVA 1993a). T h e revised plan was for TVA to p r ovide addi t ional storage capacity on site, if n ee d e d , u n til a li ce n sed DOE f ac il ity b ecame available. On-si t e storage of spe nt fu e l was me nti oned i n th e 1 995 FES, but not in t he 1995 FSER. Th e n ee d to exp a n d o n-s it e spent fu e l s t o r age a t TV A nuc l ea r p l a n ts w as a d d r esse d wh en DOE p repared the C L WR FE I S (DOE 1999). This FE I S a n a l yzed spent fuel storage needs at BF N Un i ts 1 , 2 , and 3, SON Un i t s 1 and 2, and WBN Unit 1 and inciuded a thorough re v ie w of the e nvi ronmen t al effec t s of co n s tr ucting and ope r ating a n o n-s i te i ndepende nt spent fue l s storage in s t a ll at i o n (ISFS I). T he presen t FSEIS incorporates b y reference the spe n t fue l s t orage impact ana l ysis in t he C L WR FE I S and upda t es the ana l ysis t o i nclude ope r a ti o n of W8N U n i t 2. Ope r ation o f a second un i t at Watts Ba r would increase the numbe r of spe nt fue l assemblies ge n e r a t ed a t th e si t e. F or the pu r pose of this FSEIS , it i s ass u med tha t the addi ti ona l spent fuel ge n e r a t e d by the o p era t io n o f a sec on d un it w ould be acco mm odated at t h e site in a dry cask I SFS I. T hi s gener i c I SFS I wo ul d be des i g n ed to store th e n u mb e r of addi t io n al spen t nu clea r fu e l asse mbli es r e quir ed fo r 40-yea r , two-u n it operation a t th e reacto r site. T h e add it ional fue l ge n e r a t ed by t he ope r atio n o f Unit 2 w o uld accelerate th e sc h edule fo r on-s it e dry cask s p e nt fu e l s t o r age e x pa n s i o n a t W B N. T o date , no ISFS I h as b ee n co n s tr u ct e d a t W BN. Un de r th e curr e nt sc h e dule f o r Unit 1, a n I SFS I w o uld b e n eede d by 2 01 8. A ss uming WBN Unit 2 would b eg in operation in 2012, the I S F S I would b e n eede d by 2 015. The CLWR FE I S asses s ed th e numb e r of d ry s to r age casks n ee ded to accommo d a t e tritium production a t WBN Unit 1 b ase d on 24-pr ess uriz ed water r eacto r s p e nt nucl ea r fu e l assemb ly capacity of four of th e ISFSI ca s k de s igns in the United States a t the time. T able 3-25 b e low upd ates Table 5-48 in the CLWR FEIS for WBN Unit 1 a nd adds data for Unit 2 to provid e an estimated tot a l numb e r of c as ks th a t wouid be n eede d for 40 y ea r s o f operation if WBN Unit 2 w e r e compl e ted. Although SON has r eceived licen s ing a pprov a l to u se casks th at c a n contain 32 s p e nt fuel a sse mblies, this eva lu a tion u ses t h e mor e conservative 24-fuel asse mbly cask design capacity. Note that th e d a ta for WBN Unit 2 r e fl ects th e difference betw een a unit producing tritium (Unit 1) and one that would not produce tritium (Unit 2). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 95 Completion and Oper a tion of W atts B a r Nuclear Pl a nt Unit 2 Table 3-25. Data for Number of ISFSI Casks Determination

  • . Operating cycle length Fresh fu el assemblies per cycle -no tritium Fresh fuel assemblies per cycle -maximum tritium Increase in fresh fuel assemblies due to trit iu m Number of operating cycles in 40 years 1 Number of additional fuel assemblies for tritium Number of ISFSI dry casks needed to store fuel assembl i es due to tritium production activities Number of fuel assemblies for 40 year operatio n Number of ISFSI dry casks needed to store fuel assemblies for spent fuel pool (SFP) capacity shortfall, 23 Number of ISFSI dry casks needed to store fuel for each unit. b Total number of ISFSI dry casks required for WBN site, two-unit operation 18 months 18 months 80 80 136 N/A 56 N/A 27 27 1512 N/A 63 a 2160 2 1 60 27 90 90 90 1 80 1 Forty years of operation covers 26 refueling outages and 27 operat i ng cycles. Spent fuel is discharged 27 t i mes from each un i t 2 Number i s based on 24 fuel assembly cask designs. 3 SFP capacity shortfall i s based on existing SFP usable capacity of 1363 storage cells. The number of casks tab u l ated above for Unit 1 SFP capacity shortfall ha s been reduced from level projected in the C LW R FEIS to reflect actual tritium generation rates of fuel assembl i es being less than originally estimated (56). A number of I SFS I dry storage designs have been licensed by the NRC and are in operation in th e United Sta t es , including facilities at TVA's SQ N a nd BFN. Licens ed d esig ns i nclude the metal casks and concrete casks. The majority of these operating I SFS l s use concrete casks. Concrete casks consist of either a vertica l o r a horizontal concr ete struc ture hou sing a basket a nd m e t a l cask that confines the spe nt nucl ea r fuel. Curr e ntly, there are three v e ndors with concr ete pr ess uri zed w ate r r eacto r spe nt nucl e ar fu e l dry ca s k de s igns li ce n se d in the United States, Holtec International , NAC Int e rnational , and Transnuclear In c. The Holtec Int e rnation a l a nd NAC Int e rn atio n a l designs are vertica l concrete cylinders; wher eas , th e Transnuclea r d es i g n i s a r ectangula r concr e te block. Th ese de s igns s tore v a rying numb e rs of spen t nucl ea r fu e l assemblies , r a n g in g from 24 to 37. Howev e r, since the Ho!tec design is currently b eing u se d a t TVA's SQN and is r epresentative o f a ll other designs , the e nvironm enta l imp act of u s in g the Holtec concrete dry sto r age ISFSI deSi g n h as be e n addressed. As stated abo ve , althoug h the multipurpo se cani ste r (MPC)-32 is being us ed at SON , thi s update has t ake n a more conservative approac h u s ing the MPC-24, since i t would r eq uire mor e casks a nd correspondingly more concr ete 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 inform at ion about the equipment 96 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement v endo rs a nd processes currently used a t WBN and provide a n alys is o f the e ff ects o f complet i ng WBN Unit 2 on spent fuel storage construction and operation.

3.15.1, Construction Impacts Ch a pter 3 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 stee l shells filled with concrete. The stainless steel MPC that contains the spent fuel assemblies is placed inside the vertica l 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 dis tu rbance, nuisance fencing, and transport activities, a projected net disturbed area of approximately 2.2 ac r es would be required. The differences between constructions of an I SFSI for Unit 1 alone as compa r ed to an ISFSI that would serve two units are shown in Table 3-26. Cons t ruction and installation of the HI-STORM modules would be simiiar to that described in the CLWR FE I S 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 .*.:* ***.. ...

l External appearance 63 Horizontal storage modules 180 Vertical cylindr i cal storage H eal th a n d safe ty (only construction work p e rformed s ub se quent to the l o a ding of any storage modul es with spent fuel m a y r es ult in w orke r expo s ures from dir ect a nd s ky s hine radiation in t he v iCi nity o f th e l oaded hori zo nt a l stor age module s) S i ze of di s turbed area M a t eria l s (approx i m a te) 1DOE 1 999 Rectangular cubes 1 9 x 9.7 feet modules (casks) placed on a concrete c onstructed on three concrete cask cask foundation pa d of an foundat i on 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 fee t in diame t er and 21 feet t all. Dose rate: 0.5 mrem per hour Tot a l do se during con s truction: 47.25 per so n-rem I SFS I fo ot print 1.3 acres Di st urb ed: 5.3 acres Con crete: 10 , 618 tons Stee l: 1, 208 tons Dose Rate: 0.5 m rem per hour Tot a l do se during con s tru ction: 1 35 p e r so n-re m I SFS I footprint:

1.3 acres

Disturbed: 2.2 ac res Concrete: 27 , 675 tons S teel: 31 5 0 tons Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 97 C omp l et i o n a nd Op era ti o n o f W atts Ba r Nu c l ear P la nt Unit 2 3.1 5.2. Oper a tiona l Impacts Th e 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 sys t em 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 im pact 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 re l eased 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 th i s higher allowable maximum heat l oad cask would r esul t in an increase from the values reported in the pa r agraph above. Fo r example , f or a 40 kW maximum heat load, and assuming similar a ir mass flow rate th roug h th e cooling v e nt s r es ults in a projected temper atu r e of approx imat e ly 22 1°F. The h ea t released by an average automobile is the equivalent of as few as nine ISFSI casks a t their proposed higher design maximum hea t load of 40 kW. The decay heat released to the atmosphere from th e spent nuclear fuel ISFSI would be equiva l ent to the heat released to the atmosphere from approximately 20 average ca r s. If approved, this type of cask could be used at WBN. The CLWR FEIS concluded that the heat emitted from the WBN ISFSI would h ave no effect on th e env ir onme nt or climate because of its small magnitude. Although an I SFS I large enoug h to accommodate two-unit spent fuel storage would emit somewha t more heat, th e amo unt i s still negligible. T he heat em i tted by th e fu lly l oaded, largest projected I SFS I, eve n at the maximum design-licensed decay heat level f o r eac h cask of 28 kW, would be approx im a t ely 5000 kW (i.e., 1 80 casks x 28 kW = 5040 kW or 5.04 MW), as compared to 2000 kW for the s y ste m ana ly zed in 1 999. This increase of 3000 kW of h ea t added t o the atmosphere is n ot l a rg e enough to chang e th e conclusion that thi s amount of heat i s about 0.1 p e r ce nt the h eat r e l eased t o the e nvir o nm e nt f r o m a ny o f th e prop ose d nucl e ar pow e r pl a nt s-on t h e or de r of 2,400,000 kW f o r eac h ope r ati n g nucl ea r r eacto r. Th e ac tu al d e c a y h ea t from s p e nt nu c l ea r fu e l in t he I SFS I s hould be l o w er th a n 500 0 kW a nd w o uld d e c a y with time du e to th e n a tur a l d e c a y of fi ss ion pro d u c t s i n the s p e nt nucl ea r fu e l. As s t a t e d in th e CLWR FE I S, the in cr e m e nt al l oad i ng of th e I SF S I over a 40-year period w ou ld not generate the fulllSFSI h e a t un t il 40 years afte r th e initial operatio n. The propos e d u se of casks with hi ghe r a ll owabl e maximum h e at l oad (40 kW) would r es ult in an in cr eas e from th e v a lu e s r e port e d a bove. For e x a mpl e , for a 40-kW m a ximum h ea t l oad , a s ite tota l o f 7200 kW would r e pr e sen t about 0.15 p e rc e nt of th e h eat r e l ease d t o the e nvi ro nm ent from an y of the propos e d nu cl e a r powe r p l ants. Th e r e fore, f or t h e propo se d 40-kW cask design, no noticeable effects on th e environmen t or clim a te would be expected. The differences between the operation of an ISFSI for Unit 1 alone as compared to an ISFSI that would se rve 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 Chapte r 3 o pe r a tion would b e min o r. In ge n e r a l, the o p e r a t iona l e ff ec ts o f th e HI-S TORM m o d u l es wo ul d be si mil ar to t ha t descr i bed in t h e C L WR FEIS f or the NUHOMS-24P, as w ou l d be t he env i ronmental effects. Tab l e 3*27. I SFSI Opera t ion for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 as Compa r ed t o Operation of Both Units 1 and 2 Effects of opera t ion of the heat dissipation system Facility water use Rad i olog i ca l i mpac t from r out i ne ope r a t ion Rad w aste and source terms Clima t ological i mpa ct Im pact o f ru noff fr o m o p e r at i on Equivalent to heat emitted into the atmosphere by approx i mately 2-6 averaged-sized cars. Transfer cask decontam i nation water consumption of less than 946 cubic feet. Worker exposure: As the result of daily i nspection of casks, d u ring a 40-year life cycle , wor k ers would be exposed t o 58.8 perso n-r em. Publ i c exposure: The regulatory limi t for public exposure is 25 mrem per year. Doses received by a member of t he publ i c living i n the vic i n i ty of the ISFSI would be well below the regulatory requirements. Cask loading and decontaminat i on operation generates less than 126 cubic feet of low-leve l radioactive waste. Sma!! (less th an 0.1 percen t of the nuclea r power plan t's hea t emission to the atmosphere) The horizonta l storage module surface is not contaminated. N o contam i na t ed runoff is expected. 3.15.3. Po s tul a t ed A cc i den t s Equivalent to heat em i tted into the atmosphere by approximately 15 average size cars, or 20 cars i f the higher maximum heat load cask proposed at SON is used. Transfer cask decontamination water consumption of less than 2703 cubic feet. Worker exposure: As the result of da il y inspection of casks , during a 40-year life cycle, wo r ke r s wou l d be exposed t o 1 68 person-rem. Publ ic e x posure: The reg u latory lim i t fo r publ i c exposure is 25 mrem per year. Doses received by a member of the p u blic living in the vi C i n i ty o f the ISF81 would be well below the regulatory requiremen t s. Cask l oading and decontamination operat i on generates less than 360 c u b i c feet of l ow-l evel radioactive waste. Small (approximately

0.1 percent

o f the nuclear power plant's heat emission to the atmosphere, or app r oximately .15 percen t if 40 kW cask are used) The s t orage cask s u rface is no t contaminated. No contaminated runoff is expected. Th e C LWR FEI S a n a l yzed th e p ost ul a t e d acc i de nt s th a t co uld occ ur a t a n I SFS I a nd conclu de d th a t the p o t e nti a l r ad i o l o gic al r e l eases w o uld a ll b e w e ll within r eg ul a t o ry limit s. Th e i mpac t of the calculated doses , which were approximately 50 mrem or l ess fo r differen t sc e na ri os, were comp a r e d with the natural r adiatio n dose of about 300 mr e m a nnu all y r eceived by eac h per s on in t h e Un ited States (DOE 1 999). The s torage casks proposed fo r u se at W B N for a tw o-uni t o pe r a ti on w o u ld be of s i m il a r o r b ette r design th a n th ose a n a ly zed i n t h e m id-1 99 0 s , and an y a cci de nt do ses r es ulting from s uc h a po s tu l ate d e v e n t w ould b e con s i s t e nt w it h do ses p r e viou s ly d e t e rmin e d. 3.16. T r a n s p o rt ati on of Rad i oa c t i v e Mate r ials The e ff e cts of tr a n s p o rting n u c l ea r fu e l s and r a dio a ctiv e w as t e s a re ad d r essed i n th e 1 9 7 2 FE S. T he 1 995 FSER add r esse d th e tran s portatio n of s p e nt fu e l s and radio a c t i v e "'oI as t e. Th e tr a n s port a tion of r a d i oact iv e w aste a nd spe nt fu e l a re a ddr esse d bri efl y in Sec ti o n 3.14 and 3.15 of this docum e nt. The 1972 FES analYSis was based on the annual shipment of about 100 tons of natural uranium. Analysis was ba se d 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 Compl e tion and Operation o f W atts Bar N uclear Pl a nt Unit 2 uni rradia t ed n e w fu e l assemb li es. Th e r e for e , th e o nl y exp o su r e t o p eop l e fr o m th e routin e shipment of new fuel would be in direct view and 10 the individual truck drivers assigne d. The exposure in the cab of th e 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 l evel would not cause any adverse effects. The FES also discussed acc i dent potential , concluding that there would be no significant environmental ris k s 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 sl i ght reduction in fuel usage as compared to the orig in al application and that the changes would not alter the conclusion that the dose and potential health effec t s would be small compared t o the effec t s o f na t ural radiation doses (NRC 1995a). Currently , 54 tons of new fuel is shipped annually to WBN U nit 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 to n s shipped annually. The 1972 FES indicated that fuel would most likely be shipped by truc k , although transport by barge or rail was also conside r ed. An estimated 10 ship m ents per y ea r were expected, with up to seven shipping conta i ners per load, each conta inin g two fuel assemblies or a maximum of 14 assemblies per truck shipme nt. T h e FES discussed six shipping routes. Currently, TVA receives seven shipments per reload with a maximum number of assemb li es per truck of 12, packed in six shipping conta in ers. Westinghouse i s developing new shipping containers and will only be ab l e to ship 1 0 assemblies per truck in 10 shipping containers. They expect to be required to s tart using th e new containers in 2009. The Environmenta l Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Plants (AEC 1972) and Supplement 1 (NRC 1975) evaluated the environmen t al effects of transportation of fuel and waste for light water reactors and found the impacts to be s m a ll. Th ese analyses provided the basis for Tab l e S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 , which s umm a ri zes th e environmental impact s of tr anspo rt at i on of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from a r efere nc e r eac tor. Bot h norm al c ondi t ion s of tr ans p ort and acc id en ts a r e addressed in the t ab l e. S u bpa r agraph 1 0 CFR 5 1.52(a)(5) r e quires th a t u nirradiated fu e l be s hipp e d t o the r eac to r s it e by truck. A conditio n that the truck s h i pm e nts not exceed 73 , 000 pounds as governe d by f edeia l o r s t ate gross v eh i cle weight r est ri ctio n s i s in clude d in Table S-4. N e w fue l a sse mbli es would b e tr a n s po rte d to W B N Units 1 a nd 2 by tru c k from a fu e l f a bric a tion f a cility, in a c co r da n ce wi t h U.S. D e p a rtm e nt of Tr a n s port a tion and NRC r eg ul a tions. The in i ti a l fu e l lo ading for U n it 2 would c o n s i s t of 193 fu e l a sse mbli es. E v e ry 18 month s , r e fu e ling would r e q u i re a n a v e r age of 80 fu e l asse mbli es. Th e fu e l asse m b li es , which a re f ab ri cate d a t a fu e l f ab ri ca ti o n pl a nt, w o uld be s hi ppe d b y tru c k to W B N s h o rtly be f o r e th e y a r e r e quir e d. Truck s hi p m e nt s would not e xc ee d the a pplic a bl e f e d e r a l or s t a t e gro ss v ehicle w eig ht. If WBN Unit 2 were completed, TVA would comply with all NRC, state, and f e d e r a l requirements for transport of un irradiated fuel, as it does with fuel d e liveri es for Unit 1. The impacts of such deliveries on human health and the environment are expect e d to be minimal. 100 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch apter 3 3.17. Decommi ss ioning 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 remova l 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 exte nd ed period, worker and public doses would be much smaller than under DECON, as would the need for r adioact ive w aste disposal.

3. ENTOMB. A s th e nam e impli es , this method inv olves e nc asing a ll r adioactive m ateria ls on si t e r at h e r th an r emo vin g them. Und e r ENTOMB, r ad i oactive st ructur es , s y ste ms , and components are e nc ased in a st ructur all y l ong-lived s ub sta n ce , such as conc r e te. The e ntomb ed str uctur e is appropriately m aintained and monitor e d unti l r ad i oactivity d ecays to a l eve l th at permits t e rmin atio n of the li ce n se. This opt i on r educes work e r and public doses , but b e cau se mo s t power r eactors will h a v e r adio nuclid es in conc en t rations exceeding th e limit s for unr estr ict ed use e v e n afte r 100 y ea rs , th i s option m a y not b e f eas ible und e r current regulation. It is exp ec ted that by the tim e WBN is d eco mmis s ioned, n ew , improved technologies , includi ng use of robotics , will have b ee n develop e d and app rov ed by N R C. Cost In 1995, NRC estimated that it would cost up to $200 million to decommission a pressurized wat e r reactor like WBN Units 1 and 2. NRC currently estimates that decommissioning Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 101 Compl etio n and Operation of W a tt s Bar Nucl ea r Plant Unit 2 would cost up to $366 million in today's dollars. TVA maintains a nucl ear d eco mmis s ionin g trust to provide money for th e u l timate decommissioning of its nuclear power plan t s. The fund i s invested i n securities generally designed to achieve a return in line with overa ll equity market performance.

In June 1994 , t his fund had accumulated $50 million. Since then, funds have been accumulated to cover the cost of decommissioning TVA's operat i ng nuclear units. The assets of the decommissioning trust fund as of December 31, 2006, totaled $1004 million. This balance i s 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 r eturn. This equates int o 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 presen t value of its liabilities and believes that , over the long t erm and before cessa t ion of nuc l ear plant operations and commencement of decommissioning ac ti vi ti es , adequate funds from inv estments will be available to support decommissioning. At the time WBN Unit 2 commences operat i on , TVA would crea te a sepa rat e tru s t accoun t for th e unit within th e decommiss i oning trust fund and would make any necessary contributions to the fun d to cove r the costs of fut u r e decommissioning. P o t en ti a l Im pacts to th e Environment Env i ronmental issues associated with decommissioning were analyzed in th e Generic Environmenta /lmp act Statement for Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants , NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996a; 1999). The generic environmental impac t statement included a determination of whether the ana l ysis of the environmental issue cou l d be applied to a" p l ants and w h ether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues were sorted into two categories. For those issues meeting Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-spec ific analysis is r equire d by NRC, unless new a nd significant information is identified. Category 2 i ssues are those that do not meet one o r more o f the criteria o f Ca t egory 1 and t herefore r equ ir e additional pl ant-specific review. Environme n tal analys i s of th e future decommissioning pl an for WBN would tier from this o r the appropriate NRC d oc um e nt in effec t at th e time. TVA h as not id e ntifi e d any s i gnifican t n e w inf o rm atio n during this e nvironm e nt a l revi ew that would indi cate t he p otent i a l for d ec ommi ss ioning imp acts not previously r e vi ewed. Th erefo re, TVA do es not a t this time a ntic ipate a ny adverse effec ts from the decommi ss i on in g proc ess. A s stated earlie r, furth e r en vironm e nt al r evie w s would be condu cted a t the time a d ec ommi ss ionin g pla n for W BN i s propo se d. 102 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch ap t er 4 CHAPTER 4 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 4.1. N EPA Project Management Ruth M. Horton Position: Education: Experience: Involvement: Bru ce L. Yeager Positron: Education: Expe ri ence: Inv olvement: Senior NEPA Spec i alist, NEPA Services, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Pol i cy, Knoxville, Tennessee B.S., History 28 years in Public Policy and Planning, includ i ng 10 years in Environmental Impact Assessment NEPA Compliance and Document Preparation NEPA Program Manager, NEPA Policy , TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee M.S., Zoology (Eco l ogy); B.S., Zoology (Aquat i c Ecology) 31 years in Environmental Compliance for Water, Air, and L a n d Use Planning; Environmental Bus in ess Serv i ces NEPA Policy Compliance and Document Prepa r ation 4.2. Oth er Contributors Steve n F. Ami ck Positio n: Education/Experience: In v o lv e m e nt: J oh n (80) T. Baxte r Po s ition: Educ a tion: Experi e nce: Inv o lv e ment: Stephanie A. Chance Po s ition: Education: Experience: I nvo/vement: Specia l is t Eng i neer , Flood R i sk and Data Management, River Operations B.S., Civ il Engineer i ng with 30 years experience in the developme nt floodplain data; Registered Professional Eng in ee r Floodpla in s and F l ood R i s k Senior Aqu at ic Biologis t, TVA En vironm enta l Stewardsh ip an d Policy, Knoxvill e , T e nn essee M.S. and B.S., Zoology 17 y ea r s in P rot ecte d Aq u a tic Spec i es Monito r ing, H a bitat A ssessmen t, and R ec ov e ry; 7 y ea rs in Environm e ntal Review Aquatic EcologyfThr ea ten e d a nd Endangered Speci e s Biolo g i s t, Aqu a tic Endangered Species, TVA Environmental St e w a rdship and Policy, Knoxvllle, Tennessee M.S., Environmental Biology; B.S., Fisheries Bioiogy 7 years in Aquatic Biology; 3 years in Environmental Reviews Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 103 Compl e tion a nd Operation of W atts Ba r Nucle a r Pl a nt Unit 2 Jim C h a rdo s Position: Education: Experience: Involvement: Patricia 8. Cox Position: Education: Experience: Involvement: Eric J. D a vi s Position: Education: Experience: Involvement: James H. Eblen Position: Education: Exper i ence: In vo l ve m e nt: Mich a e l A. Eiffe Po s ition: Educ a tion: Experi e nce: I nvolv e ment: Herbert V. Ga r rett J r. Position: Educatio n: Exper i e nce: I n v olve m e nt: Program Manager, Tritium Production , TVA Nuclea r, W atts Bar Nuclear Plant, Spring City, Tenness ee B.S., Rensse l aer Polytechnic Institute; Executive MBA , Rutgers University 6 years in the U.S. Nuclear Submarine Service; 37 years in Nuclear Plant Project Management Project Manager Senior Botanist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville , Tennessee Ph.D., Botany (Plant Taxonomy and Anatomy); M.S. and B.S., Biology 30 years in Plant Taxonomy at the Academic Leve l; 3 years with TVA Her i tage Projec t Terrestria l Ecology, Invasive Plant Species, and T hr ea t ened and Endangered Species Senior Financial Analyst , TVA Treasury -Finance , Knoxville , Tennessee A.S., Business Administration, B.S., Economics and Finance, M.B.A., General Management , C.F.A., Chartered F i nancial Analyst 7 years in Treasury -Finance Decommissioning Contract Economist, TVA Environmental Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee PhD., Economics; B.S., Business Admin i st r at i o n 39 years in Eco n om i c Analysis and Resea r c h Soc i oeco n o mi cs a nd E nvir on m e n ta l Ju s t ice Speciali s t, TVA River Op e r a t i on s , Knoxville , T e nnes see B.S., M.E., Civil a nd En vironm e nt a l Engineering 27 y ea rs in w ater r eso urce syst e ms analysis Surf ace W a te r Hydroth er m a l An a l ysis Proj e ct M anage r, TVAN -Nucl ear G e ne r ation Deve l opment and Business Support B.S.M.E. 27 y ea r s in Nucl ea r E n g in ee rin g D es i g n Radioact i ve Wa s te Treatment Syste m s 104 Final Suppl e mental Environm e ntal Impact Statem e nt T ra v is Hill H e nry Position: Education: Expe ri ence: In volvement: Paul N. Hopping Position: Educat i on: Experience: Involv emen t: Clinton E. Jon es Position: Education: Experience: Inv o lv eme nt: William Kee l er P ositio n: Education: Exp e rience: I n vol v eme nt: W. Rich a rd King Po s i t ion: E duc at ion: Exp e rience: I nvolvement: P e rry D. M a ddux Po s ition: Educat i o n: Experie n ce: Inv o lv e m e nt: Ch ap t er 4 Terrestrial Zoo lo gis t Specialis t, TVA En vironm e ntal Stewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee M.S., Zoology; B.S., Wildlife Biology 17 years i n Zoology , Endangered Species, a nd N EPA Compliance Terrestrial Ecology , Threatened and Endangered Species Technical Specialist, Reservoir Operations, Knoxville, Tennessee Ph.D. Civil and Env ir onmental Engineering

M.S. and B.S., C ivil Engineering 23 years in Hydrothermal and Surface Water Analy sis Hydroth erma l and Surface Wate r Analysis Aquatic Community Ecologist, TVA E nvir onme nt a l S t ewa r dshi p and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee B.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Science 1 5 years in E nvironm e nt a l Cons ultat ion and Fi s h er i es Management Aquatic Eco logy and Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species Geographic I nfo rmati on System Specia li st , TVA En vir o nm en tal S t e ward ship a nd Po li cy , Knoxville , Te nn essee B.S., Com muni cations , Geog raphic Inf or m a ti o n and T ec hn o l ogy Ce rtifi cat i on 16 years experience in Geographic I nformatio n Sy s t e m s M app i ng S e ni o r Pr oje ct m a n age r, TV A F a cilit i es M a na ge m e nt, Knoxvill e , T e nn essee Arch it e ctu r a l d es ign 39 y ea r s in Faciliti e s Man age ment and Master Planning S it e planning Proj e ct M a n age r, Nucl ea r G e neration D e velopment, Chatt a noog a , Tenness e e Bachelor of Chemical Engineering 24 years in Nuclear Design Activities Spe nt Fue l S t o r age Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 105 Compl e tion a nd Operation of W atts Bar Nucl ea r Pl a nt Unit 2 Zita I. Martin Position

Education: Experience

Involvement:

Roger A. Milstead Position: Education: Experience

In volvement:

J aso n M. Mitch e ll Posit i on: Educat i on: Exper i ence: Involvement: Jeffrey W. Mun sey Position: Educa ti on: Experience: I nvolv e m e nt: J e rri L. Phillips Po sit ion: Educatio n: Experience: Involv emen t: Kim Pilarski Position: Education: Experience: Involvement: Spent Fuel Program Manager , Nu c l ea r Fuel Supp ly and Disposal, Chattanooga, Tennessee B. S., Nuclear Engineering 27 years in Nuclear Fuel , including 15 years dealing with Spent Fuel Storage Spent Fuel Storage Manager, TVA Flood Risk and Data Management, Knoxville, Tennessee B.S., Civil Engineering; Registered Professional Engineer 30 years in F l oodplain and Environmenta l Evaluations Floodplains and Flood Risk Natura l Areas Biologist, TVA Env ironm enta l Stewardship and Pol i cy, Knoxville, Tennessee M.P.A. (Environmental Policy); B.S., Wild lif e and Fisheries Science 13 years in Natural Resource P l a nning and Eco logical Assessment with Emphasis on Sensitive Resources Natural Areas Civil Engineer (Dam Safety), TVA River Ope r ations, Knoxville, Tennessee M.S. and B.S., Geophysics 21 years in Geophysical and Geologica l Studies and I nvestigations, in c ludi ng Applicatio n s to E nvironm e n ta l Assessments Seismology Ch e mi st ry/Environm e nt a l Technical S upport, Watts Ba r Nucl ea r Plan t, Spring City , T e nne sse e M.S., E nvironm e nt a l Science _ 9 y ea rs of Environm e nta l Sci e nce experience , including Fr esh/S a lt W ate r Studie s/Fi eld work Continentally and Abroad R aw W ate r Ch e mic a l Additiv es W etlands Biologist Specialist , TVA Environmenta l St e wardship and Policy , Knoxville, Tennessee M.S., Geograph y 12 y ears in W a tershed A ssessme nt and Wetland Regulation and As sess ment Wetlands 106 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Doyle E. Pittm a n Position: Education: Experience: Involvement: Christopher D. Un ga t e Posit i on: Education: Experience: Involvement: Edward (Ted) W. Wells III Posit i o n: Education: Expe ri ence: Inv olveme nt: Che ryl K. Whitaker Position: Educat i on: Expe ri ence: Involvement: Eddie Woods Position: Educat i on: Exp e ri e nce: In volvem e nt: Ch apter 4 Program Manager, TVA Nuclear, Chattanooga, T ennessee B.S., Atmospheric Science 30 years in Meteorological Support f or Nuclear Power P l ants Climatology and Meteorology Senior Consultant , Sargent & lundy, Chattanooga, Tennessee M.S. and B.S., Civil Engineering; M.B.A. 32 years in Engineering, Planning, and Management Need for Power Ana l ysis Contract Archaeologist , TVA Environmenta l S t ewardship and Policy, Knoxville, Tennessee M.A. and B.S., Anthropology 8 years Cultural Resource Management C ultur al Resources Health Physicist Radwas t e, Watts Bar Nu clea r Plant, Spring City, Tennessee B.S., Radiation P r otect i on 24 years in Radiation Protection , i n cluding 7 years in Radwaste Radwaste Nuclear Chemist , Watts Bar Nuclear Plan t, Sp ring City, Tennessee B.S., Ch e mi s try, M.B.A. 26 yea r s in Nu c l ea r Power Chemistry and Radiation Ass essme nt R adi olo gica l Effects Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 107 ,. Ch a pt e r 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 Follow i ng 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 H i story and Culture Office Cherokee Nation Tahlequah , OK Mr. Tyler Howe Historic Preservation Specialist Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians Cherokee, NC Mr. Russ Townsend Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Eastern Band of the Cherokee I ndians C h e r okee , NC M s. Li sa Stapp A ct ing Trib a l Hi s toric Pr ese rv a tion Offic e r Unit ed K eeto ow a h Band of Ch e r okee Indi a n s in Okl a homa Tah!equah , OK M s. Vir g ini a (G in g y) N a il Tribal Hi s tor ic Pr ese rv atio n Offic e r Th e Chickasaw N atio n Cultural Resources Department Ada, OK Mr. Terry Cole Cultural Resources Director Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Durant, OK Chief Gregory E. Pyle Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Durant, OK Ms. Lillie Strange Environmental Director Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Jena , LA Ms. J oyce Bea r Histo ri c Preservatio n Office r Mu scogee (Cr eek) N a tion o f Okl a homa Okmu lg ee , OK M s. B e ryl 8 at ti se Acting Trib a l Historic Pr ese rv a tion O ffice r Al aba m a-Cous h a tt a Tribe of T ex a s Liv ingsto n, TX M s. Augu sti ne Asbury Cultural Preservation Coordinator Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town W etumka , OK Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 109 Compl et ion and Oper a tion of W a tts Bar Nucle a r Pl an t Unit 2 M s. Evelyn Bucktrot Mr. Gary Bucktrot Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Kialegee Tribal Town Wetum k a, OK Mr. Charles Coleman NAGPRA Representative Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Weleetka, OK Ms. Karen Kaniatobe Triba l Historic Preservation Office r Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Shawnee OK Ms. Robin DuShane Cultural Preservation Director Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Seneca , MO Chief Charles Enyart Eastern Shawnee Tr i be of Oklahoma Seneca, MO Mr. Ron Sparkman Chairman Shawnee Tribe Miami, OK Ms. Rebecca Hawkins Tr iba l Historic Preserva t ion Office r Shawnee Tribe Miami , OK Agenciesllndividuals Rece iving the DSEIS and/or FSEIS (H ard Copy o r CD) u.S. Congressional Staff Sena t or L amar Alexander (J eff Lewis -S t aff)* Senator Bob Corker (Betsy Re n a lli -Staff)* Co ngre ss m an Zach Wamp (L e igh M cC lur e -S t aff)* u.S. (F ede r a l) Officials 110 Dr. L ee Barclay , Field Superviso r* U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service Cook e vill e, T e nn. Dir ec tor, Office of Environmenta l Policy and Compliance* Department of the In terio r Wa shingto n, D.C. Mr. Ron Gatlin , Chief* Regul a tory Br a nch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N ashville , Tenn. Mr. H e inz Mu e ll e r, Chi e f* Office of Environmenta l Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Atlanta, GA Fina! Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch a p t e r 5 Sta t e and L oca l Agencies Mr. Mike .Apple, Director* Division of Solid Waste Ten n essee Department of Env i ronment and Conservation Nashville, Tenn. Ms. Jennifer Bartlett* Tennessee Division of Archeo l ogy Nashville , Tenn. Mr. Wilton Burnette* Ten n essee Department of Economic and Community Developmen t Nashvi ll e , Te n n. Mr. Ed Cole, Chief,* Environmen t and Planni n g T e nn essee Departmen t of Transportation N as h ville , Tenn. M r. Paul Davis, Director* Di v ision of Water Pollutio n Contra! TDEC Nas hvill e , Ten n. Pamala Myers* Environmental Protection Specialist TDEC-Water Pollution Control Nashville, Tenn. Edward M. Polk, Jr., P.E*, Manager TDEC DWPC, Permit Section Nashville, Tenn. Mr. Reggie Reeves, Di r ector* Division of Natural Areas TDEC Nashville , Ten n. Mr. Barry Stephens, D i rector* Division of Ai r Pollution Co n trol TDEC Nashvi ll e, Tenn. Mr. Robert Todd

  • Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Nashville, Tenn. Mr. Richard Tune* Mr. Robe rt Foste r, Di r ecto r* Div i s i o n o f Wate r S u pp l y T DEC Tennessee Histo r ica l Commissio n Nashville , Ten n. N as hvill e, T e nn. Co m m i ss ion er J a me s Fyk e* T DE C N as hvill e , Tenn. St a te and Local Legi s l a to r s and Offici a l s State Senator Dewayne Bunch (M e igs , McMinn, and Bradley Counti es , T en ny St a te Sen a tor Tom Kilby (Rhea County, T enn.)* State Representative Eric Watson (M eigs and Bradle y Counties, T en n.)* State Represent a tive Jim Cobb (Rhea and Hamilton County, Tenn.)* Mayor Ken Jones, (Meigs County, Tenn.)* Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 111 Compl et ion and Operation of Watts Bar Nucle a r Plant Unit 2 M a yor Billy Ray Patton (Rhea County, T e nny Mayor Kelly Reed (Spring City, Tenny Libraries 112 Chattanooga-Hamilton County Bicentennial Library Chattanooga, Tenn. 37402 Knoxville Public Library I Lawson McGhee Library Knoxville , TN 37902 Leno ir City Public Library Lenoir City, Ten n. L oudon Publ i c Library L oudon, Tenn. Meigs -Decatur Public Library Decatur , Te nn. Clyde W. Roddy Pub li c Library Dayton , Tenn. ,Al.udrey Pack Library Sp r ing City, Tenn. E. G. F i sher Public Library At h ens , Tenn. Cleveland Public Li b r ary Cleveland , Tenn. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement AUG 1 8 2010 Perm;, SeCUOll Ch a pt e r 5 P e r sons R ecei vi ng E-ma il Notif i cation of DSEIS and FSEIS Document Av a il abili ty I nc l ud i ng A ctive E-Link to TVA Web Site Address for the Documen t u.s. Congressional Staff Mr. T odd Womack, staff of Senator Bob Corker Mr. Patrick Jaynes, staff of Senator Lamar Alexander Mr. David Leaverton, staff of Senator Lamar Alexander Mr. J onathan Griswold, staff of Congressman Jimmy Duncan Ms. Beth Hickman, staff of Congressman Lincoln Davis S t ate and Loca l Legis l ators and Officials State Senator Randy McNall y (Loudon and Monroe Counties, Tenn.) State Senator Bo Watson (Hamilton County, Tenn.) State Senato r Ward C r utchfield (Hamilton County, Tenn.) State Representat i ve Kevin Brooks (Bradley County, Tenn.) State Represen t ative Richard Floyd (Hamiiton County, Tenn.) State Rep r esentative Gerald McCormick (Hamilton County, Tenn.) S t ate Rep r ese n tative JoAnne Favors (Hamilton, County) Sta t e Representative Tomm i e Brown (Hami l ton , County) S t ate R e pr ese nt at iv e Vinc e D ea n (H a m il t o n, Co unty) State Representative Mike Be ll (McMinn and Monroe Counti es) State Representative Jimmy M a tlock (L oudo n and Monro e , Counties)

State R e pre se nt at ive D e nnis F e rgu s on (Loudon County) B rad!e y County M a yor G a ry D avis H am il to n County M a yor Cl aude Ramsey L oudon County Mayor Doyl e Arp Knox County M a yor Mik e R ags d a le McMinn County Mayor John Gentry Final Supplemental Environmental impact Statement 113 Compl etio n and Op e r a tion of W at ts B a r Nuclear Plant Unit 2 M on ro e County M a yor Allan W a t so n 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 Washington , DC Cathy 8enog Graysville , TN Howard Cohen Knoxville, TN Ken Jones Decatur , TN Frances Lambert Jonesborough, TN Joe McCarthy Spring City, TN Linda Modica Jonesborough, TN Jerry Miller Sale Creek, TN Bob Nordyke Dayton, TN E-mail Notification of Document AvaiJability Including Active E-Link to TVA Web Site Address for the Document Terry Broyles Spr in g City, TN Andrew Eder Knoxv ille , TN M ax H acke tt Dayton , TN Cliff Hightow e r Ch atta noo ga , TN Po s t Card Thomas Markham Lookout Mountain, GA Mac McMillan Spring City , TN Zackery Rad Soddy Daisy, T N S ee Attachment A, Appendix D R es ponse to Comments for a li sting of those who sen t TVA a copy of a form letter bye-mail. Ben McDonald Spring City, TN 114 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch a pt e r 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 s u pplemental environmental impact statement is available here and. also in many l oca l libraries. It will be available at the open house April 17. A ll writt e n comm e nt s mu st be r ece i ved by May 14. C omme nt s m ay b e submitted by mail to Ruth Horton, 400 S ummit Hill Drive (WT-11 D), Knoxville , TN 37902; on th e int e rn e t; or fax to (865) 632-345 1. Any comm e nt s rec e iv e d , including n ames a nd add r esses , will b e com e p a rt of th e administrative record and will be available for public in s p e ction . ." v,.

"Iub';c pO-r

"' .... rI ;s .... cmplo+oly I . K I S l Cll ,I;:) I e ll'" . II Vv o;;; 1-" V <:;, CH , ... , ..... , "v<v, "... , ...........

  • TVA provides power to l a r ge industries and 158 pow e r di s tributors that serve approximately

8.7 million

consumer s in seven so uth eas t e rn st a tes. TVA a l s o m a nages the Tennes see River and its tributaries to provid e multiple b e nefits, including flood damage reduction , navig ation , wat er quality and recreation. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 115 Completion and Operation of W a tts Ba r Nu clea r Plant Unit 2 5.3, Information Open House Paid Advertisement I 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 f "" , If J,1 inl')f'III"i,. '-H }jj!U"" n alL' Jfil!h :;';;i;;.Jili' '11 1:ll', I'lIit*, ', blR. fil><: ,ina'. S.*l,I",',i,;,iLij ", jl. irutlt"'fr.'ul !uii'i ([ '1:11 <,,, ** :,f.£ (Sri;;') flI t 11l¢' f-..... "n !.ft'l ;.j I:U;' :\:1I,'I.c;j;f , 1'1;."! ,', on II;' ;(c.1 to hf' :11)1 t i t1K' (""I V , fl' "t"; Ift_ ,!uo1.i!" dl'n>.I"*" f">ll"'i ((>,:, .. 11.;, '" 'd.

a.ftUl , W
tJu ,*

'H 1 .J: III.' uu;",:! (i/H : 1H..:m:I(" il.] 1.'4" '.:.il ;>11 l'I!:'i1 ikw lu Hi: iin,pli'l iO'lf:t!i'll .. hl'[i.'.i i:? l'\-.<\.n TilL! r.tJ1lI Vi liI:II,1 to!'

.I' U",illl" d!iC' c ,\.i<;tiLl1: ni<:flor' 1l4' flit'

,".,'1. 'lV.\ fl:l'" ,"1'" ('tr-ll".r('ll r..r rli,' rHi" ", f 'II"" ,mil , ,\1,11'11: y,lIh

10111 k",J"i hifilr " .... li'I'YI .* t ,

..... ".!I ii' /U', \',">>pIt:I(" "'lir ;:. d!l: Ifriln '!i , I;' .. wj (Tlol'.k ,;n'",iI"bf,* r-,-r rHh , w.on M'. '1'(;""11:0. ",ifi, tnh:vu;1 h"': ,."y; tf. jiHI \"1" i.: '".in .;i: I" ,,-\rYllilljl: if.,f*lI',ua"I",,, ....... ( ... '! f ..... r or 19 , -, ,1 !1r;ltl ;\U'; wIH "I lbi.' "-!lSn {If:;-, ,;;1 .. , ilu.lJhk:Jt ll..:-r,;!l ....... *i!)j.; IR.h!if ( IUU"'1I:HI};A l.,f,rH)' ::'::;'i ... .. U ht' ... r f;.' t .... nh f.:.!:""o;. '_'-'I)!",r'nj': ' l'nb1k tll...-.!!;) . I.H K-:.1!';t 1:..c:':7IH!f 1 ,'u N"; 'li jJ 1f .. "','Ololl'f'i)l < !-' ( *. 1;" h",.'l'lIltli,' 1, lhun: ... [ J," , t".*uht ... "hr i,* .. 'l}.ttKIll.'\ r;.IT .. \I t

!. t.i-hY'*'h'il tw 'JY ,\ JI';' Ur:.'f ;b.m H. ,,"'11\' ,*'lm;mi,'

, 01 .. ' ,;,!.;!}4'1 !l1:f,,..r,;r,! "':," 1: " , '0. hroi.' ... v. u*i 1:.-[: '* ... 'r .,.'Ibhl: I )j".:n i!';_J't' I" ,:1Il: Uijl, 11 l<L1H,,: 4 UII.: , dl(;':" "!o;"Jtni JioO'rW .;iI 1,: "'1' iii .il gl'; I r Ki*.t,* H.J.:JJd .. ',.i.!.,j.6t r .. ; .. 1."1" 1 "lm.1S: l4'i=:'!" 1::;1 .... Han llKfl,l",r ,,1' lbr 11\1,'1...: fJo:: .... \i**. Illt.: ll'<l;r,J

1;:1"Vi ;lI'lr , l'" ,,, I.:

{lf i'!'" il,;/ii' hnh ..... r:,.nm r".,'l' t':"i: n' f;' r,.:"(i

I'*n'uik,' {i.tltf rq R.ii, Hcli'tutd, !inti", .. NJ;PA lIi;roci1iIiJ
l;it .;l,!"
!-t;l!lumi H.J1 i, 't§.' 1* lin)
l. flit: , J-.... .. 116 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch ap t e r 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 opera tion of Unit 2 a t 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 und erNay and the SEIS to make an inform ed decision about whether o r 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 r ecord, comments must be received by TVA during the 45-day comment period. For ease of commenting, comments can be made today eithe r 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 t o 865-632-3451, or by surface mail to th e address below. Comments must be rec ei ved no later than May 14,2007. Ruth Horton TVA NEPA Services 400 W es t Summit Hill D riv e (Wr-11 D) Knoxvill e , TN 37902. Propo sed A ct ion TVA is propo s ing completion and operation of WBN Unit 2 to m ee t the n eed for additional baseload capacity on the TVA system and to maximize the use of an existing a sse ts. The unit would be compl e ted as originally designed, along s ide it s twin , Unit 1, which b ega n comm e rcial operation in 1 996. Only minimal new construction i s proposed , and no expansion of the e xi s ting site footprint would be required. Previous environmenta l reviews a nd studies have been compl e t ed to evaluate the potenti a l environmental impacts associated with completion and op era tion of WBN Unit 2. This draft document supp l eme nt s, v erifies , and up dates the information an d analyses in tho se r e views. No effects beyond those di sc ussed in previous environmental r e views w e re identified. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 117 Compl e t io n a nd Operation of W atts Bar Nu c l ear Pl a nt Un i t 2 Fact Shee t Watts Bar Nuc l ear Plant (WBN) is one of three licensed TVA nuclear power p l ant 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 Commiss i on for the completion of WBN Un i t 2. Completing Unit 2 would make use of existing buildings located on an operati n g 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 ne eded to co mpl ete 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 rough l y 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 fo r e l ec tri c ity in the TVA powe r serv i ce area has grown a t th e average rate of 2.4 percent per year for th e past 15 years. Future growth in d ema nd i s es timat ed to be around 2 p e r cent annuall y. TVA a nticip ates h av in g to add b ase lo a d capacity to i ts s y s t e m in the n e xt d e cad e t o m ee t continu e d growt h in d e m a nd for powe r. No d ec i s i on h as b ee n made to build a ny n ew b ase-lo ad g e n e r a tion b e yond compl e ting Brown s F e rry Unit 1. Supp l ementa! EIS C omp l etio n Sched ul e P u b li c Comme nt Per i o d Publie Seoping M ee ting I ss u e F in a l SE I S Anticip a ted TVA Decision M a r c h 30 -M a y 14, 2007 April 1 7 , 2007 Jun e 22 , 2 0 07 August 2007 118 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch ap t e r 5 COMMEN T S: conti n ued on back fo l d page a l ong dotted line before mailing Watts Bar Unit 2 C ompietion and Operation

  • FRO M (p l eas e p r i n t cl ea r l y) N ame Mr.l Ms.lMr s. O rg a niz a ti on: Addr es s City St a t e: T e!ephone: Comm e nt Card ,------, Pl a c e St am p H e re Zip: TO: Ruth Horton TVA N E PA S e rvices 400 West Summit Hill Drive WT llD-K Knoxville, TN 37902 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 119 Com p l e tion a nd Operation of W a tt s Ba r Nu clea r P l ant Unit 2 COMMENTS cont inu ed: 120 If you would like a copy ofthe Final SEIS, please check appropriate box: o I would l i k e to b e notified by 0 e-m ail or o U.S. mail (select one) when the FSEI S if available on the TV A ,:ycbsite.

D D E-mail addr e ss __________________ _ I would like to receive a printed copy of the F SE IS by U.S. mail. I would like to receive a copy of the FSEIS on compact disc by U.S. mail. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 6 CHAPTER 6 6.0 SU PP OR TING INFORMATION 6.1. Li terature 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. 200 1. Watts Bar Nuclear Plan t Supplemental Condenser Coaling Water System Fish Monitoring Program. Norris: Tennessee Valley Aut h ority , Resource Stewardship. Calabrese , F.A. 1976. Excavations at 40RH6 Watts Bar Area , Rhea Cou n ty, Tennessee. Chattanooga: Universi t y of Tennessee, Departmen t of Sociology and Anthropology. Dynamic So lution s. 2007. RFP 103006 Repo rt 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 Pon d into the Intake Channel." Norris: Tennessee Valley Authority, Eng i neering Labora t ory , WR2003-1-36-128. 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 int o Surface Waters. Office of Science and Tech n o l ogy , U.S. Env i ronmen t al Protection Agency. Washington , D. C.. Sep t embe r 1 996. K arim i. R. 2007. W a tt s Bar Nu clea r Plant Se v e re Reactor Accident Anal y sis. Ge r mantown , M a ryl an d: Science Applications Int e rn a t io n a l Co r poration. Prep are d by Science Applic a ti o n s Int erna ti ona l Corpor a tion f o r TVA. Nu c l ea r Energy In st itute. 2002. Aircr a ft C r as h Imp act An a ly ses Demon s trat e Nucl ea r Pow e r Pl a nt's Str u ctu r a l Strength. Schro e d l , G. F. 1 978. Excav a tions of the Leuty and McDon a ld Site Mound s. Univ e r sity o f T e nn essee D epa rtm en t of Anthropology , Knoxvill e R e port of Inv est i gat i ons Numb e r 22 and T e nn essee V a ll e y Authority Publications i n Anthropology Numb e r 15. Tenn essee V a ll e y Authority. 1 972. Final Environmental S t ateme nt, W atts Bar Nucl ea r Pla n t U nits 1 and 2. Chattanooga

Office of He a lth and Envi r onment a l Science. --. 197 6a. Envir o nm e nt a l Inf o rm a ti o n, W atts Ba r Nu c l ea r P l a nt U n it s 1 a nd 2. Suppl e m e nt to Final Environm en t a l St a t eme nt, W a tt s Ba r Nu c l ea r Pl a nt Unit s 1 and 2 (TVA 1972) .. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 121 Com p l e t io n a nd Op e i a tion o f W a tts Ba r Nu clear P la nt Unit 2 --. 1976b. Estimates of Entrainmen t of Fish Eggs and Larvae by Watts Bar Stea m 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. WM28-1-85-100, February 1977. --. 1977 c. Results of Hydrothermal Model Test of the Multiport Diffuser System Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water Management, Water Sys t ems Development Branch , Report No. 9-2013, May 1977. --. 19 80a. 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, 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 --. 1 993b. Discharge Temperature Limit E v a l uation Fo r Watts Ba r Nu c l ea r Plan t. Report No. W R28-1-85-137 .. 1 994a. Tenn essee V alley Rese rv oi r a nd Stre a m Quality -1993. Summary of Vit a l Signs a nd U se Suitability Monitoring. Norris: Offic e of W a t er M a n age ment. 1 994b. Watta Bar Off-Site Dose C a lculation Manual. A 20-year Period of M ete oro l ogical Data From 1974-1 993. Approved by the U.S. Nucl ear R egu latory Ag enc y July 26, 1994. --. 1 995a. Energy Vi s i o n 2020 -Int egrated Resource Management Plan and Fina l Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. ---. 1 995b. Fina l Supplementa l Environmenta l Review , Operation of Watts Bar Nucl ea r Plant. Chattanooga: Tennessee Vall e y Authority. 122 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Ch a pt e r 6 1 995c. Adoptio n of F ina l Supplemen t a l Environmen t al I mpac t S t a t e m e nt, 6 0 F R 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-12 1 0. --. 1997b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water Project Thermal Plume Modeling , Tennessee Valley Authority , Engineering Laboratory, December, 1997. -_. 1 998a. Final Environmental Assessment Related to the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water Project. Knoxville: Office of Environmenta l Policy and Planning. ---. 1998b. Aquatic E n vironmental Conditions in the Vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant During Two Years of Operation. Norris: Office of Wate r Management. --. 1998c. Individual Plant Examination of Externa l Events (I PEE) F i nal Report. --. 1998d. 1997 Verification of Thermal Discharge For Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Repo rt 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, Engineeri n g Laboratory, November, 1998. --. 1 999a. L ow Leve l Radioactive Waste Transport and Storage , Watts Bar and Se qu oya h Nuclear Plants. --. 1 999b. Ju l y 1 999 V erificatio n S t u dy of T h e rm a l Disc h arge for W atts Ba r Nuclea r Pl a nt S u pp l e m e n ta l Co n de n se r C oo lin g W a t e r Syste m. Repo rt No. WR99-2 14 3. ---. 2000. Record of Deci s ion and Adoption of the D e parlm e nt o f Energy Fin a l Environm e nt a l Imp ac t St a temen t for the Production of Tritium in a Comm e rcial Light Wat e r Reactor. --. 2001. Hydroth e rmal D a t a For Watts B a r Nucl ea r Plant SCCW Outfall. R ep ort No. WR2001-4-8 5-14 5. ---. 2002. Final Supplemental Environmental Imp ac t Statement for Op en ing Lic e n se Renewal of the Browns Ferry Nucle a r P l a nt. --. 2004a. Reservoir Operations Study Final Programmatic Environmental Imp ac t Statement. Final Supplemental Environmental Imp act Statement 123 Compl etio n and Oper a tion of W a tts Bar Nuclear Pl an t Unit 2 --. 2004b. Prop osed Modifications to Water Temperature Effl u en t Requirements for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfall 113. Report No. WR2004-3-85-1 49. ---. 2004c. Increase in Allowable UHS Temperature to 88°F, TVA Categorica l 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 (N PDES) 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 Nuclea r Plant Outfall 11 3 Passive M i xing Zone. Report No. WR200S-2-85-1S1. ---. 2006a. S umm er 2005 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar Nuclea r Plant Outfall 113 Passive M ixing 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 ", TV A letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on , May 8 , 2006. ---. 2007a. Discussions abou t WBN operation with tw o units, wherein TVA engi neer s indi cate d that the average operatio n of the IPS is expected to be equivale nt to about 4 ERCW pumps a nd 2 RCW pump s. J.S. Chardos , F.A. Koontz , P.N. Hopping, R.M. H orton , S.E. Woods , J.S. Thompson , and J.L. Phillips. Jun e 7 , 2007. --. 2007b. Wint e r 2006 Complia nc e S urv e y for W a tts Ba r Nu clea r Pla nt Outfall 113 Pas s ive M i xing Zone. --. 2007 c. Summ e r 2006 Compli a nce Survey for W a tt s Ba r Nuclear Plant Outf a fl113 P ass ive Mixing Zon e. U.S. D epa rtm en t of Commerce. 2003. Clim a tolo g y of th e U.S., No. 81, Montf1ly Station Normals. N at ion a l Climatic Data Cente r, CUM 81, Septe mb e r 8, 2003. ---. 2005. Loc a l Clim a tologic a l D a ta Annu a l Summary Comparati v e Data fo r Chattanooga, Tennessee. N at ion a l Cliniatic Data Center. U.S. D e partm e nt of Energy. 1999. Final Environmental Imp a ct Statement for the Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor. 124 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement C hap t er 6 U.S. N uclear R e gul a t o ry Commi ssio n. 1975. Environmental Survey of T ransp o rlation 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 Eff l uents 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 Ope r ation o f Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0498. Washington, D.C.: Office o f Nuclear Reacto r Regulation. --. 1 995a. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nu clear Plant Uni t s 1 and 2. NUREG-0498.

Washington, D.C.: Office o f Nu c l ea r Reacto r Regulation. --. 199 5 b. Final Env ironment a l S t atement Related to th e Operation of Watts Ba r Nucl ear Plant , Units 1 and 2 , Supplemen t No.1. NUR EG-0498 , Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391 Washington, D.C.: Off i ce o f Nuclear Reactor Regulation. --. 1 996a. Generic En vi ronmental Impact Stateme nt for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NURE G-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 o f Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regula t o r y Commissio n Washington, D C 20555-000 1. Date Published: February 1996. ----. 1999. Generic Environ m ental Impact Stateme nt for License Renewal of Nu clear Plants. Main Report, Section 6.3 -Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of Findings on NEPA I ssues for License Renewal o f Nucl ea r Power Plants. NURE G-1 4 37, Vol u me 1. W as hin g ton , D.C. --. 2007. Addition a l Comments on SECY-06-0219, Final Rulemaking to Revise 10 C.FR. 73.1 , D esig n Basi s Threat R e quirements , Commi ss ion e r McGaffigan. J a nu a ry 29 , 2007. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 125 Completio n and Operation of W a tts Ba r Nucfe a r Plant Un it 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 effluen t ................................. ...................................................................... .......................... 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 ,59,67,7 2,95 , 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 , 1 1 8 , 122, 131, 150,152,153,202 Commerc i a l 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 coo li ng 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 ......................... .............................................................................. ....... 1 01, 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 , 7 1, 73,163,177,211 Detailed Scoping, Estimating. and Planning (DSEP) ......... S-3, 1, 5, vii. 1. 20, 31 , 118, 176 , 178 , 187 d i ffuser .................................... ................. 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 ,4 2,44,45,46.48,49 , 50. 51.52,53.55,59,76,80 , 87 , 91,98 ,1 21,122,123, 1 24 , 131. 132, 133 , 134, 163, 196.202,209 , 210 discha r ge limit ............. ................... ............................................. .................... ..... 26 , 46, 48, 49 , 55 , 59 discharges ....................................................................... ................................ ........... 37 ,4 5.55.59,9 1 di strib ut or ................................. ........................ ............................ ................... ................ 5 , 12, 11 5, 17 8 di s tributors ......................................................................... ............. ....................... ..................... .......... 5 do se ............. ....... iii, i v, 5 1, 7 3. 74 , 76 , 77 , 79 , 81 , 84 , 85.89 , 90 , 97.98 , 99 , 100 , 101 ,1 22 , 1 25 , 2 11 do se s .......................... ............ .................... ............... ........ 73 , 76 , 77 , 81 , 85.89 , 90 , 98 , 99 , 100.101 dry sto r age .............. , .................................. ................... ............ ........................... .................. 75 , 95 , 96 earthquake ....................................................................... ................ .................. 69 , 71, 7 2 , 7 5 , 76 , 1 77 econom i c gr owth .................................... ................................ ................... .................................... ..... 12 eff lu e nt. S-2. iii, v , x, 23,24,29, 34, 3 5 , 36, 39,40 , 41 , 42 , 43.44 , 45 , 46 , 48, 49, 53, 76, 77,81, 82 , 84.85 , 88 , 89.9 0, 9 4 ,1 2 1,1 2 4,1 25 ,1 3 1.1 32 , 1 33 ,1 3 4, 2 0 2 ,210 em i ss io n ............................................................ .... 1, 10. 11, 14, 15,19,32,33,73.9 9 ,1 89 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 2 emi ss ions ................................ ................................ ................................................ ........... 1 , 1 9. 33 , 73 entrainme nt. ......................... " ............................. ............................. ....... 5 4, 55 , 5 7, 59 , 1 22. 1 79,202 essen ti al raw c o ol i ng w ate r (E RCW) ..................... ........................ S-2 , viii, 2 9,43 , 47, 4 8 , 49 , 52, 1 24 f a r-f i e l d effect ........................ ..................................................... .................................. 34,45,1 3 1 , 1 32 f a r-fi e ld effects ............ ................................................... ........................................ ....... 34. 45, 131, 132 fed e r all y li s ted ......................................................................................... 3 , 11, 28 , 30. 57, 59, 60 , 202 fed e r a lly listed species .........

....................

......................................................................................... 11 Fin a l 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 C h ap t e r 6 fi sh passage ................................................................................................................ 4 3 , 45 , 1 32, 1 33 flood r i sk ................................... ........................................................................................................... 70 fuel type ........................................................................................ ................................................ 1 3 , 16 gaseous ................................................. ...................................................... iii, v , 85, 86 , 87, 88, 89, 91 gaseous eff l uent ..................................................................... ...................................................... 85 , 87 generat i ng capacity ......................................................... ................................................ 5, 11, 14 , 190 gray ba t s .......................... .................... .............................................................................. 3 , 28, 3D , 60 groundwate r .................................. ............. ............................................................. S-2 , i, 9, 2 1, 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 heal t h ............................................................

............................ ..................................... 74 , 100 h ydrotherma l ..... 8-2, S-4, i, i i , iii, 26, 29, 33 , 34 , 35 , 37, 38, 39, 40 , 41, 4 2 , 43,45, 46, 59 , 104 , 105, 122 ,1 23 , 129,13 1, 133 ,1 34 , 163,209 impingeme nt .......................... ......................................................................................................... .. 202 i nake fl ows ................................. .................................................................................. 3, 24 , 3D , 55 , 59 income ......................................................................................................... 8-3, i, 3 1, 65,66,162,176 instream temperatu r es ........................................................ ............................ 26 , 35 , 39,40 , 1 32 , 134 I ntegra t ed Resource Ma n agement Plan ............. ....................................................... S-1, v i ii , 6 , 8, 122 Integrated Resource Management P l an {I RP) ................................. .......................... S-1, v iii, 6 , 8,122 I RP ............................................................................... v iii , 8 , 1 1 , 14 , 19 , 1 62 , 1 69 , 1 70 , 1 76,178 , 188 liquid effluen t s .................................................... ................................................................... 77 , 8 1 , 85 liquid radwaste ................................................................................................................................... 8 1 l oad forecas t ......................... ............................ ............. ........................................................ 1 1 , 12 , 15 l ow-level radwaste .............. ............................................. ................................................................... 9 4 macrofouling ............... .................................................................................................................. 48 , 49 max i mum f l ow ..................................................................................................................... 23, 38 , 2 0 3 Meigs Coun t y ............................................ ............................................. ..... 28 , 61 , 64, 65 , 66, 68 , 111 m i crob i ological. ......................................................................................... .................................... 48, 49 minim u m flow ............... ....................................................... ........................................ 26 , 35 , 202 , 203 m ixing zone ................................................. 26 , 34 , 35, 37, 38, 59,13 1, 132,133 ,1 34 , 187 , 210,2 1 1 m usse l sanct u ary .............................. .............................................................................. 1 0 , 55, 57,61 m ussels... S-3 , i v, v, vi i i, 1 0 , 28 , 30 , 35, 43 , 4 8, 49, 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 6 1 , 1 5 4, 1 55 , 1 56 , 202 , 203 , 2 1 0 n ear-fie ld e ff ec t s ............................................................ ........................................................... 34 , 1 3 1 n ontr it ia t ed ......................... ....................................................................................................... v, 9 1, 9 3 N PD ES p e rm it.... 2 , 4 , 2 4, 26 , 29 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 43 , 46 , 49 , 53 , 9 1 , 1 3 1 , 1 32 , 1 33 , 1 34 , 1 75 , 2 02 , 210 , 2 1 1 p e a k l o a d ...................................................................................................................................... 1 5 , 1 6 p e r mi t l imit s ......................................................................................................................... 2 , 4, 29 , 34 plu m e .................................................................................... ............................. 74 ,1 2 3 , 1 32, 1 3 3 , 134 p op ul a tion g rowth .............................................. .......................................................... 5 , 12 , 32 , 6 4, 68 p o v e rty l e v e l ............................................................................. ..................................................... ..... 66 pr es s ur ize d w a t e r re ac to r .................................................................... ......... ,. ..................... 95 , 96 , 101 pr ob ab i li s tiC sa f e ty ass es s m e n t ................................................. ................. ....................................... 7 3 r ad i oac tiv e w a s t e t r ea tm e nt ................................................. .............................................................. 9 1 r a di o l og i ca l e ff e c t ...................... ................................................... ..................................... 77, 1 82 , 21 1 r ad i o l og i c a l eff e c t s ................................................................... , .......................................................... 77 r adioi og i ca l i mp ac t.. ....................... ............................. ................................. .................... 74 , 8 5 , 9 0 , 99 r adiologica l i mp a cts ............................. ...................... ............................... ............... ] ............ .............. 74 r a di olog i ca l plume ..................................................... ......................... .................................... ........... 74 radiol og ic a l r e l eas e .......... ..................... .................... .................................. .......................... 73, 74, 99 radiological r eleases .......................................... ................................... .......................... .................... 74 radi o logical wast e .......... .............. ....................... , ...................................................................... ......... 51 Final Supplemental Environmenta l Impact Statement 127 Compl etio n and Op eratio n o f W a tt s Bar N uclear Plant Un it 2 ra d i onuclides ................................................................ ...................................... 75, 76, 77, 81,85 , 101 radwaste ........... .................................. iv, v, viii, ix, 6,10,51 , 8 1, 83 , 92 , 93 , 94,95,99,10 7,1 22 ,173 raw water ............................ ................ ............................................. 2,29,46 ,4 7,48, 4 9 , 52 , 202 , 210 raw water chemical additives ...................................................................... ....................................... 52 reactor coolant system (ReS) ......................................... ....................................... ................. ix , 50 , 51 repro cess ing plant ...................... ........................................................................................... ............. 95 Reservoir Operatio n s 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, 1,6,7,10,60,64,65,66,67,6 8,69.73,111,112,115,1'17, 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 se i smic ......................... ............... ............................................ ........................... 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 acciden t ........... .............................. ................................. ...................................... 73, 74, 75, 76 sh i pmen t. ........................................ ............... ............ ........................ ........................... 94, 99 , 100.206 sh i pme nt s .......................................................................... ...................... ...................................

94. 100 spentfue l. ..... 4, 10.21,31.33.95 , 96 , 97.98 , 99,162 ,1 63 , 169 ,1 70, 1 7 1, 1 73 , 1 80 , 181, 182, 1 87 , 1 92.205.206 state-l i s ted .....................................

.................................. ....................................... 3 , 28, 30. 57 , 59, 60 state-l i sted species ..................................................................................... ........................................ 57 steam generator ..................... ................................... 5 , 21, 37 , 39.40. 41 , 4 2 , 44, 45 , 51. 5 2 , 5 9 , 202 s t orage module ................................................... ........................... ........................................ 97, 98, 99 storage modu l es ................................... ............... .................................. .............................. ............... 97 Supp l ementa l Condensor Cool i ng Water (SCCW) .. S-2, iii. ix, 5, 8, 2 1 ,23 , 24 , 26 , 29 , 34 , 35. 37, 38, 39,40 , 41.42 , 43,44,45,46.49,54.62,123.131,132. 1 33, 1 34 , 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 paymen t s .................................... ....................................................

31. 66. 68, 163. 176 tax revenue ............

............................................................................ ................................ 68. 16 3. 176 temperature limit s ............................. .......................... ........................... 34. 44, 45. 131, 132, 1 33. 134 terrorist. ............................................................... .............. 4, 31.75.76.1 62 ,1 63 ,1 68 ,170.1 80.18 9 thermal discharge ..................... ............................................ ................................ 55, 59 ,1 3 1.13 2.1 33 th erma l eff lu e nt .................... .................... ............................. 34 , 36 ,37.39 , 40,44 , 45.1 3 1.1 32,133 th reatened a nd endangered ....................................... ................... S-3 , i, 9. 30 , 57. 1 03 , 1 04. 105.203 ti e ring .................................... .............................................................. ............... ..........................

i. 5, 19 tr a n sm i ssio n ..................................

....................... ........................... ...................... ....... 9.20 , 27 , 28 , 29 tr an s portat i o n ..................... ........ S-4. ii, 9. 3 1, 33, 7 5. 94, 99. 1 00. 111 , 121, 1 25. 1 63 , 1 73, 1 8 1, 191 tri t i a t ed .................... ................................... ................. .............................................................. v, 91, 92 turbin e buildin g ...................................................................... .................. ................. .. 21 , 46, 52. 59. 71 U.S. Fi s h and Wildlife Se rvice (U SFWS) ......................... .................................... .... x , 10. 59 , 110, 202 Vi t a l Si g n s Monitoring Program ................... ..................................................... iv. 45 , 54 , 55. 1 53 , 211 wa ste he a t.. .................. ..................................... ....................................... ... 21, 23. 24 , 34 , 44,45, 174 w ate r ili take ................... .................................................................................. 2, 20.21.29,54 , 55.59 W atts Ba r Rese rv oi r ............ .............................................................. iv. 54, 6 0.68.122.124 , 153.202 workforc e ............................ .................. .................... .......................... ... 5. 2 1,31. 64. 66 , 67 , 11 8, 1 76 128 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement App e ndix A APPENDIX A -

SUMMARY

OF PREVIOUS HYDROtHERMAL Iry'PACT STUDIES Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 129

App e ndix A Summary of Previous Hydrothermal Imp act 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. 1 972 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 th e 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 s i mp l e mass balance calculation under assumed worst-case conditions was presented to show that this criterion would not be violated. The ana l ysis did not co n side r any specific reservoir operating policy for the river othe r than to assume that no thermal effluent would be released to the r eceiving waters when the discharge from WBH i s l ess than 3500 cubic feet per second (cfs). The pr i mary conclus i ons r eac h ed in the 1 972 FES w ere th at th e operation of WBN Unit 1 and Unit 2 would not cause violations of the r ece ivin g water temperature limit s for Outfa ll 101 (Le., near-field effects) and t h at the opera ti o n of WBN Uni t 1 and Unit 2 are not expected to have any noticeable im pact on Chic k amauga R eservoir (Le., far-fie ld effec ts). 1993 TVA R eview of Final Environmental Statement The identification of potential i mpacts that changed or were l ikely to change from the origina l 1972 FES was addressed by TVA's 1993 review. In the review, none of the "ch anged or potentially chang i ng" impacts were found to be related to the heat dissipation system. In fact, the 1993 review specifically stated that the orig i nal ana l ysis and assumptions f or cooling tower b l owdown and heat dissipation were still valid for preserving th e NPDES effluen t lim it s for O utf a ll 101. The r eview, h oweve r, did prov id e preliminary in formation about the Outfall 10 1 mixing zone, describing it as extending than 100 meters downs tr ea m from t he diffusers and influencing l ess than 40 percent o f the sect ion a l a r ea of th e riv er a t norma! summe r e l eva ti ons. 19 93 Discharge Temp eratu r e Limit Evaluation f o r Watts Bar Nuclear Plan t The plan t NPDE S permi t of 1 993 r eq uir e d TVA to conduct a s tudy to deter min e appropr i ate daily a v e r age temp e r a tur e limit s for r eleases from Outfa ll 101 and Outf a ll 1 02. The r epo rt w as compl ete d and s ubmitt e d to the S t ate of Tenn essee in D ece mb e r 19 93 (TVA 1 993b). In contrast to pre vi ous e v a lu ations , the st udy includ ed d e tail e d mod e l s imul at ions of the combin ed hourly op e r at ion of th e plan t a nd the Tenness ee Riv e r. Eva lu a tions w e re p e rform e d for th e oper a tion of both units at WBN and considered c ases with and without th e op e r at ion ofW BF , lo cat e d 1.5 mil es up strea m. At th a t tim e , W BF w as in a "mothb a lled" status , and given the unc e rt a inty of it s futur e , it wa s con s id ere d worthwhil e to examine a w orst-case scenario including th er m a l di s charges from both WBF and WBN. (Note: S inc e 1 993, W BF ha s be e n r e tir e d.) Th e simu l a t ions were p e rformed for h is toric a l riv e r conditions and hi s torical m e t eo rology for a 17-y ear p e riod from J anuary 1!976 through October 1 993. Ba sed on the model Simulations, a flow-weighted daily average temperature limit of 95°F (35°C) was recomm e nd e d by TVA for Outfall 101. For Outfall 102, a limit pf 104°F (40°C) was recommended for any single grab sample. The recommend ations were based on preserving instream water quality standards specified by the State of Tennessee (see Final Supplemental Environmentallmpac1 Statement 131 Compl e tion and Oper a tion of W a tt s Ba r Nucl ea r Plant Unit 2 Section 2.2.2). In the s tudy, the i nstrea m temperatures were computed at the down s tr ea m end of mixing zones fo r each outfall. For Outfall 101 , the assumed mixing zone was 240 feet wide and exte h ds downstream 240 feet. For Outfal l 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 Outfa ll 102 (e.g., heated effluen t resides in the surface layer of the river), the 1993 study conc l uded that ample space ex i sts 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 h ydro l ogy and me t eorology corresponding t o 1 986 (a hot, dry year), the average i ncrease in bottom river temperature was est i mated to be of magnitude 0.4 FO (0.2 CO), which was considered not t o be a significant impact. As a result of the 1 993 s tu dy, th e recommended temperature limits for Outfall 10 1 and Outfall 102 were incorporated in the plant NPDES permit, bu t were contingent upon verification studies l by instream f i eld measurements when the plant begins operat i on. 19 97 V e rific a tion Studie s of Thermal Di scha rge for W atts Ba r Nuclear Plant Verification stud i es ofthe thermal discharge from Outfall 101 were conducted in 1 997, after WBN Unit 1 first operation (TVA 1998d). The NPDES permit iden ti fied three goals of th e studies: to determine the three-dimensiona l configurat i on of the outfall plumes , to substantiate the dispersion modeling of the thermal effluent, and to assure conformance with the assigned m i xing zones. To achieve these goals , two field surveys were performed, one to examine extreme springtime conditions f or the maximum river temperature rise and one to examine ex t reme summer cond iti ons for the maximum river temperature. In both surveys, the measured configuration o f the plumes demonstrated that for the con d itions t es t ed, the thermal effluent is effective ly mixed with the ambient river water. The computed v alues of the riv er temperature and river t emperature rise a t the downstream end of the mi x in g zone were in good ag r eement with the measured values, substan ti ating the method of dispersion modelin g. The measurements in dicated th a t th e size o f th e mixing zone (240 f eet w i d e and 240 f ee t downstream) is s uffici en t to r educe th e t empe ratur e of th e th e rma l eff lu ent b e low th e NPDES limi ts , but r ecogn i zed th a t th e outfall plume m ay sh i ft laterally from s i de to s ide due to r a n dom mixing proc esses in th e riv e r. No s tudi es w e r e p e rf o rm e d for Outfa ll 102 b eca u se th e r e w e r e no occ as ion s wh e r e th e e merg e ncy overflow from the yard holding pond w as u se d. I n the y ea rs s ince 19 9 7 , th e re h ave b ee n occa s ions to do so. Howev e r , o n th ese occa s ions , the overflow h as not b ee n therm a lly l oaded, thus fi e ld s tudi es h a ve not b ee n conduct e d. If an d wh en r e l e ases from Outf a ll 102 occur "Yith one or both W B N units in se rvic e , TV A will be r espo n s ibi e f or p e rforming th e rm al s urv eys of th e effl u e nt b e havior in the r iv e r. As of this writing , such an event h as n ot occurr e d. 19 9 8 Suppl e m e nt a l Con de n se r Cooling Wat e r Proj e ct Environment a l As sess m e nt (E A) The 1998 EA for the SCCW syst e m (TVA 1998a) included rigorous computer mod e ling of the WBN heat di s sipation sy s t e m. In this proc e ss, the model dev e loped for the di s charge temperature limit evaluation of 1993 (TVA 1993b) was expanded to include the SCCW 132 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement App end ix A syste m servicing Unit 1, as depicted in Section 2.2.2 (Figure 2-2). Th e primary conclu sio n from the m odeling was that with the SCCW system, Unit 1 could operate in compliance with the river temperature limit s for all the NPDES outfalls, 101, 102, and 113. Whereas this is true for no r ma l operating cond i tions, the 1998 EA recognized that in one situation, exceeding the NPDES lim it for the river temperature rate-of-change for Outfa ll 113 would be unavoidable. This situation includes the unexpected, abrupt loss of heat at Outfall 113 due to a trip of the Unit 1 reactor occurring Simultaneously with conditions l yielding a river t emperature 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 u sed historical river conditions and historical meteorology for a 1 17 -year period fr om January 1976 through October 1993. As a result of the analyses, a fi x i ng zone spanning t h e full w i dth of the river and extending downstream 1000 feet was adopted for Ou tf a ll 113. The modeling also indicated that the thermal effluent from O ili tfall 11 3 would I spread and mix primarily in the upper portion of the water column , protecting bottom habitat and again prov iding ample space for fish passage in the river. To ensure protection of the bottom habitat , a r equirement was provided in the NPDES permit to r estrict the maximum river bottom temperature outside a 150-foot squa r e MRZ defined in th e immediate vicinity of Outfa!l113. July 1999 V erif ic a ti o n S tudy of Thermal Discharge for I Watts Bar Nu c l ea r Plant Supplemental Co n denser Coo ling Water Syste m 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 o tt he 1999 verification study were sim il ar to those conducted i n 1997: t o determine th rdimensional configuration of the outfall plume, to substantiate the dispersion ' modeling of the therma l 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 r iver temperature. Moreover, in a manner similar to 1 997 , data fr om the 1999 s urv ey demonstrated that f or the conditio n s tested , the thermal e ffluent from Outfall 113 is effectively mix ed with the ambient riv e r water, and that compu t ed values o f the riv er t empera tur e and riv er t empe r ature ri se w ere in good agreement with the rp easured values. Th e me as urem en t s indi cated th a t the s i ze of th e mixing zo n e (full width river a nd extending 1 000 f ee t down s tr ea m) i s .sufficient to r ed u ce the t e mp e r a ture of the SCCW th e rm a l e ffluent b e low th e NPD ES limit s. Temperatur es at the bound a rY of th e M RZ also were w e ll b e low th e NPD ES limit. Based on the 1 999 s ur.J e y, it w as d ec id e d to m eas ur e t he ambi e nt riv e r t e mp e r a ture for Outf a ll 11 3 a t th e discharge of th e hydro pl a nt a t W a tts Ba r Da m. Hy drcthsrma! Data fo r Watts 8ar Nucl ea r Plant Outfa!l113 In addi ti on t o t he 1 999 verific at ion study at s t a rtup , five othe r t e m p e rature surveys we r e conduct e d for Outfall 11 3 during the first y ea r of ope r atio n of the SCCW syste m (TVA , 2 0 0 1). The su rv eys p r ovid ed d a ta to bett e r d e fine the configurat i o n of outfall plume , p a rt ic ul a rly r elati v e to t h e effec t of w a t er r e l eases f rom WB H. The s urv e y s w ere p e rf o rm e d for conditions typical of the winter, spring, summ e r, and f a ll. The r e sult s reve a l e d that for all the conditions, the thermal effluent from Outf a ll 113 is effectively mixed in I the river. Temperatures at the down s tream end of the mixing zone were all contained within the NPD ES 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 C omp l ei ion and Op erati on of W atts Ba r Nu clear Plant Unit 2 sprea d across the riv e r and move primarily in the downstream direction. For cond iti ons when there are on 1 or more units in operation at WBH, the plume tends to r eside larg e ly in the side of the 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 exam in e the impac t of the preferred alternative on water temperatures in the Tennessee River at WBN. The modeling examined the reservoir operating policy of the prefe r red 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 curta ilm ent of th e 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 a ll eviate problems related to in stream 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 cond iti ons 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 i s provided by two instream temperature monitors at the downstream end of the active mixing zone.1 For cases without flow in th e river, biannual i nstream temperature surveys, one in the summer and one in the winter , are performed to confi rm the adequacy of the passive mixing zone and check the accuracy of a hydrothermal model that is used to det e rmine mode of operation of the SCC W system. The configurations of the mixing zones for Outfa ll 11 3 are illustrated in Figure 3-2. Compli a n ce Surveys for W atts Bar Nucl ea r Pl a nt Outf a ll 113 Pa ss ive Mixing Zone B eg inning in 2005 , two compli a n ce s urv e y s h a v e b een p e rform e d each y ea r, s umm e r and wint e r, for the Outfall 11 3 p ass iv e mixing zone (TVA 2005e , 2006, 2007b, 2007 c). All the surveys have confirmed the adequacy of both the pa ss ive mixing zone and the SCCW hydrothermal model. 134 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement App e ndix 8 APPENDIX B -NPDES FLOW DIAGRAM Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 135

Aht!C9 \l IR '/I." -A lt er n ate F lo lU CCW -C onn_o s-o r Cooli n g WOl t e r C R II P -Ru n off HufJ i ll 9 P U/II) cr _ Cooling rc" w.r EReW -Rill w Coo l i n!J HP F P -Hiyh Prusu r", F i re Pratoo tia n .svs t om RCW -R aw Coo l lnu Wat o r 23.699 RSW -R<JW S a r v i oo WottH 1-------------------------SCCW -S IJpp l tl m 4 1H fl I CCW SGBD** S t ol m Generator I}/D\V Dow n TC -Trn i r,i no Canter VW f ro -Ve ndor W 81tH P l a nt WTP -Water Trlit"tlll&/dPbnl KE.Y.. ............... I nll'tnn l it e nt Flu w .> Cht Hul GO::I I Ad dit i v e O.1f,*' l'rl I'1I01'l L llbOl i'OIY (0,00(11 ) U a d, Q,tc/",.I'I Onl & U ml nl;, "ia llk., " noJ S u mp. (0 , 0 0)(1) 'A' W a ll s Bar 4 5, 000 0.075 _ J Ve n da r -tP1 WTP d I , , : ,.hl ** Chlt'I'Ii"" Wa.! ** (0,0003) $W Rgnoli(O.ODOI) f)/um (0.0 00' , Orum lo.conl) DlonIICI.lnln, COlllln l{D.OOO') Te ss wi Me\.fCre.nlng WU.t IlS i i 1... ... _-_ ** .... -********* .. ....... .. Non-R,.,d Oemln W liter (0.011) _ _ g,ggu n g ll ry "Y.' ,BUild ing .(0.020) I r.hk *. U p Wa h.(V WT P 00001 Turbine Ol6eelG6n (DIG) SUlkllllg Sum" 10.0001) .. t.fI ................... . L a b o/il tory W ils I e' B , uild.intJ

1) N e IH tll I Wu t l'! 1 a n k

_ P rrtll h l o W ater L tne L n ll i(!l O.O QD I H I'FP SY'Itim F lu$h n (O'{lOl) P(J ta bit! W liter LIne lnkll (0.00 1) IMP 103 0.2192 IMP 1 G'T ****0*:03;*******

    • .-******* ..
  • Ooo:a T lu nu!jl. (!(t(llinll W.".., 0.001 Cha mlon l storage R.lln .... ter Roe [t.IUU (O.OOt) ,S,ylf hun Lukyg l! & Storm Waler RUnoff (0,&99) H PFP S ya t em '1\' Groundw.t.r Sump (D , OOI) R8W SV.'Im F in a l Supp l emental Environmenta l I mpact Statement sccw Di sch arQ o tlPFP Flu!She, TC HVAC Cooling Wat e r P ot able Wale , L. ** ks Appendix B OSN 11 3 129,000 W attr 03N 112 U.247 Unn a m a d Trib uta ry to. yt.llo. ..... e fa..,!.: TVA Watts BarNuclear Plant Perlnit Nc:TN00201 68 April200 6 AIiFlows In MGD 137

App e ndixC Append;x C -/\""ua+lc C,.."lngu c:::.llnnnrtinn

  • ""1 ". "''VI'-'

J "" .... t"",....,.

        • ::J ****
  • _.
  • Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 139

->. .J>. -'->> "U "l:;l (I) :J c.. x' n -' I\) -n :5' Q) (j) C "0 "'0 (D 3 (I) :::J m cr :::J 3 (I) :J ,... 3" 11 n. (j) * ;;!. Tab l e C-1 (co ntinued) .!. * > .. , U nspecifiable I 9913 cl upeids Alosa chrysochl oris Dorosoma sp. Doroso m a cepedia nuflJ. Dorosoma pe tenense C yprinidae o o 2 32 8* Cyprinus c arpio I 27 Macrhvb opsis I 0 storeria n a 'k* Notropis sp. Notropis ather ino i des o o :., ; 91.17 1 3 1679 192.94 1*1569 0.00 6 0.02 o 0.00 68 0.20 73 0.02 637 1.87 :334 0.29 T o 0.07 1 4 0.04 28 0.25 16 0.05 o 0.00 1 T o 0.0 , 0 1 T o 0.0 0 4 0.01 5 42.44 I 1 97 6 I 77.04 0.00 o 0.00 1.97 o 0.00 9.03 o 0.00 0.00 o 0.00 0.76 5 0.19 0.00 8 0.31 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 o 0.00 0.14 o 0.00 " .... : , .... : .. :.; 1259 I 38.86 o 0.00 o 0.00 324 10.00 20 0.62 5 0.15 0.03 o 0.00 a 0.00 o 0.00 11 1 9 3 CJ) "D OJro Q)::!: -, 0 z:::J §g: ffio. til 0 ""0 1J (I) Qj-" :::J !!l. C; §j" ::I -**0 --., I\) "T1 s* !!!. U> c:: "0 "0 (6"" 3 (l) ;;t !!!. m :::J <: g' 3 (l) ::s @: 3" "0 Cf) !!t (l) 3 (l) a. -" .p.. w Table C-1 (cont inue d) . C atos ton\idae ," ;.: .. U nspec ifi ab l e c atostomids I c tiobinae M inytrema m elanops . ... , o o 2 I ctalurus fur catus I 1 Ic talurus p unc t atus 45 "i 0.00 o 0.0 0 82 0.02 1 : .. " , 0.0 1 1 0 0.41 27 : ':.: .. 0.00 1 0.0 3 1 0.04 a 0.00 0.24 o 0.0 0 o 0.00 o 0.00 T o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 I 1 I 0.03 I 1 I 0.04 I 1 I 0.03 0.08 38 1.03 8 0.31 9 0.28 o livar is 1 1 .. 1 0.01 . 1 0 10.00 1 0 .1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 ' .. Morone s p. 1 0.01 62 0.18 7 3 1.97 1 1 3 1 0.51 I 16 10.49 Morone ch lYsops 0 0.00 a 0.00 1 0.03 10 10.00 10 10.00 Marone 0 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 10 10.00 10 10.00 m i ssiss ipp i ensis Is 10.05 150 1 0.15 17 10.19 1 31 11.21 1 1 99 Morone (n ot 16.1 4 s axatilis) >> "0 '0 (J) ::J a. x' (') ..... t 'TI :i' ru en c: "0 '0 ro 3 (I) ::I ![ m a' ::J 3 (J) ::I ..... 3" -g en m m 3 (J) ::I --Table C-1 (cont inued) Ce ntrarctddfae Lepomis or po mox is Le pomis sp. Micropte ru s dol omi eu Po moxis sp. Po moxis an nularis Un identifiab l e darter Pe re a fl avesee n s Sti zostedion sp. Sti zostedior). ca nadense o 209 o 24 a 1 0 a 1 a '." ::

.: 0.00 a 1.92 428 0.00 o 0.22 28'1 0.00 1 10.00 14 0.00 a 1.01 5 0.00 a r :. ; .. : ... .: ', . ' ... :.'... " t.** "',:.-0.00 I () I 0.00 I a 1.26 0.00 0.82 T 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 873 a 334 o I" o o 'I 23.61 I 57 0.00 10 9.03 19 0.00 10 0.14 1 0.'14 a 0.03 a '."", ***.* ,."' .:: .'

'1 " ;,':.:" ." ': , :. . ... : .':.: ...... " '.' ;: .. :.: .... : . 0.00 a 0.00 2.22 857 26.45 0.00 1 0.03 0.35 328 10.12 0.00 a 0.00 0.04 4 0.12 0.00 3 0.09 0.00 a 0.00 00'0 rom ru!:!: .... 0 z::l c: ru (') ::l ro-0.. ruO -0 '1J(J) moo cg I\.) 'T1 5' m.. en c: 0 (0 3 (J) ::l 9I m ,f ;:) 3 (J) ::l 3 -0 a en liT -CD 3 (J) ::l ,..... 01 Table C-1 (conti nued) '; :: . " . :;. . ... :.:; .... SCiae nidae .

  • j" i ' . " I ::'::"-",:: '\ .:',: .. >:;. ,', ... > .# :; . Ap l od i notus grunn i ens Atherinidae sicculus TOTAL Taxon Unident i fiable fish eggs Hiodon spp. eggs Aplodin o tus grun n ie n s egg s TOTAL 601 5.53 7 04 o 0.00 o 1 087 3 1 00.0 0 I 34 086 Pre op er ational 1 9B 3 1984 Tot a l I % I T otal C ollected Comp C ollected 1143 87.12 1 2 6 o 0.00 1 0 16 9 12.88 I 68 1312 100.00 I 94 2.07 I 0.00 I :32 100.00 I 369 7 1985 % I Total Comp Collected 27.66 I 16 0.00 I 1 72.34 I 1 4 1 0 0.00 I 3 1 8.:i9 1454 0.87 10 100.00 I 256 5 Operational 1996 % I Total Comp Collected 51.61 12908 3.23 10 45.16 121 10 0.0 0 I 29 29 ';-', -, -0.00 18 100.00 I 3240 1997 % I Total Comp Collected 99.28 I 1591 0.00 10 0.72 14 100.00 I 1605 ... ;;:::.: ..... \: :.:: ,': .. : 6.33 0.25 100.00 % Camp 99.13 0.00 0.87 100.00 >> "0 "0 (J) ::l a. x* ()

..... Table C-1 (co ntinued) .;.. 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 I Unspeci fiable 15658 173.01 1 22435 193.33 15890 168.63 14135 183.89 18086 182.08 I N s* !!!.. clupeids (J) c '0 I Alosa 10 10.00 10 10.00 10 10.00 10 10.00 18 10.08 '0 m chrvs ochlons 3 m ::J I Dorosoma sp. 1 0 1 0.00 I 1 IT 10 10.00 10 -10.00 10 10.00 !!!.. m :::J I 1 10.01 I 114 10.47 In 10.00 1 74 11.50 I 1 10.01 <: I Do rosoma ::;. 0 Ce Qedianum :J 3 (I) :::J I Doroso ma 1 2 10.03 10 10.00 IB 1 0.09 150 I 1.01 12 10.02 -!!!.. pe te nen s e 3" '0 ro n. (J') iii CD 3 (I) :::s - 11 S' m.. CIJ c: '0 "0 a> 3 (1) ::J 1[ m ::J < a' J 3 (1) [ 3" '0 CIJ fi) CD 3 (1) ::J ,.... .j:>. " Table C-1 (cont inued) Unspeci fiable I 'I 'I 0 cyprin i ds Cy prinus ca r p i o I 15 Macrhyb0l2. si s storer iana ** No tropis sp. Notropis atherinoi des Notropis volucellus Unspeci fi able ca to s tomids Ict i obinae Minytrema m elanops a o a o o a a *.. Ictalurus fu rcatus a Ict alurus 11 QUDc t at u s

  • Py lodictis o livaris I a . "' .. . ... , .. .. :.... <', 1.42 1* T 0.19 7 0.03 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 0.1 4 a 0.00 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 .::: . .: ... " .. ' . ,,}: . ';' ,: '. :: '. ;. : .. J *. : ' \,', 9* 0.10 2 0.04 6 0.06 o 0.00 2 0.04 2 0.02 o 0.0 0 o 0.00 a 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 o 0.0 0 a 0.00 a 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 2 0.02 o 0.00 a 0.00' a 0.00 o 0.00 a 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 3 0.06 o 0.00 I: 1 0.00 I: 1 0.00 2 0.02 >> 0.04 '0 0.00 '0 (V ::l 0. 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0.00 x' ()

O::> ." ::J III (I) C "0 "0 (j) ::1 Q) :::J rn :; < a' ::J ::1 (!) :; 3' "0 ()) st CJ) fi) m :3 Q) ;;:.. Table C-1 (continued) Percichthyidae . r-----. ,-, -. " '. -r' .. t Morone sp. I 50 Morone chrysops I 0 Morone mississippiensis o Morone (not I 244 saxatilis) 0.65 0.00 0.00 3.15 108 0.45 24 o 0.00 a o 0.00 o 283 1.18 29 0.28 41 0.83 820 8.32 0.00 5 0.10 2 0.02 0.00 16 0.3 6 0.06 0.34 161 3.27 382 3.88 Centrarchidae, :

,
::};',":,<<-;,,",::'

I 1'0': 10" 10.00 Lepomis or I 20 0.26 o pomoxis Lepomis sp. I 309 Micropterus sp. I 0 Micropterus I 0 dolomieu Pomoxis sp. I 220 Pomoxis annularis L-. __ o 3.99 0.00 0.00 2.84 0.00 247 1.03 o 0.00 o 0.00 90 0.37 o 0.00 2427 28.28 195 1.93 129 1.31 o 0.00 o 0.00 3 0.03 a 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 158 1.84 8 0.16 125 1.27 o 0.00 o 0.00 o 0.00 ru 0 :::3 (/)'0 mro .., 0 z::J c: ru o ::J "0 '"0(1) row ::l_ eg' N Tl ::> (f) c: a m ::l ![ m ::l < :::> :3 (() ::> Qi 3" -g Sl (J) m 3 (() .t;. (!) Table C-1 (continued) --Percidae Unidentifiable 4 0.05 0 darter 1---Perea flavescens 12 0.15 9 Stizostedion sp. a 0.00 0 Stizostedion 0 0.00 0 eanadense ", Sciaenidae; , " AQlodinotus 1056 1 13.63 1 737 grunniens Atherlnjdae Labidesthes a 0.00 0 sieeulus TOTAL 7750 100.00 24039 T == Less than 0.01 percent composition. Preoperational;;; 1976-1985; Operational::; 1996-1997

  • Number collected changed or was previously missing. ** Scientific name changed, ,", , 0.00 a 0.00 0 0.00 8 0.08 0.04 9 0.10 6 0.12 0 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.02 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

""",.,.' ;',., ," ><,:i, ,,' .,.,:':,:;", ',<': 13.07125 I, 0.29 '1 6.57 126712.71 , ,,' ' .," " * "":'., ' ** ( q" .' ** ' ,,::i{, .:;. ),(;: ". . : 0.00 1 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 100.00 8682 100.00 4929 100.00 9851 100.00 >> "0 "0 (I) ::s c.. x' () ()1 o '1 :J !:l)I en c U 1':1 or 3 (1) :J m ::::I <: ::';' o ::J 3 (II ::J 9I 3" '0 ro en §! ro 3 ro ;:z. Table C-2. Scoring Results for the 12 Metrics and Overall Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index for Chickamauga Reservoir, 2005 Forebay Transition Inflow Sequoyah Collection TRM472.3 TRM 490.5 TRM529.0 TRM482.0 Metric Method Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score I IA. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 30 5 30 5 27 3 27 3 2. Number of centrarchid species 7 6 7 5 6 5 7 5 3. Number of benthic invertivores 4 3 4 3 6 3 3 1 4. Number of intolerctnt species 6 5 7 5 6 5 5 5 5. Percent tolerant individuals electrofishing 71 0.6 76.2 0.5 58.6 1.0 70.2 0.5 gill netting 32.2 0.6 23 1.5 0 0 43.4 0.5 6. Percent dominance by one species electrofishing 42.2 1.5 39.4 1.5 30.5 3 25.1 1.5 gill netting 30.S 0.5 19.8 1.5 0 0 41 0.5 7. Number nonnative species electrofishing 0 2.5 0.2 2.5 1 5 0.2 2.5 gill netting 0.4 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 8. Number of top carnivore species 12 6 9 5 7 6 9 5 B. Trophic composition
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 ::+3 (JI"O IDm m:::: ... 0 z::::J t:: m o ::::J ron. -0"0 -(I) ma; ::::J .... eg' :!.o ...... -I\.)

11 S' Q!.. (j) c U 'U (i) 3 CD :J m :::J < Table C-2 (continued) 1-Metric Fish abundance and health 11. Average number per run 12. Percent anomalies I--RFAI -.. -._-_."-FOi'ebay Collection TRM472.3 Method Obs Score electrofishing 37.3 0.5 gill netting 26.9 2.5 electrofishing 0.5 2.5 gill netting 0 2.5 46 Good Transition Inflow Seq uoya h TRM490.5 TRM529.0 TRM482.0 Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score 41.8 0.5 67 3 58.5 0.5 12.6 1.5 0 0 21.5 1.5 0.8 2.5 2.2 3 0.9 2.5 0 2.5 0 0 0 2.5 48 42 39 Good Good Fair g "Percent composition of the most abundant species 3 CD :::J 3" 'U III Ul §t (f) :3 (f) :J --' (TI ,->. Table C-3. Recent (1993-2005) RFAI Scores Developed Using the RFAI Metrics Upstream and Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant --_. 1993-2005 Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002* 2003* 2004 2005 Average Downstream TRM 529 52 52 46 -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' () at f\.) 01 :::J (J) C "C " ro :3 CD :::l m :::l <: a' :::l :3 co :::J e. :3 'U tJ:) Sl (j) or ttl :3 (!) :;:) Table C-4. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall Benthic Community Index Scores for Watts Bar Forebay and Sites Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Watts Bar and Chickamauga Reservoirs, November 2005 .. ,. . ,. ,TRM$32,$;;*, '. ' ..**** *,iTRM,$18< ...* '.' Metric , . ObSerVecf IobServed

1. Average number of taxa 2.9 3 6.8 of samples with lonQ-lived orQanisms 20% 1 100% 3. Average number of EPT taxa 0.1 1 0.9 14. Average proportion of oliQochaete individuals 10.2% 5 0.8% 15. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by 95.41% 1 72.01% the two most abundant taxa DOM 6. Average density excluding chironomids and 21.7 1 oliQochaetes TOTNONCT 7. Zero-samples

-proportion of samples containing no 0.1 3 organisms Benthic Index Score 15 Poor TRM 532.5 scored with forebay criteria, TRM 527.4 and 518 scored with inflow criteria. Benthic Index Scores: Very Poor 7-12, Poor 13-18, Fair 19-23, Good 24-29, Excellent 30-35 EPT == Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera DOM = Dissolved Organic Matter 480.0 0 itt.tlng 5 6.4 5 5 90% 5 5 0.3 1 5 1.9% 5 5 74.41% 5 1 610.0 3 5 0 5 31 29 Excellent Good TOTNONCT = TOTal NON-Chironomid Taxa, i.e., the average number of organisms excluding chironomids and tubificidslsample. ::::3 C/)"O ([Iro z:::l c:: II> o :::I roo. -0"0 ar!!l :::lea. c; g' tv ., ::l III (J) c '"0 U <D 3 ro ::l ![ m ::I <: ::::;' o ::I 3 ro ::l ...... III "0 III Q. (JJ Iii <> "0 '"0 CD ::I a. 5f C1 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::':' ">:1':"'; ',',' CotnmonN,.me ,,' ",' ",;,' ,,',' ":L

    • * :' 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 -n (f) C "0 "0 ro 3 (J) ::J -!.l:t m ::J 3 CIl ::J fir 3" "0 ill $l (f) ill <t 3 (J) ;;t _.>. 01 en 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 .. _---" ." ,,",'.: ' . : ' ..... :: ,:., ... ,i' . ; . 529i.4R* 5219;" . 527.9-" *..... *. *** .. I Common Name . Scientific Name '. **'(t910):

(1m) .:: '1990} \ . ,J19901.:':

'1994 t1:$til I Elephant Ear Elliptio crassidens 21 2 32 204 2921 268 62 P/eurobema corda tum 17 --4 34 530 47 7 Pimpleback Quadru/a pustulosa 1 4 52 4 241 20 10 Purple Wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata 4 -8 5 142 13 3 Pink Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus 1 -6 1 50 4 12 Butterfly Ellipsaria lineo/ata ---3 --43 9 2 --Threehorn wartyback Ob/iquaria reflexa 4 1 20 --7 -1 Pink mucket Lampsilis abrupta 2 ---1 26 1 1 ----,. Giant Floater Pyganodon (=anodonta) grandis --1 2 -20 1 3 Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra 1 ----18 1 3 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta ----1 --18 1 1 Fragile papershell Leptodea fragilis ---3 2 8 1 2 Pistolgrip Tritagonia verucosa -2 4 -7 1 Pearly mussel Lampsilis ovata ----8 -1 Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina

8 ---1 1 6 -...... ;.:' . .... "

3510 639 332 175 I 74 I 57 33 31 27 23 , 21 I I 16 14 9 8 8 Spike Elliptio dilatata -* L ::: along left descending bank; R ;:;; along right descending bank >> 0 (J) ::J a. x' o " ::;-(J) C "0 "0 lii' [ m ;:) < cr ::I 3 CD ::I .-+ 3' "0 OJ a !"a

  • 3 CD a Table C-7 (co ntinued) .:: . " :: .. : .... : .. *.n.'.:.*.** .. *.' .-: W a shboard I Megalona i as ne rvosa 7 7 Tenne ssee Clu bshell I P leu ro bema ov iforme 6 I 6 Fansh ell Cypro genia stega ria 1 1 Flat floa ter Anodo nta sb o r biculata 1 1 Flut ed S hell Las migona cos tata 1 I. 1-' Kidneyshell I ptycho branc h us fasciolaris 1 I1l Lon g s olid I Fusco na i a s ubrotunda 1 1 Ro ugh P igtoe I P leu ro bema pl enum 1 1 White He elsplitter I L asmigona c omplanata 1 1 T otal Specimens 53 14 139 253 4111 253 108 To tal Species 9 6 13 9 25 9 13 S ample A rea (square mile) I 100 100 250 200 nd** nd 310 Mussels/square mile I 0.5:3 0.14 0.56 1.26 0.35
  • L = along left de scendi ng bank; R ::: a lo ng r ight descending bank **nd = not dete rm i n ed (suNey c onducted u s in g timed intervals, not area) 5() &0 ::t:3 (f)"O row ru . .., 0 z:.:l 1= ill o ::l roo. !Il 0 ..,'U ::J 0 rl=...., N}}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12171A245&oldid=1099199"