Tennessee Valley Authority; Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 9308-9315 [E9-4441]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
9308
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
general public and other Federal
agencies to comment on proposed
information collections. The comments
and suggestions should address one or
more of the following points: (a)
Whether the proposed information
collections are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of NARA;
(b) the accuracy of NARA’s estimate of
the burden of the proposed information
collections; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways, including the use of information
technology, to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on
respondents; and (e) whether small
businesses are affected by these
collections. The comments that are
submitted will be summarized and
included in the NARA request for Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval. All comments will become a
matter of public record. In this notice,
NARA is soliciting comments
concerning the following information
collection:
1. Title: National Personnel Records
Center (NPRC) Survey of Customer
Satisfaction.
OMB Number: 3095–0042.
Agency Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: Regular.
Affected Public: Federal, State and
local government agencies, veterans,
and individuals who write the Military
Personnel Records (MPR) facility for
information from or copies of official
military personnel files.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,000.
Estimated Time per Response: 10
minutes.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
(when respondent writes to MPR
requesting information from official
military personnel files).
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 167 hours.
Abstract: The information collection
is prescribed by EO 12862 issued
September 11, 1993, which requires
Federal agencies to survey their
customers concerning customer service.
The general purpose of this data
collection is to provide MPR
management with an ongoing
mechanism for monitoring customer
satisfaction. In particular, the purpose of
the National Personnel Records Center
(NPRC) Survey of Customer Satisfaction
is to (1) determine customer satisfaction
with MPR’s reference service process,
(2) identify areas within the reference
service process for improvement, and
(3) provide MPR management with
customer feedback on the effectiveness
of BPR initiatives designed to improve
customer service as they are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
implemented. In addition to supporting
the BPR effort, the National Personnel
Records Center (NPRC) Survey of
Customer Satisfaction helps NARA in
responding to performance planning
and reporting requirements contained in
the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA).
2. Title: Presidential Libraries
Museum Visitor Survey.
OMB Number: 3095–0066.
Agency Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: Regular.
Affected Public: Individuals who visit
the museums at the Presidential
libraries.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
75,000.
Estimated Time per Response: 15
minutes.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
(when an individual visits a Presidential
Library).
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 18,750 hours.
Abstract: The survey is comprised of
a set of questions designed to allow for
a statistical analysis that will ultimately
provide actionable information to
NARA. The survey includes questions
that measure the visitor’s satisfaction in
general and with specific aspects of
their visit. These questions serve as
dependent variables for analytical
purposes. Other questions provide
attitudinal, behavioral, and
demographic data that are used to help
understand variation in the satisfaction
variables. Using statistical analyses,
Harris Interactive will determine the
factors that drive the visitor’s
perceptions of quality and satisfaction
with the Library they visited.
Additionally, natural groupings of
visitors defined by similarity based on
these attitudinal, behavioral, and
demographic variables can be developed
and targeted for outreach purposes. The
information collected through this effort
will inform program activity, operation,
and oversight, and will benefit Library
and NARA staff and management in
making critical decisions about
resources allocation, museum operation
and program direction.
Dated: February 26, 2009.
Martha Morphy,
Assistant Archivist for Information Services.
[FR Doc. E9–4587 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
[Docket Nos. 50–438 and 50–439; NRC–
2009–0093]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Bellefonte
Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has prepared this
Environmental Assessment (EA)
associated with a request by the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to
reinstate the construction permits (CPs)
CPPR–122 and CPPR–123 for the
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN), Units 1
and 2, respectively. Based on
information provided in TVA’s letters,
dated August 26, September 25, and
November 24, 2008, and the NRC staff’s
independent review of references, the
NRC staff did not identify any
significant impact associated with the
reinstatement of the BLN Units 1 and 2
CPs and the return of the facility to a
terminated plant status. The NRC staff is
documenting its environmental review
in this EA.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
BLN Units 1 and 2 are pressurizedwater reactor sites that have been
partially completed. The units are
located on a peninsula between Town
Creek and the Tennessee River at River
Mile 392 on the west shore of
Guntersville Reservoir near Hollywood,
Alabama. Most of the 1600 acres of the
site have been previously impacted by
the near completion of both BLN Units
1 and 2.
Identification of the Proposed Action
TVA requests reinstatement of the CPs
for BLN Units 1 and 2. The Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC now, the
NRC) issued the Final Environmental
Statement (FES) in June 1974 for BLN
Units 1 and 2. On December 12, 1974,
CPs were issued by the NRC. Much of
the construction work for BLN Units 1
and 2 was subsequently completed. On
April 6, 2006, TVA submitted a request
to withdraw the CPs for BLN Units 1
and 2. On September 14, 2006, the NRC
staff withdrew the CPs for BLN Units 1
and 2 based on the request.
Subsequently, TVA submitted a request
on August 26, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated September 25, 2008, and
November 24, 2008, to reinstate the CPs
for BLN Units 1 and 2.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Reinstatement of the CPs for BLN
Units 1 and 2 and the return to a
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
PO 00000
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
terminated plant status may
subsequently enable TVA to complete
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
This EA summarizes the radiological
and nonradiological impacts to the
environment that may result from the
proposed reinstatement of the CPs.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Land use and aesthetic impacts from
the proposed reinstatement of the CPs
include impacts from completing the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. TVA
states in its letter of August 26, 2008,
that BLN Units 1 and 2 are 90 percent
and 58 percent complete in
construction, respectively, with most of
the infrastructure work completed.
Remaining construction-related
activities at BLN Units 1 and 2 include:
The potential realignment of the
southern entrance road 1200 feet east of
its existing location; the construction of
the Unit 2 startup and recirculation
equipment building on previously
disturbed land near the Unit 2 auxiliary
building; the installation of a new
power stores building; and some
changes to the gatehouse and protected
area fencing. Additionally, clay borrow
pits would be dug in wooded areas
immediately east of the main buildings.
In response to an NRC staff’s request
for additional information (RAI), TVA
noted in its November 24, 2008, letter
that few facilities would cause further
land disturbance, and that previously
disturbed land, existing parking lots,
access road, offices, workshops, and
warehouses at BLN would be used
during the completion of construction.
Onsite land use conditions at BLN,
including conditions along existing
transmission lines corridors (no new
lines would be required to complete the
two units), switch yards, and
substations, would not change. The
applicant concluded that any impacts to
natural resources from projected site
construction activities would remain
bounded by the original 1974 FES
assessment.
Based on the information provided by
TVA, the NRC staff concludes that there
would be no significant impact on land
use and aesthetic resources in the
vicinity of BLN Units 1 and 2. The
majority of construction activities have
already occurred and the impacts have
been assessed and documented in the
original 1974 FES.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
The National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties.
Historic properties are defined as
resources that are eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are
listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), under Title 36,
‘‘Parks, Forests, and Public Property,’’
Part 60, Section 4, ‘‘Criteria for
Evaluation’’ (36 CFR 60.4). The historic
preservation review process (Section
106 of the NHPA) is outlined in
regulations issued by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation in Title
36, ‘‘Parks, Forests, and Public
Property,’’ Part 800, ‘‘Protection of
Historic Properties’’ (36 CFR Part 800).
Reinstatement of the BLN CPs and
completion of construction at the BLN
sites is a Federal action that could
possibly affect either known or
undiscovered historic properties located
on or near the plant site and its
associated transmission lines. In
accordance with the provisions of the
NHPA, the NRC makes a reasonable
effort to identify historic properties in
the area of potential effect. The area of
potential effect for this action is the
plant site and the immediate environs.
To assess the environmental impacts
to historic and archaeological resources,
the NRC staff reviewed information
provided by TVA in its 1974 FES, along
with supplemental information
provided by letters to the NRC dated
August 26, 2002, and November 24,
2008. Additional site details were also
obtained from reviewing the
Environmental Report in TVA’s October
30, 2007, application for a Combined
License (COL ER) for Bellefonte Units 3
and 4.
In 1936, archaeological salvage
excavations were conducted at the
Bellefonte site associated with the
construction of Guntersville Reservoir.
In 1972, TVA funded an archaeological
reconnaissance investigation at the
Bellefonte site to locate any historic and
archaeological sites that would be
adversely impacted by the construction
of BLN Units 1 and 2. The 1972 survey
identified three new prehistoric sites
(1JA300–302), and located two sites
(1JA978 and 1JA112) that were
previously recorded during the preinundation survey of Guntersville Lake
according to the FES 1974. Site 1JA978
was noted in the riverbank and
contained both Archaic and Woodland
artifacts. Site 1JA112 was primarily
inundated; therefore, cultural affiliation
could not be determined for this site. A
2006 survey conducted by TVA
determined that sites 1JA978 and
1JA112 are located outside of BLN’s
property boundary. Analysis of artifacts
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9309
recovered at 1JA300 reveal that the site
was occupied during the Archaic,
Woodland, and Mississippian cultural
periods. Since 1JA300 was going to be
adversely impacted by the construction
of the plant intake structure and access
road, data recovery excavations were
conducted on site 1JA300 in 1973 and
1974 by the University of Alabama.
Information provided by TVA in its COL
ER indicated that a total of 22 features
and 9 burials were excavated from the
site. One of these features consisted of
a small structure footprint, which is
indicative of village-level habitation.
The human remains are located at the
University of Alabama. By letter dated
November 24, 2008, TVA stated that
additional archaeological surveys have
been conducted. In 2006, TVA
conducted a survey to document and
evaluate all archaeological resources at
BLN. During this survey, it was
determined that site 1JA300 was
destroyed during construction of the
intake structure, and therefore, is no
longer eligible for the NRHP.
Site 1JA301 was recorded during the
1972 reconnaissance survey as surficial
remains (lithic debris) dating to the
Archaic period. Analysis of the lithic
debris from this site suggests that it was
an intermittent campsite. It was
recommended that any further
excavation of this site would be
unproductive. The 1972 report notes
that site 1JA301 was heavily disturbed
and reduced to plow zone scatter of
prehistoric materials. Additional testing
conducted determined that site 1JA301
was destroyed during construction of
BLN Units 1 and 2 and is not eligible
for inclusion in the NRHP according to
the COL ER.
Site 1JA302 was purported to be
remotely located to the construction
area according to the FES 1974. Artifacts
recovered from 1JA302 dated the site to
the Woodland period. Limited
excavation was proposed, however,
further excavations were not conducted.
Site 1JA302 lies outside the BLN
property boundary. Site 1JA302 was
determined to be eligible for inclusion
on the NRHP.
Site 1JA111 is an undefined
prehistoric occupation site. Additional
testing was conducted at the site during
the 2006 survey. A total of 93 artifacts
were recovered, however, no diagnostic
lithic artifacts were recovered to date
from the site according to the COL ER.
However, a small number of ceramics
dating to the Mississippian period were
recovered. Based upon the stratigraphic
profiles and patterns of artifact recovery,
TVA indicated that site 1JA111 appears
to contain buried, intact archaeological
deposits and has the potential to
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
9310
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
contribute significant scientific and
archaeological information regarding the
prehistory of the Guntersville Basin
according to the TVA report dated
October 2007. Site 1JA111 remains
potentially eligible for inclusion in the
NRHP. TVA has indicated that the site
will be fenced off, and marked on BLN
site drawings as an area to be avoided
by any future ground disturbing
activities according to the TVA letters
dated August 26, September 25, and
November 24, 2008.
Site 1JA113 is another undefined
prehistoric occupation site. Additional
testing was conducted at the site in 2006
and yielded a single prehistoric lithic
flake, however, site 1JA113 does not
meet the criteria of eligibility for the
NRHP according to the TVA letters
dated August 26, September 25, and
November 24, 2008.
One historic site was identified
during the 2006 survey. Site 1JA1103
consists of a collapsed structure and
associated outbuilding according to the
COL ER. The 2006 survey revealed that
this site was used as a temporary storage
and weather shelter during the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2
according to the TVA letters dated
August 26, September 25, and
November 24, 2008. Site 1JA1103 has
had its archaeological integrity altered
by the construction of BLN Units 1 and
2; therefore, the site is not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP. Regardless of
the site’s eligibility, TVA has indicated
that the site will be avoided.
Adjacent to the BLN site was the
Town of Bellefonte the former Jackson
County seat. The Town of Bellefonte is
listed in the Alabama Statewide Plan of
Historic Preservation and was
determined eligible for inclusion on the
NRHP. Among the former town
buildings was a tavern that dated to
1845 according to the 1974 FES. This
building and other structures associated
with the Bellefonte town site were
moved in 1974. The town site is not on
TVA property, and the buildings were
removed by the owners according to the
TVA letter dated August 26, 2002.
The BLN site was heavily disturbed
by the construction of BLN Units 1 and
2, which began in the 1970s.
Reinstatement of the CPs and
completing construction of BLN Units 1
and 2 would involve some ground
disturbing activities in previously
undisturbed areas of the site. The NRC
staff anticipates that for areas not
previously surveyed, an archaeological
investigation would be conducted by a
qualified archaeologist prior to any
ground disturbing activities by TVA.
Additionally, since TVA is a Federal
agency, an NHPA Section 106 review
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
and consultation with the Alabama
Historical Commission would be
initiated for such activities.
Based on the information provided in
the 1974 FES, and TVA’s subsequent
responses to the NRC staff’s RAIs in
letters dated August 26, 2002, and
November 24, 2008, the NRC staff finds
that the potential impacts of reinstating
the CPs and completing construction of
BLN Units 1 and 2 would have no
adverse effect on historic and
archaeological resources.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Socioeconomic impacts from the
proposed reinstatement of the CPs and
completing the construction of BLN
Units 1 and 2 include an increase in the
size of the workforce at BLN and
associated increased demand for public
services and housing in the region.
In its August 26, 2002, response to an
RAI, TVA estimated that the number of
workers needed to complete the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 could
peak at about 4600 workers; comprised
of approximately 2600 construction
workers, 900 engineers, 850 plant staff,
and 250 start-up testing staff. Most
construction workers would relocate
temporarily to Jackson County resulting
in a short-term increase in population
along with increased demands for
public services and housing. TVA
confirmed this estimate in a letter to the
NRC dated November 24, 2008, and
provided additional demographic
information. Because construction work
would be short-term, most construction
workers would stay in rental homes,
apartments, mobile homes, and campertrailers. According to 2000 Census
information, there were over 46,000
vacant housing units in the 50-mile
radius of BLN, including over 2500
vacant housing units in Jackson County,
that could potentially ease the demand
for local rental housing should
construction activities resume.
TVA has acknowledged in its
November 24, 2008, letter that
completing the construction activities of
BLN Units 1 and 2 may require greater
than anticipated numbers of
construction workers, which could
significantly affect the availability of
public services (i.e., schools,
transportation, police and fire services,
road infrastructure, water supplies, etc.).
Reinstatement of the CPs and
completing the construction of BLN
Units 1 and 2 could, therefore, result in
greater socioeconomic impacts than
those projected in the 1974 FES.
However, these impacts would have a
relatively short duration. TVA has also
committed to monitor the situation and
work with local and state officials to
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
mitigate any unacceptable adverse
socioeconomic impacts that might result
according to the TVA letter dated
November 24, 2008.
Based on a review of the information
provided by TVA and relevant census
data, the NRC staff concludes that
reinstating the CPs and completing the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2
would not result in adverse
socioeconomic impacts.
Environmental Justice
The environmental justice impact
analysis evaluates the potential for
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations that could result from
reinstating the CPs and completing the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Adverse health effects are measured in
terms of the risk and rate of fatal or
nonfatal adverse impacts on human
health.
Disproportionately high and adverse
human health effects occur when the
risk or rate of exposure to an
environmental hazard for a minority or
low-income population is significant
and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for
the general population or for another
appropriate comparison group. A
disproportionately high environmental
impact that is significant refers to an
impact or risk of an impact on the
natural or physical environment in a
low-income or minority community that
appreciably exceeds the environmental
impact on the larger community. Such
effects may include ecological, cultural,
human health, economic, or social
impacts. Some of these potential effects
have been identified in resource areas
discussed in this EA. For example,
increased demand for rental housing
during construction could
disproportionately affect low-income
populations. Minority and low-income
populations are subsets of the general
public residing around BLN, and all are
exposed to the same health and
environmental effects generated from
construction activities at BLN.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity
of BLN—According to 2000 census data,
18.9 percent of the population
(approximately 1,083,000 individuals)
residing within a 50-mile radius of BLN
identified themselves as minority
individuals. The largest minority group
was Black or African American (157,000
persons or 14.5 percent), followed by
Hispanic or Latino of any race (24,000
or about 2.2 percent). About 8.1 percent
of the Jackson County population
identified themselves as minorities,
with Black or African American the
largest minority group (3.7 percent)
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
followed by Hispanic or Latino (1.1
percent) according to the U.S. Census
Bureau (USCB). According to USCB
census data estimates for 2006, the
minority population of Jackson County,
as a percent of total population, had
increased to 9.2 percent.
Low-Income Populations in the
Vicinity of BLN—According to 2000
census data, approximately 32,000
families and 143,000 individuals
(approximately 10.5 and 13.2 percent,
respectively) residing within a 50-mile
radius of BLN were identified as living
below the Federal poverty threshold in
1999. The 1999 Federal poverty
threshold was $17,029 for a family of
four.
According to census data, the median
household income for Alabama in 2004
was $37,062, while 16.1 percent of the
state population was determined to be
living below the Federal poverty
threshold. Jackson County had a lower
median household income ($33,733)
and a lower percentage (15.3 percent) of
individuals living below the poverty
level.
Impact Analysis—Potential impacts to
minority and low-income populations
due to the reinstatement of the CPs and
completing the construction of BLN
Units 1 and 2 would mostly consist of
environmental and socioeconomic
effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic,
employment, and housing impacts).
Since most of the construction work
at BLN has been completed, noise and
dust impacts would be short-term and
limited to onsite activities. Minority and
low-income populations residing along
site access roads could experience
increased commuter vehicle traffic
during shift changes. As employment
increases at BLN during completion of
BLN Units 1 and 2, employment
opportunities for minority and lowincome populations may also increase.
Increased demand for rental housing
during peak construction could
disproportionately affect low-income
populations. However, according to the
latest census information, there were
over 46,000 vacant housing units in the
50-mile radius of BLN, including over
2500 vacant housing units in Jackson
County.
Based on this information and the
analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this
EA, there would be no
disproportionately high and adverse
impacts to minority and low-income
populations from the reinstatement of
the CPs and completing the construction
of the BLN Units 1 and 2.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
Impacts on Water Resources
Water resource impacts due to
reinstating BLN Units 1 and 2 CPs
would be relatively small. Water
discharges are governed by the plant’s
current National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and
waste streams controlled by the current
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) permit; these permits
remain active. TVA would continue to
purchase drinking water from the City
of Hollywood, Alabama, which is a
community public water system that is
regulated by the State of Alabama. TVA
would continue to route waste water
from the BLN Units 1 and 2 to the
Hollywood Sewer System.
By letter dated November 24, 2008,
TVA confirmed that almost all
environmental disturbances related to
construction have already occurred, and
that any impacts to natural resources,
including water resources, would
remain bounded by its assessment in the
1974 FES.
Based on the information provided,
the staff expects that there would be
little or no impact to aquatic resources
because the majority of construction
activities have already been completed.
Impacts on Air Quality
Main sources for the potential impacts
on air quality due to reinstatement of
the CPs for BLN would be fugitive dust
from construction activities, associated
with the project and exhaust emissions
from the motorized equipment and
vehicles of workers. The 1990 Clean Air
Act amendments include a provision
that no Federal agency shall support any
activity that does not conform to a state
implementation plan designed to
achieve the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for criteria pollutants
(sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon
monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate
matter less than 10 in diameter). On
November 30, 1993, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issued a final rule (58 FR 63214)
implementing the new statutory
requirements, effective January 31,
1994. The final rule requires that
Federal agencies prepare a written
conformity analysis and determination
for each pollutant where the total of
direct and indirect emissions caused by
proposed federal action 1 would exceed
1 Federal
action means any activity engaged in by
a department, agency or instrumentality of the
Federal Government, or any activity that a
department, agency or instrumentality of the
Federal Government supports in any way, provides
financial assistance for, licenses, permits, or
approves, other than activities related to
transportation plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded, or approved under title 23
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9311
established threshold emission levels in
a nonattainment 2 or maintenance area.3
Construction activities are known to
cause localized temporary increases in
atmospheric concentrations of nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, volatile organic compounds,
ammonia and particulate matter PM10
and PM2.5 as a result of exhaust
emissions of worker’s vehicles, diesel
generators, and construction equipment.
In accordance with the Clean Air Act,
Federal agencies are prohibited from
issuing a license for any activity that
does not conform to an applicable
implementation plan (40 CFR Parts 51
and 93). Since the plant is located in a
PM2.5 nonattainment area, BLN must
show conformity to applicable Alabama
State Implementation Plans by
analyzing vehicles exhaust emissions
(using an approved EPA model) that
will occur during construction of BLN
Units 1 and 2.
During potential construction of BLN
Units 1 and 2, some ground-clearing,
grading, excavation, and movement of
materials and machinery are expected to
occur. Ground-clearing, grading, and
excavation activities will raise dust, as
will the movement of materials and
machinery. Fugitive dust may also rise
from cleared areas during windy
periods. If any open burning is planned
then the applicable permits would need
to be obtained from the Air Division of
the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management. Normally,
construction activities take place for a
limited duration; if reinstated, the
expiration completion date for BLN Unit
1 CP is October 1, 2011, and the
expiration completion date for BLN Unit
2 CP is October 1, 2014, as specified in
an NRC Order dated March 4, 2003. Any
impacts on air quality that might occur
would be temporary.
Because the NRC staff expects that
any potential construction activities at
BLN Units 1 and 2 would conform to
the Alabama Implementation plans, the
NRC staff concludes that the impacts of
construction activities on air quality
would then be low. For such activities,
the NRC staff notes a variety of
mitigation measures, such as wetting of
unpaved roads and construction areas
during dry periods and seeding or
mulching bare areas, inspection and
U.S.C or the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C 1601 et
seq.). (40 CFR 51.852)
2 An area is designated ‘‘nonattainment’’ for a
criteria pollutant if it does not meet National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the
pollutant.
3 A maintenance area has been redesignated by a
State from nonattainment to attainment; the State
must submit to EPA a plan for maintaining NAAQS
as a revision to its State Implementation Plan.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
9312
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
aquatic species listed as threatened or
endangered in the immediate vicinity of
BLN.
maintenance of the gasoline or diesel
fuel fired construction equipment to
prevent excessive exhaust emissions
and shift changes for workforce to
reduce the number of vehicles on the
road at any given time, that could
mitigate potential air quality impacts
resulting from the potential
reinstatement and construction
completion at BLN Units 1 and 2.
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
In a TVA letter dated September 25,
2008, TVA indicates that TVA proposes
‘‘no new ground disturbance,’’ possibly
a small amount of earthwork adjacent to
existing building to support air
compressors, and possibly
‘‘reintroduction’’ of small amounts of
lubricating oil. The TVA letter dated
September 25, 2008, does not indicate
that the reinstatement of the CPs and
construction would result in any
activities involving transmission lines,
such as maintenance, nor does it
indicate any on-site activities other than
those listed above. The activities
described in the TVA letter, would be of
such limited geographic extent and of
such removal from aquatic habitats that
the NRC staff expects that there would
be little to no impact to aquatic
resources.
By letter dated November 24, 2008,
TVA provided additional information to
confirm that most site disturbance has
already occurred, and that any impacts
to natural resources, including aquatic
resources, would remain bounded by
the impacts discussed in the 1974 FES.
Based on the information provided,
the NRC staff expects that there would
be little to no impact to aquatic
resources based on the limited
geographic extent and area affected.
Threatened and Endangered Aquatic
Species
By letter dated November 24, 2008,
TVA updated the list of threatened or
endangered species and concluded that
except for the gray bat, none of the
federally listed species are known to
occur at or adjacent to the BLN site.
Although threatened and endangered
aquatic species are listed as occurring in
Jackson County, the NRC staff
confirmed with the Alabama State
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (DCNR) that there were no
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
Since most of the construction has
been completed, limited impacts may
occur to terrestrial biota related to the
potential realignment by 1200 feet (370
meters) of the southern entrance to the
plant and by the excavation of borrow
pits in a wooded area east of the existing
main power plant buildings. Reinstating
the CPs and completing construction of
the BLN Units 1 and 2 would remain
within the scope of the 1974 FES,
assuming that TVA implements the
preconstruction and construction
monitoring program for both aquatic
and terrestrial resources as described in
the 1974 FES. This would also cover
potential impacts to terrestrial biota
from transmission line right-of-way
maintenance. The 1974 FES considered
all potential impacts associated with the
transmission line and noted that TVA’s
transmission line maintenance and
construction methods, particularly
overspray during herbicide applications,
had resulted in damage to trees located
outside of the transmission line
corridor. However, current best
management practices (BMPs) employed
by most industries today would mitigate
such environmental impacts from
pesticide or herbicide applications.
Assuming that these practices for
transmission line right-of-way would be
in place if the CPs for BLN Units 1 and
2 were reinstated, the NRC staff
anticipates little to no impact on
terrestrial biota, including wetland
areas. By letter dated November 24,
2008, TVA confirmed that impacts to
terrestrial resources would remain
bounded by the assessment in the 1974
FES.
Endangered Terrestrial Species
In a NRC EA dated January 24, 2003
(68 FR 3571), for extension of expiration
dates of the BLN CPs, the NRC staff
found that the endangered Gray Bat
(Myotis grisescens) is the only species
on the Federal list of endangered
species known to occur in the vicinity
of the Bellefonte site or within its
transmission line corridors. The Gray
Bat uses the sloughs and main channel
of the Tennessee River near the BLN site
to forage according to the NRC EA,
dated January 24, 2003, and an Alabama
State DCNR letter, dated October 15,
2008. The NRC EA, dated January 24,
2003, found that construction activities
planned at that time would not be
expected to cause any adverse impacts
to the Grey Bat or its habitat.
There is a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) nest located less than 2
miles (3 kilometers) northeast of the
BLN site, but the Bald Eagle was
recently removed from the Federal list
of threatened and endangered species.
However, the Bald Eagle is still
protected under the Federal Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act.
According to the NRC EA, dated
January 24, 2003, population levels of
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) have been
increasing on Guntersville Lake, and
several nests have been observed in the
vicinity of Coon and Crow Creeks.
Ospreys would use shoreline habitats
fronting the BLN site for foraging. While
not a species listed as threatened or
endangered, the Osprey is protected
along with the Bald Eagle under the
Alabama State Nongame Species
Regulation according to Alabama State
DCNR letter, dated October 15, 2008.
Based on this information, and TVA’s
response to the RAI dated November 24,
2008, the NRC staff concludes that
resumption of construction activities at
the BLN site are not likely to have any
significant adverse effect on any listed
species or other species mentioned
above, because the majority of ground or
river disturbance from construction
activities have already been completed.
Nonradiological Impacts Summary
Reinstatement of the CPs for BLN
Units 1 and 2 would not result in a
significant change in nonradiological
impacts in the areas of land use, water
use, waste discharges, terrestrial and
aquatic biota, transmission facility
operation, social and economic factors,
and environmental justice related to
resumption of construction operations
at the power plants. No other
nonradiological impacts were identified
or would be expected. Table 1
summarizes the nonradiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units
1 and 2.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land use ..................................................
Historic and Archaeological Resources ...
Socioeconomics .......................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
No impact to land use conditions and aesthetic resources in the vicinity of BLN.
No impact to historic and archaeological resources in the vicinity of BLN.
Workforce required to complete BLN could have a profound effect on the availability of public services and rental housing in the vicinity of the plant. TVA is committed to monitoring the situation and
to working with local and state officials to mitigate any unacceptable adverse socioeconomic conditions.
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
9313
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS—Continued
Environmental Justice ..............................
Water Use ................................................
Air Quality ................................................
Aquatic Resources ...................................
Terrestrial Biota ........................................
Threatened and Endangered Species .....
Transmission Facilities .............................
There would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of BLN.
Water use during completion of construction would be relatively minor. No changes from previous impact evaluations are expected.
Temporary impacts from fugitive dust related to construction and vehicle emissions related to construction workers traveling to and from BLN.
Little to no impact to listed species since most external construction is completed.
Little to no impact to listed species since most external construction is completed.
Little to no impact to listed species since most external construction is completed.
Little to no impact to terrestrial and aquatic resources if current BMPs are incorporated into management plan.
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Effluent and Solid Waste
Impacts
Nuclear power plants use waste
treatment systems designed to collect,
process, and dispose of gaseous, liquid,
and solid wastes that might contain
radioactive material in a safe and
controlled manner such that discharges
are in accordance with the requirements
of Title 10 of 10 CFR Part 20,
‘‘Standards for Protection Against
Radiation’’, and 10 CFR Part 50,
‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities’’, Appendix I.
Since construction activities will not
involve any radioactive effluent and
solid waste, the staff determined that
reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2
would not result in any radiological
effluent and solid waste since the BLN
Units 1 and 2 would not be operating.
Disposal of essentially all of the
hazardous chemicals used at nuclear
power plants is also regulated by RCRA
or NPDES permits.
Occupational Radiation Doses
Occupational exposures to plant
workers conducting activities involving
radioactively contaminated systems or
working in radiation areas can be
exposed to radiation. However,
reinstatement of the CPs and
construction activities will not involve
any radioactive material; the NRC staff
determined that occupational doses can
be maintained within the limits of 10
CFR Part 20 for the reinstatement of the
CPs and construction of BLN Units 1
and 2.
Public Radiation Doses
Since construction activities will not
involve any radioactive material, the
staff determined that public radiation
doses can be maintained within the
limits of 10 CFR Part 100 for the
reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Postulated Accident Doses
Since construction activities will not
involve operation of BLN Units 1 and 2,
the staff determined that there will be
no postulated accident doses for the
reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation
Impacts
Since construction activities will not
involve operation of BLN Units 1 and 2,
the staff determined that there would be
no environmental impact of the fuel
cycle and transportation of fuels and
wastes for the reinstatement of the CPs
and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Radiological Impacts Summary
The proposed reinstatement of the
CPs and construction of BLN Units 1
and 2 would not result in an impact
associated with radiological effluent and
solid waste, or occupational and public
radiation exposure, or the uranium fuel
cycle and transportation. In addition,
TVA confirmed in its response to the
RAI dated November 24, 2008, that
there are no changes or updates related
to radiological impacts, beyond those
assessed in the 1974 FES, associated
with the proposed reinstatement of the
CPs and construction of BLN Units 1
and 2.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes
that there are no adverse impacts
associated with the proposed
reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Table 2 summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Occupational Radiation Doses .......................................................................................................................................
Public Radiation Doses ..................................................................................................................................................
Postulated Accident Doses .............................................................................................................................................
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts ...........................................................................................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact is defined in
Council of Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR 1508.7) as ‘‘an
impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of
the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions.’’ The
NRC staff has considered past, present,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
and reasonably foreseeable future
actions in this review for cumulative
impacts on the environment. Should
TVA receive approval by the NRC and
decide to construct one or two new
nuclear power plant units at the
Bellefonte site (BLN Unit 1 and/or Unit
2), the cumulative impact would result
from construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the site.
The NRC staff has conducted a review
of past, present, and the foreseeable
future action of reinstatement of the CPs
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
No
No
No
No
adverse
adverse
adverse
adverse
impacts.
impacts.
impacts.
impacts.
and construction for BLN Unit 1 and 2.
The NRC staff determined runoff from
the land area around the main
construction site drains into an
unnamed tributary, wetland, and the
intake. Topographical flow gradient is
following the natural elevation not
planned for land excavation or
disturbance. Cumulative impacts of
normal construction of the proposed
facilities for BLN Units 1 and 2 were
evaluated for water resources, air
quality, health and safety, waste
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
9314
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
generation, resource use, and
environmental justice including
cumulative impacts for water quality,
geologic resources, ecological resources,
aesthetic resources. These were
explicitly addressed and the NRC staff
notes direct and indirect impacts to
these resources are expected to be
negligible. Cumulative impacts from
proposed facility construction
reinstatement of the CPs and
construction activities are not expected
to be significant. In addition, the
cumulative impacts of the proposed
facilities to land development,
electricity usage, and water usage would
be quite small.
If construction resumes, TVA plans to
eventually move (re-route) the first half
mile of the south entrance road such
that it would still join Jackson County
Highway 33, but to an intersection that
is about 1200 feet east of the current
connection point. This change would
improve traffic visibility and, thereby,
increase commuter safety. Some new
ground would be disturbed for this road
but there are no associated significant
environmental impacts.
If construction resumes, some new
backfill borrow pits may be required to
obtain clay. These would likely be made
in undisturbed ground east of the main
site power plant buildings. The topsoil
would be removed temporarily and
replaced to restore the sites after clay
removal. Tree cover would be removed
in this process.
Meteorological monitoring
requirements have changed, which
might necessitate construction of a new
environmental data station. This new
facility could possibly be sited on
undisturbed soil.
Construction of the startup and
recirculation equipment building for
Unit 2 has not been initiated; however,
the site for this building is disturbed
ground very close to the south side of
the Unit 2 auxiliary building. Other
potential construction activities on
disturbed ground include increasing the
size of the construction and
administration building (CAB);
additional fire protection tanks by the
CAB; additional waste tanks adjacent to
the Unit 1 reactor building; and
completion of the auxiliary feedwater
pipe trench near the Unit 2 reactor
building. The power stores building
may be enlarged, and new plant security
requirements may necessitate changes to
the gatehouse.
If the CPs are reinstated, the
expiration completion date for BLN Unit
1 CP is October 1, 2011, and the
expiration completion date for BLN Unit
2 CP is October 1, 2014, as specified in
a NRC Order dated March 4, 2003.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
Therefore, it is anticipated that the
potential cumulative impacts from
reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2
would be small and no mitigation
would be required.
One of the considered actions
involves an application to build two
new nuclear units at the Bellefonte site
(BLN Units 3 and 4). By letter dated
October 30, 2007, TVA submitted its
application for a Combined License
(COL) for Bellefonte Units 3 and 4; this
application is currently under review by
the Office of New Reactors.
On August 27, 2008, TVA legal
counsel notified Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board Panel, reviewing the
matter of BLN 3 and 4, that TVA has
requested to reinstate the CPs for BLN
Units 1 and 2 in a letter dated August
26, 2008.
At this juncture, the TVA request that
the NRC reinstate the CPs for BLN Units
1 and 2 does not constitute a ‘‘proposal’’
that is interdependent with the BLN
Units 3 and 4 COL application that is
before the agency. The TVA request to
reinstate the CP for BLN Units 1 and 2
fails to constitute a ‘‘proposal’’ of the
type that would trigger a NEPA
cumulative impact analysis regarding
Units 1 and 2 in the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis for proposed BLN Units 3 and
4. If construction activities resume for
BLN Units 1 and 2, TVA would need to
assess the BLN Units 1 and 2
construction impacts relative to BLN
Units 3 and 4.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
There are four possibilities for
reinstatement of the CPs and
construction: (1) Both BLN Units 1 and
2 (the proposed action, which bounds
possibilities 2 and 3), (2) BLN Unit 1
only, (3) BLN Unit 2 only, and (4)
neither BLN Unit 1 or Unit 2.
A possible alternative to the proposed
action of reinstatement of the CPs for
BLN Units 1 and 2 would be to reinstate
only one CP; this alternative is bounded
by the proposed action.
Another possible alternative to the
proposed action of reinstatement of the
CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 would be to
deny the request of reinstatement of the
CPs. This option would not eliminate
the environmental impacts of
construction that have already occurred,
and would only limit the additional
construction that has been determined
to have little to no impact on aquatic
and terrestrial resources including
endangered species, to hydrology,
archaeology, land use, and transmission
line maintenance, and temporary air
impacts from fugitive dust and
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
emissions from construction workers
traveling to and from the site. If the
request was denied, there would be no
adverse socioeconomic impacts; there
could be an increase in the availability
of public services and rental housing in
the vicinity of the plant. If the request
was denied, there would be no adverse
impacts to environmental justice; the
environmental justice impact analysis
evaluates the potential for
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations that could result from
completing the construction of BLN
Units 1 and 2.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use
of any resources not previously
considered in the original FES for
construction.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on October 15, 2008, the NRC staff
consulted with the Alabama State
officials, Mr. Keith Hudson and Ms.
Ashley Peters, of the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The state
officials had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, the
Commission concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
Commission has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
letters, dated August 16, 2006,
September 25, 2008, and November 24,
2008. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR), located
at One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading
Room on the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, or
301–415–4737, or send an e-mail to
pdr.Resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24 day
of February 2008.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–4441 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
Effluent Release Report one additional
month. As specified in 10 CFR
50.36a(a)(2), the interval between
submittals must not exceed 12 months.
A one-time exemption is required
because the proposed amendment
would result in the 2008 Radioactive
Effluent Release Report submittal
exceeding the 12-month requirement.
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316; NRC–
2009–0094]
Indiana Michigan Power Company;
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2, Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) Part 50, Section 36a(a)(2) [10 CFR
50.36a(a)(2)], for Facility Operating
License Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74,
issued to Indiana Michigan Power
Company (the licensee), for operation of
the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit
1 and Unit 2, located in Berrien County.
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC is issuing this environmental
assessment and finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Identification of the Proposed Action
The regulation 10 CFR 50.36(a)(2)
specifies that the Radioactive Effluent
Release Report submittal interval must
not exceed 12 months. By application
dated October 21, 2008 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession Number
ML082970187), the licensee proposed
an amendment to Technical
Specification 5.6.3 which would change
the submittal date from ‘‘within 90 days
of January 1 of each year’’ (i.e., prior to
April 1, 2009) to ‘‘prior to May 1 of each
year.’’
In the October 21, 2008, application,
the licensee also requested a one-time
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR 50.36a(a)(2) to support the
implementation of the proposed
amendment which results in the 2008
Radioactive Effluent Release Report
submittal exceeding the 12-month
requirement.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is required to
support the implementation of the
proposed amendment to Technical
Specification 5.6.3. This amendment
eliminates an undue administrative
burden by extending the required
submittal date for the Radioactive
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its safety
evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that there are no
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed exemption. The details of
the staff’s safety evaluation will be
provided in the exemption that will be
issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation.
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released offsite. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
any effluent released offsite. There is no
significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no
other environmental impact. Therefore,
there are no significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources other than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for the Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
dated August 1973, and the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of the Donald C. Cook
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9315
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG–
1437, Supplement 20), dated May 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On February 9, 2009, the staff
consulted with the Michigan State
official, Mr. Ken Yale, of the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality,
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official
had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated October 21, 2008. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from
the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an
e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of February 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Terry A. Beltz,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch III–1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–4438 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Sunshine Federal Register Notice
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
DATES: Weeks of March 2, 9, 16, 23, 30,
April 6, 2009.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9308-9315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4441]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-439; NRC-2009-0093]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units
1 and 2, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared this
Environmental Assessment (EA) associated with a request by the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to reinstate the construction permits
(CPs) CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 for the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant (BLN),
Units 1 and 2, respectively. Based on information provided in TVA's
letters, dated August 26, September 25, and November 24, 2008, and the
NRC staff's independent review of references, the NRC staff did not
identify any significant impact associated with the reinstatement of
the BLN Units 1 and 2 CPs and the return of the facility to a
terminated plant status. The NRC staff is documenting its environmental
review in this EA.
Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
BLN Units 1 and 2 are pressurized-water reactor sites that have
been partially completed. The units are located on a peninsula between
Town Creek and the Tennessee River at River Mile 392 on the west shore
of Guntersville Reservoir near Hollywood, Alabama. Most of the 1600
acres of the site have been previously impacted by the near completion
of both BLN Units 1 and 2.
Identification of the Proposed Action
TVA requests reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2. The
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC now, the NRC) issued the Final
Environmental Statement (FES) in June 1974 for BLN Units 1 and 2. On
December 12, 1974, CPs were issued by the NRC. Much of the construction
work for BLN Units 1 and 2 was subsequently completed. On April 6,
2006, TVA submitted a request to withdraw the CPs for BLN Units 1 and
2. On September 14, 2006, the NRC staff withdrew the CPs for BLN Units
1 and 2 based on the request. Subsequently, TVA submitted a request on
August 26, 2008, as supplemented by letters dated September 25, 2008,
and November 24, 2008, to reinstate the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 and the return to a
[[Page 9309]]
terminated plant status may subsequently enable TVA to complete
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This EA summarizes the radiological and nonradiological impacts to
the environment that may result from the proposed reinstatement of the
CPs.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Land use and aesthetic impacts from the proposed reinstatement of
the CPs include impacts from completing the construction of BLN Units 1
and 2. TVA states in its letter of August 26, 2008, that BLN Units 1
and 2 are 90 percent and 58 percent complete in construction,
respectively, with most of the infrastructure work completed.
Remaining construction-related activities at BLN Units 1 and 2
include: The potential realignment of the southern entrance road 1200
feet east of its existing location; the construction of the Unit 2
startup and recirculation equipment building on previously disturbed
land near the Unit 2 auxiliary building; the installation of a new
power stores building; and some changes to the gatehouse and protected
area fencing. Additionally, clay borrow pits would be dug in wooded
areas immediately east of the main buildings.
In response to an NRC staff's request for additional information
(RAI), TVA noted in its November 24, 2008, letter that few facilities
would cause further land disturbance, and that previously disturbed
land, existing parking lots, access road, offices, workshops, and
warehouses at BLN would be used during the completion of construction.
Onsite land use conditions at BLN, including conditions along existing
transmission lines corridors (no new lines would be required to
complete the two units), switch yards, and substations, would not
change. The applicant concluded that any impacts to natural resources
from projected site construction activities would remain bounded by the
original 1974 FES assessment.
Based on the information provided by TVA, the NRC staff concludes
that there would be no significant impact on land use and aesthetic
resources in the vicinity of BLN Units 1 and 2. The majority of
construction activities have already occurred and the impacts have been
assessed and documented in the original 1974 FES.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal
agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic
properties. Historic properties are defined as resources that are
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), under Title 36, ``Parks, Forests, and Public
Property,'' Part 60, Section 4, ``Criteria for Evaluation'' (36 CFR
60.4). The historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the
NHPA) is outlined in regulations issued by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation in Title 36, ``Parks, Forests, and Public
Property,'' Part 800, ``Protection of Historic Properties'' (36 CFR
Part 800). Reinstatement of the BLN CPs and completion of construction
at the BLN sites is a Federal action that could possibly affect either
known or undiscovered historic properties located on or near the plant
site and its associated transmission lines. In accordance with the
provisions of the NHPA, the NRC makes a reasonable effort to identify
historic properties in the area of potential effect. The area of
potential effect for this action is the plant site and the immediate
environs.
To assess the environmental impacts to historic and archaeological
resources, the NRC staff reviewed information provided by TVA in its
1974 FES, along with supplemental information provided by letters to
the NRC dated August 26, 2002, and November 24, 2008. Additional site
details were also obtained from reviewing the Environmental Report in
TVA's October 30, 2007, application for a Combined License (COL ER) for
Bellefonte Units 3 and 4.
In 1936, archaeological salvage excavations were conducted at the
Bellefonte site associated with the construction of Guntersville
Reservoir. In 1972, TVA funded an archaeological reconnaissance
investigation at the Bellefonte site to locate any historic and
archaeological sites that would be adversely impacted by the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. The 1972 survey identified three new
prehistoric sites (1JA300-302), and located two sites (1JA978 and
1JA112) that were previously recorded during the pre-inundation survey
of Guntersville Lake according to the FES 1974. Site 1JA978 was noted
in the riverbank and contained both Archaic and Woodland artifacts.
Site 1JA112 was primarily inundated; therefore, cultural affiliation
could not be determined for this site. A 2006 survey conducted by TVA
determined that sites 1JA978 and 1JA112 are located outside of BLN's
property boundary. Analysis of artifacts recovered at 1JA300 reveal
that the site was occupied during the Archaic, Woodland, and
Mississippian cultural periods. Since 1JA300 was going to be adversely
impacted by the construction of the plant intake structure and access
road, data recovery excavations were conducted on site 1JA300 in 1973
and 1974 by the University of Alabama. Information provided by TVA in
its COL ER indicated that a total of 22 features and 9 burials were
excavated from the site. One of these features consisted of a small
structure footprint, which is indicative of village-level habitation.
The human remains are located at the University of Alabama. By letter
dated November 24, 2008, TVA stated that additional archaeological
surveys have been conducted. In 2006, TVA conducted a survey to
document and evaluate all archaeological resources at BLN. During this
survey, it was determined that site 1JA300 was destroyed during
construction of the intake structure, and therefore, is no longer
eligible for the NRHP.
Site 1JA301 was recorded during the 1972 reconnaissance survey as
surficial remains (lithic debris) dating to the Archaic period.
Analysis of the lithic debris from this site suggests that it was an
intermittent campsite. It was recommended that any further excavation
of this site would be unproductive. The 1972 report notes that site
1JA301 was heavily disturbed and reduced to plow zone scatter of
prehistoric materials. Additional testing conducted determined that
site 1JA301 was destroyed during construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 and
is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP according to the COL ER.
Site 1JA302 was purported to be remotely located to the
construction area according to the FES 1974. Artifacts recovered from
1JA302 dated the site to the Woodland period. Limited excavation was
proposed, however, further excavations were not conducted. Site 1JA302
lies outside the BLN property boundary. Site 1JA302 was determined to
be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
Site 1JA111 is an undefined prehistoric occupation site. Additional
testing was conducted at the site during the 2006 survey. A total of 93
artifacts were recovered, however, no diagnostic lithic artifacts were
recovered to date from the site according to the COL ER. However, a
small number of ceramics dating to the Mississippian period were
recovered. Based upon the stratigraphic profiles and patterns of
artifact recovery, TVA indicated that site 1JA111 appears to contain
buried, intact archaeological deposits and has the potential to
[[Page 9310]]
contribute significant scientific and archaeological information
regarding the prehistory of the Guntersville Basin according to the TVA
report dated October 2007. Site 1JA111 remains potentially eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP. TVA has indicated that the site will be fenced
off, and marked on BLN site drawings as an area to be avoided by any
future ground disturbing activities according to the TVA letters dated
August 26, September 25, and November 24, 2008.
Site 1JA113 is another undefined prehistoric occupation site.
Additional testing was conducted at the site in 2006 and yielded a
single prehistoric lithic flake, however, site 1JA113 does not meet the
criteria of eligibility for the NRHP according to the TVA letters dated
August 26, September 25, and November 24, 2008.
One historic site was identified during the 2006 survey. Site
1JA1103 consists of a collapsed structure and associated outbuilding
according to the COL ER. The 2006 survey revealed that this site was
used as a temporary storage and weather shelter during the construction
of BLN Units 1 and 2 according to the TVA letters dated August 26,
September 25, and November 24, 2008. Site 1JA1103 has had its
archaeological integrity altered by the construction of BLN Units 1 and
2; therefore, the site is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Regardless of the site's eligibility, TVA has indicated that the site
will be avoided.
Adjacent to the BLN site was the Town of Bellefonte the former
Jackson County seat. The Town of Bellefonte is listed in the Alabama
Statewide Plan of Historic Preservation and was determined eligible for
inclusion on the NRHP. Among the former town buildings was a tavern
that dated to 1845 according to the 1974 FES. This building and other
structures associated with the Bellefonte town site were moved in 1974.
The town site is not on TVA property, and the buildings were removed by
the owners according to the TVA letter dated August 26, 2002.
The BLN site was heavily disturbed by the construction of BLN Units
1 and 2, which began in the 1970s. Reinstatement of the CPs and
completing construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 would involve some ground
disturbing activities in previously undisturbed areas of the site. The
NRC staff anticipates that for areas not previously surveyed, an
archaeological investigation would be conducted by a qualified
archaeologist prior to any ground disturbing activities by TVA.
Additionally, since TVA is a Federal agency, an NHPA Section 106 review
and consultation with the Alabama Historical Commission would be
initiated for such activities.
Based on the information provided in the 1974 FES, and TVA's
subsequent responses to the NRC staff's RAIs in letters dated August
26, 2002, and November 24, 2008, the NRC staff finds that the potential
impacts of reinstating the CPs and completing construction of BLN Units
1 and 2 would have no adverse effect on historic and archaeological
resources.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Socioeconomic impacts from the proposed reinstatement of the CPs
and completing the construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 include an
increase in the size of the workforce at BLN and associated increased
demand for public services and housing in the region.
In its August 26, 2002, response to an RAI, TVA estimated that the
number of workers needed to complete the construction of BLN Units 1
and 2 could peak at about 4600 workers; comprised of approximately 2600
construction workers, 900 engineers, 850 plant staff, and 250 start-up
testing staff. Most construction workers would relocate temporarily to
Jackson County resulting in a short-term increase in population along
with increased demands for public services and housing. TVA confirmed
this estimate in a letter to the NRC dated November 24, 2008, and
provided additional demographic information. Because construction work
would be short-term, most construction workers would stay in rental
homes, apartments, mobile homes, and camper-trailers. According to 2000
Census information, there were over 46,000 vacant housing units in the
50-mile radius of BLN, including over 2500 vacant housing units in
Jackson County, that could potentially ease the demand for local rental
housing should construction activities resume.
TVA has acknowledged in its November 24, 2008, letter that
completing the construction activities of BLN Units 1 and 2 may require
greater than anticipated numbers of construction workers, which could
significantly affect the availability of public services (i.e.,
schools, transportation, police and fire services, road infrastructure,
water supplies, etc.). Reinstatement of the CPs and completing the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 could, therefore, result in greater
socioeconomic impacts than those projected in the 1974 FES. However,
these impacts would have a relatively short duration. TVA has also
committed to monitor the situation and work with local and state
officials to mitigate any unacceptable adverse socioeconomic impacts
that might result according to the TVA letter dated November 24, 2008.
Based on a review of the information provided by TVA and relevant
census data, the NRC staff concludes that reinstating the CPs and
completing the construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 would not result in
adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Environmental Justice
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
reinstating the CPs and completing the construction of BLN Units 1 and
2. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of
fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health.
Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when
the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority
or low-income population is significant and exceeds the risk or
exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate
comparison group. A disproportionately high environmental impact that
is significant refers to an impact or risk of an impact on the natural
or physical environment in a low-income or minority community that
appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community.
Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic,
or social impacts. Some of these potential effects have been identified
in resource areas discussed in this EA. For example, increased demand
for rental housing during construction could disproportionately affect
low-income populations. Minority and low-income populations are subsets
of the general public residing around BLN, and all are exposed to the
same health and environmental effects generated from construction
activities at BLN.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of BLN--According to 2000
census data, 18.9 percent of the population (approximately 1,083,000
individuals) residing within a 50-mile radius of BLN identified
themselves as minority individuals. The largest minority group was
Black or African American (157,000 persons or 14.5 percent), followed
by Hispanic or Latino of any race (24,000 or about 2.2 percent). About
8.1 percent of the Jackson County population identified themselves as
minorities, with Black or African American the largest minority group
(3.7 percent)
[[Page 9311]]
followed by Hispanic or Latino (1.1 percent) according to the U.S.
Census Bureau (USCB). According to USCB census data estimates for 2006,
the minority population of Jackson County, as a percent of total
population, had increased to 9.2 percent.
Low-Income Populations in the Vicinity of BLN--According to 2000
census data, approximately 32,000 families and 143,000 individuals
(approximately 10.5 and 13.2 percent, respectively) residing within a
50-mile radius of BLN were identified as living below the Federal
poverty threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal poverty threshold was
$17,029 for a family of four.
According to census data, the median household income for Alabama
in 2004 was $37,062, while 16.1 percent of the state population was
determined to be living below the Federal poverty threshold. Jackson
County had a lower median household income ($33,733) and a lower
percentage (15.3 percent) of individuals living below the poverty
level.
Impact Analysis--Potential impacts to minority and low-income
populations due to the reinstatement of the CPs and completing the
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 would mostly consist of environmental
and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and
housing impacts).
Since most of the construction work at BLN has been completed,
noise and dust impacts would be short-term and limited to onsite
activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site
access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during
shift changes. As employment increases at BLN during completion of BLN
Units 1 and 2, employment opportunities for minority and low-income
populations may also increase. Increased demand for rental housing
during peak construction could disproportionately affect low-income
populations. However, according to the latest census information, there
were over 46,000 vacant housing units in the 50-mile radius of BLN,
including over 2500 vacant housing units in Jackson County.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this EA, there would be no
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income
populations from the reinstatement of the CPs and completing the
construction of the BLN Units 1 and 2.
Impacts on Water Resources
Water resource impacts due to reinstating BLN Units 1 and 2 CPs
would be relatively small. Water discharges are governed by the plant's
current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
and waste streams controlled by the current Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) permit; these permits remain active. TVA would
continue to purchase drinking water from the City of Hollywood,
Alabama, which is a community public water system that is regulated by
the State of Alabama. TVA would continue to route waste water from the
BLN Units 1 and 2 to the Hollywood Sewer System.
By letter dated November 24, 2008, TVA confirmed that almost all
environmental disturbances related to construction have already
occurred, and that any impacts to natural resources, including water
resources, would remain bounded by its assessment in the 1974 FES.
Based on the information provided, the staff expects that there
would be little or no impact to aquatic resources because the majority
of construction activities have already been completed.
Impacts on Air Quality
Main sources for the potential impacts on air quality due to
reinstatement of the CPs for BLN would be fugitive dust from
construction activities, associated with the project and exhaust
emissions from the motorized equipment and vehicles of workers. The
1990 Clean Air Act amendments include a provision that no Federal
agency shall support any activity that does not conform to a state
implementation plan designed to achieve the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate matter less than
10 in diameter). On November 30, 1993, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule (58 FR 63214) implementing
the new statutory requirements, effective January 31, 1994. The final
rule requires that Federal agencies prepare a written conformity
analysis and determination for each pollutant where the total of direct
and indirect emissions caused by proposed federal action \1\ would
exceed established threshold emission levels in a nonattainment \2\ or
maintenance area.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal action means any activity engaged in by a
department, agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, or
any activity that a department, agency or instrumentality of the
Federal Government supports in any way, provides financial
assistance for, licenses, permits, or approves, other than
activities related to transportation plans, programs, and projects
developed, funded, or approved under title 23 U.S.C or the Federal
Transit Act (49 U.S.C 1601 et seq.). (40 CFR 51.852)
\2\ An area is designated ``nonattainment'' for a criteria
pollutant if it does not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for the pollutant.
\3\ A maintenance area has been redesignated by a State from
nonattainment to attainment; the State must submit to EPA a plan for
maintaining NAAQS as a revision to its State Implementation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction activities are known to cause localized temporary
increases in atmospheric concentrations of nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and
particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5 as a result of
exhaust emissions of worker's vehicles, diesel generators, and
construction equipment. In accordance with the Clean Air Act, Federal
agencies are prohibited from issuing a license for any activity that
does not conform to an applicable implementation plan (40 CFR Parts 51
and 93). Since the plant is located in a PM2.5 nonattainment
area, BLN must show conformity to applicable Alabama State
Implementation Plans by analyzing vehicles exhaust emissions (using an
approved EPA model) that will occur during construction of BLN Units 1
and 2.
During potential construction of BLN Units 1 and 2, some ground-
clearing, grading, excavation, and movement of materials and machinery
are expected to occur. Ground-clearing, grading, and excavation
activities will raise dust, as will the movement of materials and
machinery. Fugitive dust may also rise from cleared areas during windy
periods. If any open burning is planned then the applicable permits
would need to be obtained from the Air Division of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management. Normally, construction
activities take place for a limited duration; if reinstated, the
expiration completion date for BLN Unit 1 CP is October 1, 2011, and
the expiration completion date for BLN Unit 2 CP is October 1, 2014, as
specified in an NRC Order dated March 4, 2003. Any impacts on air
quality that might occur would be temporary.
Because the NRC staff expects that any potential construction
activities at BLN Units 1 and 2 would conform to the Alabama
Implementation plans, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of
construction activities on air quality would then be low. For such
activities, the NRC staff notes a variety of mitigation measures, such
as wetting of unpaved roads and construction areas during dry periods
and seeding or mulching bare areas, inspection and
[[Page 9312]]
maintenance of the gasoline or diesel fuel fired construction equipment
to prevent excessive exhaust emissions and shift changes for workforce
to reduce the number of vehicles on the road at any given time, that
could mitigate potential air quality impacts resulting from the
potential reinstatement and construction completion at BLN Units 1 and
2.
Impacts on Aquatic Resources
In a TVA letter dated September 25, 2008, TVA indicates that TVA
proposes ``no new ground disturbance,'' possibly a small amount of
earthwork adjacent to existing building to support air compressors, and
possibly ``reintroduction'' of small amounts of lubricating oil. The
TVA letter dated September 25, 2008, does not indicate that the
reinstatement of the CPs and construction would result in any
activities involving transmission lines, such as maintenance, nor does
it indicate any on-site activities other than those listed above. The
activities described in the TVA letter, would be of such limited
geographic extent and of such removal from aquatic habitats that the
NRC staff expects that there would be little to no impact to aquatic
resources.
By letter dated November 24, 2008, TVA provided additional
information to confirm that most site disturbance has already occurred,
and that any impacts to natural resources, including aquatic resources,
would remain bounded by the impacts discussed in the 1974 FES.
Based on the information provided, the NRC staff expects that there
would be little to no impact to aquatic resources based on the limited
geographic extent and area affected.
Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species
By letter dated November 24, 2008, TVA updated the list of
threatened or endangered species and concluded that except for the gray
bat, none of the federally listed species are known to occur at or
adjacent to the BLN site. Although threatened and endangered aquatic
species are listed as occurring in Jackson County, the NRC staff
confirmed with the Alabama State Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (DCNR) that there were no aquatic species listed as
threatened or endangered in the immediate vicinity of BLN.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
Since most of the construction has been completed, limited impacts
may occur to terrestrial biota related to the potential realignment by
1200 feet (370 meters) of the southern entrance to the plant and by the
excavation of borrow pits in a wooded area east of the existing main
power plant buildings. Reinstating the CPs and completing construction
of the BLN Units 1 and 2 would remain within the scope of the 1974 FES,
assuming that TVA implements the preconstruction and construction
monitoring program for both aquatic and terrestrial resources as
described in the 1974 FES. This would also cover potential impacts to
terrestrial biota from transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The
1974 FES considered all potential impacts associated with the
transmission line and noted that TVA's transmission line maintenance
and construction methods, particularly overspray during herbicide
applications, had resulted in damage to trees located outside of the
transmission line corridor. However, current best management practices
(BMPs) employed by most industries today would mitigate such
environmental impacts from pesticide or herbicide applications.
Assuming that these practices for transmission line right-of-way
would be in place if the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 were reinstated, the
NRC staff anticipates little to no impact on terrestrial biota,
including wetland areas. By letter dated November 24, 2008, TVA
confirmed that impacts to terrestrial resources would remain bounded by
the assessment in the 1974 FES.
Endangered Terrestrial Species
In a NRC EA dated January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3571), for extension of
expiration dates of the BLN CPs, the NRC staff found that the
endangered Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) is the only species on the
Federal list of endangered species known to occur in the vicinity of
the Bellefonte site or within its transmission line corridors. The Gray
Bat uses the sloughs and main channel of the Tennessee River near the
BLN site to forage according to the NRC EA, dated January 24, 2003, and
an Alabama State DCNR letter, dated October 15, 2008. The NRC EA, dated
January 24, 2003, found that construction activities planned at that
time would not be expected to cause any adverse impacts to the Grey Bat
or its habitat.
There is a Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest located less
than 2 miles (3 kilometers) northeast of the BLN site, but the Bald
Eagle was recently removed from the Federal list of threatened and
endangered species. However, the Bald Eagle is still protected under
the Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
According to the NRC EA, dated January 24, 2003, population levels
of Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) have been increasing on Guntersville
Lake, and several nests have been observed in the vicinity of Coon and
Crow Creeks. Ospreys would use shoreline habitats fronting the BLN site
for foraging. While not a species listed as threatened or endangered,
the Osprey is protected along with the Bald Eagle under the Alabama
State Nongame Species Regulation according to Alabama State DCNR
letter, dated October 15, 2008.
Based on this information, and TVA's response to the RAI dated
November 24, 2008, the NRC staff concludes that resumption of
construction activities at the BLN site are not likely to have any
significant adverse effect on any listed species or other species
mentioned above, because the majority of ground or river disturbance
from construction activities have already been completed.
Nonradiological Impacts Summary
Reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 would not result in
a significant change in nonradiological impacts in the areas of land
use, water use, waste discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota,
transmission facility operation, social and economic factors, and
environmental justice related to resumption of construction operations
at the power plants. No other nonradiological impacts were identified
or would be expected. Table 1 summarizes the nonradiological
environmental impacts of the proposed reinstatement of the CPs for BLN
Units 1 and 2.
Table 1--Summary of Nonradiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land use..................... No impact to land use conditions and
aesthetic resources in the vicinity of
BLN.
Historic and Archaeological No impact to historic and archaeological
Resources. resources in the vicinity of BLN.
Socioeconomics............... Workforce required to complete BLN could
have a profound effect on the
availability of public services and
rental housing in the vicinity of the
plant. TVA is committed to monitoring
the situation and to working with local
and state officials to mitigate any
unacceptable adverse socioeconomic
conditions.
[[Page 9313]]
Environmental Justice........ There would be no disproportionately high
and adverse impact on minority and low-
income populations in the vicinity of
BLN.
Water Use.................... Water use during completion of
construction would be relatively minor.
No changes from previous impact
evaluations are expected.
Air Quality.................. Temporary impacts from fugitive dust
related to construction and vehicle
emissions related to construction
workers traveling to and from BLN.
Aquatic Resources............ Little to no impact to listed species
since most external construction is
completed.
Terrestrial Biota............ Little to no impact to listed species
since most external construction is
completed.
Threatened and Endangered Little to no impact to listed species
Species. since most external construction is
completed.
Transmission Facilities...... Little to no impact to terrestrial and
aquatic resources if current BMPs are
incorporated into management plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Effluent and Solid Waste Impacts
Nuclear power plants use waste treatment systems designed to
collect, process, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that
might contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner such
that discharges are in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of
10 CFR Part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation'', and 10
CFR Part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities'', Appendix I.
Since construction activities will not involve any radioactive
effluent and solid waste, the staff determined that reinstatement of
the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2 would not result in any
radiological effluent and solid waste since the BLN Units 1 and 2 would
not be operating. Disposal of essentially all of the hazardous
chemicals used at nuclear power plants is also regulated by RCRA or
NPDES permits.
Occupational Radiation Doses
Occupational exposures to plant workers conducting activities
involving radioactively contaminated systems or working in radiation
areas can be exposed to radiation. However, reinstatement of the CPs
and construction activities will not involve any radioactive material;
the NRC staff determined that occupational doses can be maintained
within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 for the reinstatement of the CPs
and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Public Radiation Doses
Since construction activities will not involve any radioactive
material, the staff determined that public radiation doses can be
maintained within the limits of 10 CFR Part 100 for the reinstatement
of the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Postulated Accident Doses
Since construction activities will not involve operation of BLN
Units 1 and 2, the staff determined that there will be no postulated
accident doses for the reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN
Units 1 and 2.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
Since construction activities will not involve operation of BLN
Units 1 and 2, the staff determined that there would be no
environmental impact of the fuel cycle and transportation of fuels and
wastes for the reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1
and 2.
Radiological Impacts Summary
The proposed reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN Units
1 and 2 would not result in an impact associated with radiological
effluent and solid waste, or occupational and public radiation
exposure, or the uranium fuel cycle and transportation. In addition,
TVA confirmed in its response to the RAI dated November 24, 2008, that
there are no changes or updates related to radiological impacts, beyond
those assessed in the 1974 FES, associated with the proposed
reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no adverse
impacts associated with the proposed reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2. Table 2 summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed reinstatement of the CPs and
construction of BLN Units 1 and 2.
Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Radiation Doses..... No adverse impacts.
Public Radiation Doses........... No adverse impacts.
Postulated Accident Doses........ No adverse impacts.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and No adverse impacts.
Transportation Impacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact is defined in Council of Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR 1508.7) as ``an impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
actions.'' The NRC staff has considered past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions in this review for cumulative impacts on the
environment. Should TVA receive approval by the NRC and decide to
construct one or two new nuclear power plant units at the Bellefonte
site (BLN Unit 1 and/or Unit 2), the cumulative impact would result
from construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the site.
The NRC staff has conducted a review of past, present, and the
foreseeable future action of reinstatement of the CPs and construction
for BLN Unit 1 and 2. The NRC staff determined runoff from the land
area around the main construction site drains into an unnamed
tributary, wetland, and the intake. Topographical flow gradient is
following the natural elevation not planned for land excavation or
disturbance. Cumulative impacts of normal construction of the proposed
facilities for BLN Units 1 and 2 were evaluated for water resources,
air quality, health and safety, waste
[[Page 9314]]
generation, resource use, and environmental justice including
cumulative impacts for water quality, geologic resources, ecological
resources, aesthetic resources. These were explicitly addressed and the
NRC staff notes direct and indirect impacts to these resources are
expected to be negligible. Cumulative impacts from proposed facility
construction reinstatement of the CPs and construction activities are
not expected to be significant. In addition, the cumulative impacts of
the proposed facilities to land development, electricity usage, and
water usage would be quite small.
If construction resumes, TVA plans to eventually move (re-route)
the first half mile of the south entrance road such that it would still
join Jackson County Highway 33, but to an intersection that is about
1200 feet east of the current connection point. This change would
improve traffic visibility and, thereby, increase commuter safety. Some
new ground would be disturbed for this road but there are no associated
significant environmental impacts.
If construction resumes, some new backfill borrow pits may be
required to obtain clay. These would likely be made in undisturbed
ground east of the main site power plant buildings. The topsoil would
be removed temporarily and replaced to restore the sites after clay
removal. Tree cover would be removed in this process.
Meteorological monitoring requirements have changed, which might
necessitate construction of a new environmental data station. This new
facility could possibly be sited on undisturbed soil.
Construction of the startup and recirculation equipment building
for Unit 2 has not been initiated; however, the site for this building
is disturbed ground very close to the south side of the Unit 2
auxiliary building. Other potential construction activities on
disturbed ground include increasing the size of the construction and
administration building (CAB); additional fire protection tanks by the
CAB; additional waste tanks adjacent to the Unit 1 reactor building;
and completion of the auxiliary feedwater pipe trench near the Unit 2
reactor building. The power stores building may be enlarged, and new
plant security requirements may necessitate changes to the gatehouse.
If the CPs are reinstated, the expiration completion date for BLN
Unit 1 CP is October 1, 2011, and the expiration completion date for
BLN Unit 2 CP is October 1, 2014, as specified in a NRC Order dated
March 4, 2003.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the potential cumulative impacts
from reinstatement of the CPs and construction of BLN Units 1 and 2
would be small and no mitigation would be required.
One of the considered actions involves an application to build two
new nuclear units at the Bellefonte site (BLN Units 3 and 4). By letter
dated October 30, 2007, TVA submitted its application for a Combined
License (COL) for Bellefonte Units 3 and 4; this application is
currently under review by the Office of New Reactors.
On August 27, 2008, TVA legal counsel notified Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board Panel, reviewing the matter of BLN 3 and 4, that TVA
has requested to reinstate the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 in a letter
dated August 26, 2008.
At this juncture, the TVA request that the NRC reinstate the CPs
for BLN Units 1 and 2 does not constitute a ``proposal'' that is
interdependent with the BLN Units 3 and 4 COL application that is
before the agency. The TVA request to reinstate the CP for BLN Units 1
and 2 fails to constitute a ``proposal'' of the type that would trigger
a NEPA cumulative impact analysis regarding Units 1 and 2 in the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for proposed BLN
Units 3 and 4. If construction activities resume for BLN Units 1 and 2,
TVA would need to assess the BLN Units 1 and 2 construction impacts
relative to BLN Units 3 and 4.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
There are four possibilities for reinstatement of the CPs and
construction: (1) Both BLN Units 1 and 2 (the proposed action, which
bounds possibilities 2 and 3), (2) BLN Unit 1 only, (3) BLN Unit 2
only, and (4) neither BLN Unit 1 or Unit 2.
A possible alternative to the proposed action of reinstatement of
the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 would be to reinstate only one CP; this
alternative is bounded by the proposed action.
Another possible alternative to the proposed action of
reinstatement of the CPs for BLN Units 1 and 2 would be to deny the
request of reinstatement of the CPs. This option would not eliminate
the environmental impacts of construction that have already occurred,
and would only limit the additional construction that has been
determined to have little to no impact on aquatic and terrestrial
resources including endangered species, to hydrology, archaeology, land
use, and transmission line maintenance, and temporary air impacts from
fugitive dust and emissions from construction workers traveling to and
from the site. If the request was denied, there would be no adverse
socioeconomic impacts; there could be an increase in the availability
of public services and rental housing in the vicinity of the plant. If
the request was denied, there would be no adverse impacts to
environmental justice; the environmental justice impact analysis
evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations
that could result from completing the construction of BLN Units 1 and
2.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the original FES for construction.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 15, 2008, the NRC
staff consulted with the Alabama State officials, Mr. Keith Hudson and
Ms. Ashley Peters, of the Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed
action. The state officials had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, the Commission concludes that the proposed
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare
an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letters, dated August 16, 2006, September 25, 2008, and
November 24, 2008. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee,
at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737,
or send an e-mail to pdr.Resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24 day of February 2008.
[[Page 9315]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-4441 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P