*U.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

NUREG-0498

Supplement 2

Draft Final Environmental

Statement

Related to the Operation of

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2

Supplement 2

Docket Number 50-391

Tennessee Valley Authority

Draft Report for Comment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.qov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

www.ntis.gov

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Administration

Publications Branch

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.SERVICES.NRC.GOV

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained atThe NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 4 2 nd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-642-4900

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address

http :llwww.nrc.,ov/readinq-rm/doc-collectionslnuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was

accessed, the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical

specifications; or orders, not in

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed in

contractor-prepared publications in this series are not

necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff

(NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences

(NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from

international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4)

brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations

of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors'

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations

(NUREG-0750).
*U.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NUREG-0498

Supplement 2

Protecting People and the Environment

Draft Final Environmental

Statement

Related to the Operation of

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2

Supplement 2

Docket Number 50-391

Tennessee Valley Authority

Draft Report for Comment

Manuscript Completed: September 2011

Date Published: October 2011

1 ABSTRACT

2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this draft supplemental final

3 environmental statement related to the operating license in response to its review of the

4 Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) application for a facility operating license. The proposed

5 action requested is for the NRC to issue an operating license for a second light-water nuclear

6 reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear (WBN) Plant in Rhea County, TN.

7 In 1978, the NRC issued a final environmental statement related to the operating license for

8 WBN Units 1 and 2. On March 4, 2009, the NRC received an update to the application from

9 TVA for a facility operating license to possess, use, and operate WBN Unit 2. The NRC

10 published the notice of the receipt of application and the opportunity for hearing in the Federal

11 Register on May 1, 2009. The NRC's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

12 (10 CFR) 51.92, "Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement," require the NRC

13 staff to prepare a supplement to the final environmental statement if there are substantial

14 changes in the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns or if there are significant

15 new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the

16 proposed action or its impacts. The same regulation permits the staff to prepare a supplement

17 when, in its opinion, preparation of a supplement will further the interests of the National

18 Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

19 This supplement documents the staff's environmental review. The staff evaluated a full scope20 of environmental topics, including land and water use, air quality and meteorology, terrestrial

21 and aquatic ecology, radiological and nonradiological impacts on humans and the environment,

22 historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. The staff's

23 evaluations are based on (1) the application submitted by TVA, including the environmental

24 report and previous environmental impact statements and historical documents, (2) consultation

25 with other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, (3) the staff's independent review, and

26 (4) the staff's consideration of comments related to the environmental review received during

27 the public scoping process.

July 2011 iii Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2

1 CONTENTS

2 A b s tra c t ..................................................................................................................................... iii

3 E xe c u tive S u m m a ry ................................................................................................................. xv ii

4 Abbreviations/Acronyms ......................................................................................................... xxi

5 1 .0 In tro d u c tio n .................................................................................................................... 1 -1

6 1 .1 B a c k g ro u n d ........................................................................................................... 1 -2

7 1.2 NRC Operating License Application Review .......................................................... 1-4

8 1.3 Com pliance and Consultations .............................................................................. 1-5

9 1 .4 R e p o rt C o nte nts .................................................................................................... 1-5

1 0 1 .5 R e fe re n ce s ............................................................................................................ 1-6

11 2.0 Affected Environment ..................................................................................................... 2-1

1 2 2 .1 L a n d U s e ................................................................................................................ 2 -1

13 2 .1 .1 S ta tio n L o c atio n ....................................................................................... 2 -1

14 2.1.2 The Site and Vicinity ................................................................................ 2-1

15 2.1.3 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas ................................................ 2-4

1 6 2 .1 .4 T h e R e g io n ........................................... .................................................. 2 -4

1 7 2 .2 W a te r ...................................................................................................................... 2 -5

1 8 2 .2 .1 H y d ro lo g y ................................................................................................. 2 -5

19 2.2.1.1 Surface-W ater Hydrology ......................................................... 2-5

20 2.2.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology ........................................................... 2-7

2 1 2 .2 .2 W a te r U se ................................................................................................ 2 -9

22 2.2.2.1 Regional W ater Use ................................................................. 2-9

23 2.2.3 W ater Quality ......................................................................................... 2-11

24 2.2.3.1 Surface-W ater Quality ............................................................ 2-11

25 2.2.3.2 Groundwater Quality .............................................................. 2-12

2 6 2 .3 E c o lo g y ................................................................................................................ 2 -1 3

27 2.3.1 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................................. 2-13

28 2.3.1.1 Terrestrial Communities of the Site ........................................ 2-13

29 2.3.1.2 Important Species and Habitat ............................................... 2-14

30 2.3.1.3 Ongoing Ecological and Biological Studies ............................. 2-23

31 2.3.1.4 Offsite Transmission and Access Corridors ............................ 2-24

32

July 2011 V Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
1 2.3.2 Aquatic Ecology ..................................................................................... 2-24

2 2.3.2.1 Aquatic Communities in the Vicinity of the WBN Site .............. 2-24

3 2.3.2.2 Designated Species and Habitat ............................................ 2-56

4 2.4 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................... 2-62

5 2.4.1 Demographics ........................................................................................ 2-63

6 2.4.2 Comm unity Characteristics .................................................................... 2-65

7 2 .4 .2 .1 H o u s in g .................................................................................. 2 -6 5

8 2.4.2.2 Public Services ....................................................................... 2-66

9 2.4.2.3 Education ............................................................................... 2-67

10 2.4.2.4 Transportation ........................................................................ 2-67

11 2.4.2.5 Aesthetics and Recreation ...................................................... 2-68

12 2.4.2.6 Economy ............................................................................... 2-68

13 2.4.2.7 Tax Revenues ........................................................................ 2-69

14 2.4.3 Environmental Justice ............................................................................ 2-70

15 2.4.3.1 Minority Populations ............................................................... 2-71

16 2.4.3.2 Low-Income Populations ........................................................ 2-73

17 2.5 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 2-75

18 2.5.1 Cultural Background ............................................................................... 2-75

19 2.5.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the W BN Site ................................... 2-76

20 2.5.3 Consultation ........................................................................................... 2-77

21 2.6 Radiological Environment ..................................................................................... 2-78

22 2.7 Nonradiological Human Health ............................................................................. 2-79

23 2.7.1 Etiological Agents ................................................................................... 2-79

2 4 2 .7 .2 N o is e ...................................................................................................... 2 -8 1

25 2.7.3 Electromagnetic Fields ........................................................................... 2-82

26 2.8 Meteorology and Air Quality ................................................................................. 2-84

2 7 2 .8 .1 C lim a te ................................................................................................... 2 -8 4

28 2.8.2 Severe W eather ..................................................................................... 2-84

29 2.8.3 Local Meteorological Conditions ............................................................ 2-84

30 2.8.4 Atmospheric Dispersion ......................................................................... 2-85

3 1 2 .8 .5 A ir Q u a lity .............................................................................................. 2 -8 7

32 2.9 Related Federal Project Activities ......................................................................... 2-87

33 2.10 References ........................................................................................................... 2-88

3 4 3 .0 P la n t D e s c rip tio n ............................................................................................................ 3 -1

35 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout ................................................................... 3-1

36 3.2 Plant Structures and Operations ............................................................................. 3-3

37 3.2.1 Reactor System ....................................................................................... 3-3

38 3.2.2 Cooling System ........................................................................................ 3-3

39 3.2.2.1 Intake Structures ...................................................................... 3-5

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 vi July 2011
1 3.2.2.2 Cooling Towers ........................................................................ 3-8

2 3.2.2.3 Temporary Blowdown Storage ................................................. 3-8

3 3.2.2.4 Discharge Structures ................................................................ 3-8

4 3.2.3 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage .................................................... 3-11

5 3.2.4 Other Plant Systems .............................................................................. 3-11

6 3.3 W aste Management and Effluents ........................................................................ 3-16

7 3.3.1 Radioactive W aste-Management System ............................................... 3-16

8 3.3.2 Nonradioactive W aste Systems .............................................................. 3-17

9 3.3.2.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides ........................... 3-17

10 3.3.2.2 Sanitary System Effluents ...................................................... 3-20

11 3.3.2.3 Other Effluents ....................................................................... 3-20

12 3.4 Summary of Resource Parameters During Operation ........................................... 3-20

1 3 3 .5 R e fe re n c e s ........................................................................................................... 3 -2 2

14 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Station Operation ................................................................... 4-1

15 4 .1 La nd -U se Im p a cts .................................................................................................. 4 -1

16 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity ................................................................................ 4-1

17 4.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas ................................................ 4-1

18 4.2 W ater-Related Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-2

19 4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations and Plant W ater Supply ...................................... 4-2

20 4.2.2 W ater-Use Impacts .................................................................................. 4-3

21 4.2.2.1 Surface-W ater Use Impacts ..................................................... 4-3

22 4.2.2.2 Surface-W ater-Quality Impacts ................................................ 4-3

23 4.2.2.3 Groundwater-Use Impacts ...................................................... 4-11

24 4.2.2.4 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ................................................. 4-11

2 5 4 .3 E c o lo g y ................................................................................................................ 4 -1 2

26 4.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts ................................................................................. 4-12

27 4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Communities of the Site, Including Important

28 Species and Habitat ............................................................... 4-13

29 4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resource Summary ............................................... 4-19

30 4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-20

31 4.3.2.1 W ater Consumption ................................................................ 4-21

32 4.3.2.2 Entrainment and Impingement ............................................... 4-21

33 4.3.2.3 Thermal Discharges ............................................................... 4-34

34 4.3.2.4 Physical Changes Resulting from the Discharge .................... 4-38

35 4.3.2.5 Chemical Discharges ............................................................. 4-38

36 4.3.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................... 4-38

37 4.3.2.7 Aquatic Resource Summary ................................................... 4-39

38 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-39

39 4.4.1 Physical Impacts of Station Operation .................................................... 4-40

40 4.4.2 Social and Economic Impacts of Station Operation ................................ 4-40

41 4.4.2.1 Demography .......................................................................... 4-40

July 2011 vii Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
1 4.4.2.2 Housing .................................................................................. 4-41

2 4.4.2.3 Public Services ................................................................... 4-41

3 4.4.2.4 Education ............................................................................... 4-41

4 4.4.2.5 Transportation ........................................................................ 4-42

5 4.4.2.6 Aesthetics and Recreation ...................................................... 4-42

6 4.4.2.7 Econom y and Tax Revenues ................................................. 4-43

7 4.4.3 Environm ental Justice Im pacts ............................................................... 4-44

8 4.4.3.1 Analysis of Im pacts ................................................................ 4-44

9 4.4.3.2 Subsistence and Consum ptive Practices ................................ 4-44

10 4.5 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 4-46

11 4.6 Radiological Im pacts of Norm al O perations .......................................................... 4-47

12 4.6.1 Exposure Pathways ............................................................................... 4-47

13 4.6.1.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway .......................................................... 4-51

14 4.6.1.2 G aseous Effluent Pathw ay ..................................................... 4-52

15 4.6.2 Im pacts to M em bers of the Public .......................................................... 4-52

16 4.6.2.1 M axim ally Exposed Individual ................................................ 4-52

17 4.6.2.2 Population Dose ..................................................................... 4-54

18 4.6.2.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the

1 9 P u b lic ..................................................................................... 4 -5 5

20 4.6.3 O ccupational Doses to W orkers ............................................................. 4-55

21 4.6.4 Doses to Biota ........................................................................................ 4-55

22 4.7 Nonradiological Hum an Health ............................................................................. 4-56

23 4.7.1 Etiological Agents ................................................................................... 4-56

24 4.7.2 Noise ...................................................................................................... 4-58

25 4.7.3 Transm ission System s ........................................................................... 4-58

26 4.7.4 Sum m ary ............................................................................................... 4-60

27 4.8 M eteorology, Air Q uality, and of G reenhouse G as Em issions ............................... 4-60

28

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 Viii July 2011
1 4.9 Environm ental Im pacts of W aste .......................................................................... 4-62

2 4.9.1 Nonradioactive W aste System Im pacts .................................................. 4-62

3 4.9.1.1 Im pacts on Land ..................................................................... 4-62

4 4.9.1.2 Im pacts on W ater ................................................................... 4-62

5 4.9.1.3 Im pacts on Air ........................................................................ 4-63

6 4.9.2 Sum m ary ................................................................................................ 4-63

7 4.10 Uranium Fuel Cycle Im pacts ................................................................................. 4-64

8 4.10.1 Radiological W astes ............................................................................... 4-64

9 4.10.2 G reenhouse Gases from the Uranium Fuel Cycle .................................. 4-65

10 4.11 Decom m issioning ................................................................................................. 4-66

11 4.12 Transportation of Radioactive M aterials ................................................................ 4-67

12 4.13 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation ................... 4-68

13 4.14 Cum ulative Im pacts .............................................................................................. 4-69

14 4.14.1 Land Use ............................................................................................... 4-70

15 4.14.2 Air Q uality .............................................................................................. 4-71

16 4.14.3 G reenhouse G as Em issions ................................................................... 4-71

17 4.14.4 W ater ..................................................................................................... 4-72

18 4.14.4.1 Surface-W ater Use ................................................................. 4-72

19 4.14.4.2 Surface-W ater Q uality ............................................................ 4-74

20 4.14.4.3 G roundwater Use .................................. ................ 4-75

21 4.14.4.4 G roundwater Q uality .............................................................. 4-76

22 4.14.5 Terrestrial Ecology ................................................................................. 4-77

23 4.14.6 Aquatic Ecology ..................................................................................... 4-78

24 4.14.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................. 4-83

25 4.14.8 Radiological Health Im pacts ................................................................... 4-83

26 4.14.9 Nonradiological Hum an Health ............................................................... 4-84

27 4.14.10 Socioeconom ics and Environm ental Justice ........................................... 4-86

28 4.14.11 Postulated Accidents .............................................................................. 4-87

29 4.15 References ........................................................................................................... 4-88

30 5.0 Environm ental M easurem ents and M onitoring Program s ................................................ 5-1

31 5.1 Therm al M onitoring ................................................................................................. 5-1

32 5.2 Radiological M onitoring .......................................................................................... 5-2

33 5.3 Hydrological M onitoring .......................................................................................... 5-3

34 5.4 M eteorological M onitoring ....................................................................................... 5-3

35

July 2011 ix Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
1 5.5 Ecological Monitoring ............................................................................................. 5-4

2 5.5.1 Terrestrial Ecology ................................................................................... 5-4

3 5.5.2 Aquatic Ecology Monitoring ...................................................................... 5-5

4 5.5.2.1 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton ............................................. 5-13

5 5.5.2.2 Periphyton .............................................................................. 5-13

6 5.5.2.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrates .................................................... 5-14

7 5.5.2.4 Freshwater Mussels ............................................................... 5-15

8 5 .5 .2 .5 F is h ........................................................................................ 5 -1 5

9 5.5.2.6 Im pingement .......................................................................... 5-19

10 5.5.2.7 Entrainment (including ichthyoplankton studies) ..................... 5-19

11 5.6 Chem ical M onitoring ............................................................................................. 5-21

12 5.6.1 Surface-W ater Monitoring ...................................................................... 5-21

13 5.6.2 Groundwater Monitoring ......................................................................... 5-21

14 5.7 Historic and Cultural Resource Monitoring ............................................................ 5-21

15 5.8 References ........................................................................................................... 5-22

16 6.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials ............ 6-1

17 6.1 Design Basis Accidents .......................................................................................... 6-2

18 6.2 Severe Accidents .................................................................................................... 6-4

19 6.2.1 Air Pathway .............................................................................................. 6-6

20 6.2.2 Surface-W ater Pathway ........................................................................... 6-7

21 6.2.3 Groundwater Pathway .............................................................................. 6-8

22 6.2.4 Sum m ary of Severe Accident Im pacts ...................................................... 6-9

23 6.3 Severe Accident M itigation Alternatives .................................................................. 6-9

24 6.4 References ........................................................................................................... 6-28

25 7.0 Environmental Im pacts of Alternatives ............................................................................ 7-1

26 7.1 No-Action Alternative .............................................................................................. 7-2

27 7.2 Energy Alternatives ................................................................................................ 7-4

28 7.2.1 EIA Power Generation Outlook ................................................................ 7-5

29 7.2.2 TVA Resource Planning ........................................................................... 7-5

30 7.2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dism issed .................................................... 7-6

31 7.2.3.1 Alternatives Not Requiring the Construction of New Power

32 Generating Capacity ................................................................. 7-6

33 7.2.3.2 Coal-Fired Power Generation ................................................... 7-9

34 7.2.3.3 Oil-Fired Power Generation .................................................... 7-10

35 7.2.3.4 W ind Power ............................................................................ 7-10

36 7.2.3.5 Energy Storage ...................................................................... 7-11

37 7.2.3.6 Solar Power ........................................................................... 7-12

38 7.2.3.7 Hydropower ............................................................................ 7-13

39 7.2.3.8 Geothermal Energy ................................................................ 7-14

40 7.2.3.9 W ood W aste .......................................................................... 7-14

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 x July 2011
1 7.2.3.10 M unicipal Solid W aste ............................................................ 7-15

2 7.2.3.11 Other Biom ass-Derived Fuels ................................................ 7-15

3 7.2.3.12 Fuel Cells ............................................................................... 7-16

4 7.2.4 Natural-G as-Fired Power Generation ..................................................... 7-17

5 7.2.4.1 Air Q uality ............................................................................. 7-17

6 7.2.4.2 W ater Use and Q uality ........................................................... 7-19

7 7.2.4.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources ......................................... 7-19

8 7.2.4.4 Hum an Health ........................................................................ 7-19

9 7.2.4.5 Socioeconom ics ..................................................................... 7-20

10 7.2.4.6 W aste M anagem ent ............................................................... 7-24

11 7.2.5 Com bination of Alternatives ................................................................... 7-25

12 7.2.5.1 Air Q uality .............................................................................. 7-27

13 7.2.5.2 W ater Use and Q uality ........................................................... 7-27

14 7.2.5.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources ......................................... 7-27

15 7.2.5.4 Hum an Health ........................................................................ 7-28

16 7.2.5.5 Socioeconom ics ..................................................................... 7-28

17 7.2.5.6 W aste M anagem ent ............................................................... 7-33

18 7.2.6 Sum m ary Com parison of Alternatives .................................................... 7-33

19 7.3 References ........................................................................................................... 7-34

20 8.0 Need for Power ............................................................................................................... 8-1

21 8.1 Description of Power System .................................................................................. 8-2

22 8.2 Long-Term Capacity Expansion Planning and Power Demand ............................... 8-5

23 8.3 Power Supply ......................................................................................................... 8-9

24 8.4 Need-for-Power Assessm ent and Conclusions ..................................................... 8-11

25 8.5 References ........................................................................................................... 8-13

26 9.0 Unavoidable Adverse Environm ental Im pacts ................................................................. 9-1

27 9.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environm ental Im pacts During O peration ............................. 9-1

28 9.2 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the

29 Hum an Environm ent .............................................................................................. 9-3

30 9.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Com m itm ents of Resources ....................................... 9-4

31 9.4 Environm ental Im pacts of Alternatives .................................................................... 9-5

32 9.5 Benefit-Cost Balance .............................................................................................. 9-5

33 9.5.1 Benefits .................................................................................................... 9-8

34 9.5.1.1 Societal Benefits ...................................................................... 9-8

35 9.5.1.2 Regional Benefits ..................................................................... 9-8

36

July 2011 Xi Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
1 9 .5 .2 C o sts ........................................................................................................ 9 -9

2 9 .5 .2 .1 Inte rna l C o sts ........................................................................... 9 -9

3 9.5.2.2 External Costs ................................................................... 9-11

4 9 .5 .3 S u m m a ry ............................................................................................... 9 -1 1

5 9.6 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................... 9-12

6 9 .7 R e fe re n c e s ........................................................................................................... 9 -1 3

7 Appendix A - Contributors to the Supplement ...................................................................... A-1

8 Appendix B - Organizations Contacted ................................................................................... B-1

9 Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

10 Related to Tennessee Valley Authority, Application for an Operating License

11 for W atts B ar N uclear P lant U nit 2 ................................................................................. C -1

12 Appendix D - Scoping Comments and Responses ..... ; ......................... D-1

13 Appendix E - Draft Supplemental Final Environmental Statement Comments and

14 R esponses (R eserved) ............................................................................................. E-1

15 Appendix F - Key Consultation Correspondence Regarding the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

16 U nit 2 O perating License ......................................................................................... . . F-1

17 Appendix F. 1 - Biological Assessment ................................................................................ F. 1

18 Appendix G - List of Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications ......................................... G-1

19 Appendix H - Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives ................................................ H-1

20 Appendix I - Supporting Documentation for Radiological Dose Assessment ....................... I-1

21

22

23

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 xii July 2011
1 Figures

2 1-1 The WBN Site and the 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity ................................................................ 1-3

3 2-1 T he W B N S ite (T V A 2008a) ........................................................................................... 2-2

4 2-2 The WBN Site and the 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity ..................... ................. ................ 2-3

5 2-3 Water Table Map for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (TVA 2010b) ..................................... 2-8

6 2-4 Landcover Information for the Watts Bar Nuclear Site (TVA 201 Oa) ............................. 2-15

7 2-5 Wetlands and Streams Identified by TVA (TVA 2010a) ................................................ 2-16

8 2-6 Foodweb for Watts Bar Reservoir Forebay and Chickamauga Reservoir Inflow .......... 2-27

9 2-7 Mussel Beds (in grey) and Monitoring Stations (after TVA 1998b) ............................... 2-32

10 2-8 Minority Block Groups (11 percent or more of population) in 2000 Within an 80-km

11 (50-mi) Radius of WBN Unit 2 (USCB 2000) ................................................................ 2-72

12 2-9 Low-Income Block Groups (12 percent or more of population) in 2000 Within an

13 80-km (50-mi) Radius of WBN Unit 2 (USCB 2000) ..................................................... 2-74

14 3-1 S ite Layout (T V A 2008) .................................................................................................. 3-2

15 3-2 Major Components of the Cooling System for WBN Units 1 and 2 (TVA 2008) .............. 3-6

16 3-3 Site Drainage for the WBN Site (TVA 2005a) ............................................................... 3-12

17 3-4 WBN Transmission Line Connections (NRC 1995) ...................................................... 3-15

18 4-1 Mixing Zones for Outfall 101 and Outfall 113 (TVA 2008a) ............................................ 4-6

19 4-2 Exposure Pathways to Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974) ..................................... 4-49

20 4-3 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974) ......... 4-50

21 5-1 Electrofishing Stations Downstream of Watts Bar Dam (Simmons and Baxter

2 2 2 0 0 9 ) ........................................................................................................................... 5 -1 7

23 5-2 Electrofishing and Gill Net Locations Upstream of Watts Bar Dam (Simmons and

2 4 B a xte r 2 0 0 9 ) ................................................................................................................ 5 -1 8

25 8-1 Geographical and Political Boundaries of the TVA Power Service Area (TVA

2 6 2 0 1 1 ) ............................................................................................................................. 8 -3

27 8-2 TVA 's Electrical Transfer C apabilities ............................................................................ 8-3

28 8-3 Major Geographical Sub-Regions of the Southeastern Electric Reliability

2 9 C o rpo ratio n (T V A 200 8a) ............................................................................................... 8-4

30 8-4 Actual and Forecast Net System Requirements (TVA 2010) .......................................... 8-6

31 8-5 Comparison of Actual and Forecast Net System Requirements (TVA 2011) .................. 8-7

32

33

July 2011 xiii Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
1 Tables

2 2-1 Acreage Estimates for Land Categories Within the WBN Site ........................................ 2-4

3 2-2 Physical Characteristics of Watts Bar and Chickamauga Reservoirs ................. .......... 2-6

4 2-3 Downstream Water Users Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the WBN Plant ............. 2-10

5 2-4 Groundwater Users, Current Withdrawal Rates, and Distance from the WBN Site ....... 2-11

6 2-5 Current Landcover Am ounts of the W BN Site .............................................................. 2-14

7 2-6 Rare Animal Species Listed by the State of Tennessee Known to Occur on the

8 WBN Site, Within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the Transmission Corridor or Within Rhea and

9 M e igs C ounties, T e nnessee ........................................................................................ 2-18

10 2-7 Animal Species Listed by the State of Tennessee as Being In Need of

11 Management Known to Occur Within Rhea and Meigs Counties, Tennessee .............. 2-19

12 2-8 Rare Plant Species Listed by the State of Tennessee and Known to Occur Within

13 8 km (5 mi) of the WBN Site or within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the WBN Transmission

1 4 S y s te m ........................................................................................................................ 2 -2 1

15 2-9 Average Mean Density per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream

16 and Downstream Sites near the WBN Site, Autumn 2008 ............................................ 2-30

17 2-10 Results of 15 Native Mussel Surveys During 1983, 1992, 1997 and 2010 in the

18 V icinity of the W atts B ar N uclear S ite ........................................................................... 2-33

19 2-11 Mussel Abundance and Numbers of Species Present in the Vicinity of the Watts

20 Bar N uclear P lant from 1983 to 2010 ........................................................................... 2-35

21 2-12 Electrofishing Downstream of the Watts Bar Dam for Years 1999 to 2007 ................... 2-39

22 2-13 Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream of the Watts Bar Dam for Years 1999 to

2 3 2 0 0 7 ............................................................................................................................ 2 -4 1

24 2-14 Comparison by Species of Percent Composition of the Catch from Preoperational

25 (1977-1985 and 1990-1995) and Operational (1996-1997) Monitoring Periods and

26 Additional Operational Monitoring Periods (1999-2007) ............................................... 2-43

27 2-15 Commercial Harvest Rates for Paddlefish from Chickamauga and Watts Bar

28 R eservoirs in 2007, 2008, and 2009 ............................................................................ 2-50

29 2-16 Commercial Harvest Rates for Non-Roe Fish from Chickamauga and Watts Bar

30 R eserv oirs in 2008 and 2009 ....................................................................................... 2-50

31 2-17 Number of Fish Caught in Annual Creel Survey of the Entire Chickamauga and

32 W atts B ar R e se rv o irs ................................................................................................... 2-5 1

33 2-18 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species in Rhea County, Tennessee .................... 2-57

34 2-19 W BN Unit 1 Em ployee Residence by County ............................................................... 2-63

35 2-20 Population Growth in Rhea, Meigs, McMinn, and Roane Counties .............................. 2-64

36 2-21 Demographic Profile of the Four-County Socioeconomic Region of Influence in

3 7 2 0 0 0 ............................................................................................................................ 2 -6 4

38 2-22 Demographic Profile of the Four-County Socioeconomic Region of Influence in

3 9 2 0 0 8 ............................................................................................................................ 2 -6 5

40 2-23 Selected County Housing Statistics for 2008 ............................................................... 2-66

41 2-24 Major Public Water Supply Systems in Rhea and Meigs Counties ............................... 2-66

42 2-25 Major Public Wastewater Systems in Rhea and Meigs Counties ......... .2-67

43 2-26 Civilian Labor Force, Percent Unemployment, Median Household Income, and

44 Individual Poverty in Region around the W BN Site ...................................................... 2-68

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 xiv July 2011
1 2-27 County Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Type and by Industry ....................... 2-69

2 2-28 Construction Noise Sources and Attenuation with Distance ......................................... 2-82

3 2-29 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Proposed Unit 3 and 4 Design Basis

4 A ccid e nt C a lcu latio ns .................................................................................................. 2 -86

5 2-30 Maximum Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for

6 Evaluation of Normal Effluents for Receptors of Interest .............................................. 2-86

7 3-1 A nticip ate d W ate r U se ...................... ............................................................................ 3-9

8 3-2 Raw Water Chemical Additives at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ......................................... 3-17

9 3-3 Potential Chemical Discharge to NPDES Outfalls at WBN ........................................... 3-19

10 3-4 Resource Parameters Associated with Operation of WBN Units 1 and 2 ..................... 3-20

11 4-1 NPDES Temperature Limits for WBN Outfalls to the Tennessee River from TVA .......... 4-7

12 4-2 Estimated Spring and Summer Blowdown Plume Temperatures with Assumed

13 Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth ................................................... 4-8

14 4-3 Estimated Blowdown Plume Temperature Rise Above Ambient Water for Spring

15 and Summer with Assumed Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth ....... 4-9

16 4-4 Watts Bar Unit 2 Transmission Corridor Water Crossings ............................................ 4-16

17 4-5 List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name and Numbers

18 Collected in Impingement Samples During 2005-2007 at the SCCW During

19 O pe ratio n of W B N U nit 1 ............................................................................................. 4-26

20 4-6 Estimated Annual Numbers, Biomass and Percent Composition of Fish Species

21 Impinged at the SCCW intake of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant During 2005-2007 ............. 4-27

22 4-7 Comparison of Total Estimated Number of Fish Impinged at WBN (SCCW intake),

23 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, and Kingston Fossil Plant .................................................... 4-28

24 4-8 Electrofishing Catch Rates and Population Characteristics of Black Bass Collected

25 During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Watts Bar Reservoir, 1995-2007 ....................... 4-30

26 4-9 Percent Composition of Dominant Larval Fish Taxa Collected in the CCW

27 Intake Channel 1984-1985 and 1996-1997 ................................................................ 4-32

28 4-10 Actual and Estimated Numbers of Fish Impinged at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

29 During Sample Periods from March 1996 through October 7, 1997, and duirng

30 M arch 20 10 through M arch 2011 ................................................................................. 4-33

31 4-11 Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual for Liquid Effluent Releases

3 2 fro m W B N U n it 2 .......................................................................................................... 4 -5 1

33 4-12 Comparisons of MEI Annual Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents

34 to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Design Objectives ....................................................... 4-53

35 4-13 Com parison of Doses to 40 CFR Part 190 ................................................................... 4-53

36 4-14 Doses to Biota (mrem/yr) Due to Liquid and Gaseous Releases from WBN Unit 2 ...... 4-56

37 5-1 Aquatic Biota Sampling Studies Performed in the Vicinity of the WBN Site .................... 5-6

38 6-1 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for WBN Site Environmental DBA Calculations ........... 6-3

39 6-2 Design Basis Accident Doses for W BN Unit 2 ................................................................ 6-4

40 6-3 Staff Estimates of Mean Environmental Risks from a WBN Unit 2 Reactor Severe

4 1 A c c id e n t ......................................................................................................................... 6 -6

42 6-4 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal

43 Events for WBN Unit 2 with Risks Initiated by Internal Events for Current Nuclear

44 Power Plants That Have Undergone Operating License Renewal Review and

4 5 W B N U n it 1 ................................................................................................................. 6 -7

46 6-5 WBN2 Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events .................................................... 6-10

July 2011 XV Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
1 6-6 Breakdown of Population dose by Containment Release Category ............................. 6-12

2 6-7 Dominant Fire Areas and Their Contirbution to Fire CDF ............................................. 6-13

3 6-8 SAM DA Cost-Benefit Analysis for W BN2 ..................................................................... 6-21

4 7-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Natural Gas-Fired Alternative .................... 7-25

5 7-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources .................... 7-26

6 7-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Construction and Operation of Natural7 Gas-Fired Generating Units and Combination of Alternatives ...................................... 7-34

8 8-1 Comparison of the Supply and Demand Forcasts for Service Area (NERC 2010) ........ 8-13

9 9-1 Summary of Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Action ................................................ 9-6

10

11

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 xvi July 2011
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 On March 4, 2009, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted to the U.S. Nuclear

3 Regulatory Commission (NRC) a request to reactivate its application for a license to operate a

4 second light-water nuclear reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear (WBN) Plant in Rhea County, TN.

5 The NRC published notice of receipt of the application and the opportunity for hearing in the

6 Federal Register on May 1, 2009 (74 FR 20350). The proposed action is NRC issuance of a

7 40-year facility operating license for WBN Unit 2. WBN Unit 2, a pressurized-water reactor,

8 could produce up to 3,425 megawatts thermal. The reactor-generated heat would be used to

9 produce steam to drive steam turbines, providing 1,160 megawatts electric of net electrical

10 power capacity to the region.

11 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA)

12 (42 U.S.C. 4321), directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for major

13 Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In 1978, the NRC

14 issued a final environmental statement related to the operating license for WBN Units 1 and 2

15 (NUREG-0498, "Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear

16 Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2," December 1978, 1978 FES-OL) for operating Units 1 and 2 at the

17 WBN site. Because TVA did not operate WBN Unit 2 as scheduled, the NRC's regulations in

18 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.92, "Supplement to the Final

19 Environmental Impact Statement," require the NRC staff to prepare a supplement to the

20 1978 FES-OL. The purpose of this supplement is to determine if there are substantial changes

21 in the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns or if significant new circumstances or

22 information exist related to environmental concerns that bear on the proposed action or its

23 impacts.

24 Upon acceptance of the TVA application, the NRC began the environmental review process

25 described in 10 CFR Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing

26 and Related Regulatory Functions," by publishing a notice of intent in the Federal Register to

27 prepare a supplemental final environmental statement (SFES, an EIS equivalent) and conduct

28 scoping. On October 6, 2009, the NRC held two scoping meetings in Sweetwater, TN, to obtain

29 public input on the scope of the environmental review. To gather information and become

30 familiar with the WBN site and its environs, the NRC and its contractor, Pacific Northwest

31 National Laboratory, visited the WBN site and environs in Rhea, TN, October 6-8, 2009.

32 During the site visit, the NRC team met with TVA staff, public officials, and the public. The NRC

33 reviewed the comments received during the scoping process and contacted Federal, State,

34 Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. This SFES includes (1) the results of

35 the staff's analyses, which consider and weigh the environmental effects of the NRC's proposed

36 action, issuance of a facility operating license for WBN Unit 2, (2) mitigation measures for

37 reducing or avoiding adverse effects, and (3) the staff's recommendation on the proposed

38 action.

July 2011 xvii Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
1 To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative action,

2 the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on guidance from the

3 Council on Environmental Quality. In addition, NRC guidance has usedinformation in the GElS

4 [generic environmental impact statement] for license renewal, for example, the impact

5 categorization approach (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE) in the preparation of NEPA

6 documents prepared in conjunction with other types of applications such as ESPs [early site

7 permits] and COLs [combined licenses] when it is appropriate to do so. The NRC staff used the

8 following impact categories in this draft SFES:

9 SMALL-Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

10 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

11 MODERATE-Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

12 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

13 LARGE-Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and sufficient to destabilize

14 important attributes of the resource.

15 The staff considered potential mitigation measures for each resource category only if adverse

16 impacts were identified.

17 In preparing this SFES for WBN Unit 2, the NRC staff reviewed TVA's "Final Supplemental

18 Environmental Impact Statement for Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

19 Unit 2," dated February 15, 2008, which TVA submitted to the NRC as the environmental report

20 portion of its application. The staff also consulted with other Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and

21 local agencies and followed the guidance set forth in NUREG-1555, "Standard Review Plans for

22 Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants," dated October 1999. In addition, the staff

23 considered public comments related to the environmental review received during the scoping

24 process. Appendix D to this SFES includes these scoping comments and the NRC staff's

25 responses to them.

26 In this SFES, the NRC staff concludes that impacts from the operation of WBN Unit 2

27 associated with water use, terrestrial resources, aquatic ecology, design-basis accidents,

28 socioeconomics, the radiological and nonradiological environments, decommissioning, air

29 quality, and land use are generally consistent with those reached in the 1978 FES-OL and

30 Supplement No. 1 to the "Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar

31 Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2," dated April 1995 (1995 SFES-OL-1). In some cases, the impacts

32 were less than those identified in the 1978 FES-OL.

33 Ground water quality, public services, noise, socioeconomic transportation, cultural and

34 historical resources, environmental justice, greenhouse gas emissions, severe accidents,

35 severe accident mitigation alternatives, and cumulative impacts were not addressed in the

36 1978 FES-OL but are addressed in this SFES. The NRC staff concludes that impacts

37 associated with the operation of WBN Unit 2 on ground water quality, public services, noise,

38 socioeconomic transportation, cultural and historical resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and

39 severe accidents would be SMALL. In addition, the staff concludes that the operation of WBN

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 xviii July 2011
1 Unit 2 would not result in a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

2 effect on any of the low-income communities near the WBN site.

3 The NRC staff also considered cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably

4 foreseeable future actions. The staff concludes that, although some of the cumulative impacts

5 are LARGE as the result of other activities that affected the environment, the incremental impact

6 from operation of WBN Unit 2 would in all cases be minor and not noticeable in comparison to

7 the other impacts.

8 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental

9 Protection Agency notice of availability for the draft SFES to allow members of the public to

10 comment on the results of the NRC review. A public meeting will take place near the site during

11 the public comment period. During this public meeting, the NRC staff will describe the results of

12 the NRC environmental review, provide members of the public with information to assist them in

13 formulating comments on the draft SFES, respond to questions, and accept comments. After

14 the comment period, the staff will consider all comments. The NRC will address those within

15 the scope of the environmental review in the final SFES.

16 The NRC's final safety evaluation report, anticipated to be published in 2012, will address the

17 staff's evaluation of the site safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed

18 action.

July 2011 xix Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2

1 ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS

2 X/Q atmospheric dispersion value

3 °C degree(s) Celsius

4 OF degree(s) Fahrenheit

5 ac acre(s)

6 ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

7 A.D. Anno Domini

8 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (NRC)

9 ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management

10 ADTV average daily traffic volume

11 AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

12 ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable

13 AOC averted offsite costs

14 AOE averted occupational exposure

15 APE Area of Potential Effect or averted public exposure

16 AQCR Air Quality Control Region

17 B.C. Before Christ

18 BMP best management practice

19 Bq becquerel

20 Btu British thermal unit(s)

21 Btu/hr British thermal unit(s)'per hour

22 CCW Condenser Circulating Water

23 CDC Centers for Disease Control

24 CDF core damage frequency

25 CDWE condensate demineralizer waste evaporator

26 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

27 CFR Code of Federal Regulations

28 cfs cubic (foot)feet per second

29 CO 2 carbon dioxide

30 Ci curies

31 cm centimeter(s)

32 CORMIX Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System

33 CTBD cooling-tower blowdown

34 CWS Circulating Water System

35 dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale

36 DBA design basis accident

37 DC design certification

38 DOE U.S. Department of Energy

39 DSM demand-side management

40 EIS environmental impact statement

41 EAB exclusion area boundary

42 ELF extremely low frequency

43 EMF electromagnetic field

44 EO Executive Order

July 2011 xxi Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

EPA

EPRI

ER

ERCW

ESRP

FCC

FES

FES-CP

FES-OL

FR

FSAR

ft

ft3

FWS

gal

GC

GCRP

GD

GElS

GEIS-DECOM

GHG

gpm

gpd

GWPP

Gy

ha

HLW

hr

HVAC

Hz

I

IAEA

ICRP

IMP

in.

i*2 In.

IPE

IPS

ISFSI

kg

km

km 2

kV

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Electric Power Research Institute

Environmental Report

Essential Raw Cooling Water

Environmental Standard Review Plan

Federal Communications Commission

Final Environmental Statement

Final Environmental Statement related to the construction permit for WBN Units

1 and 2

Final Environmental Statement related to the operating license for WBN Units

1 and 2

Federal Register

Final Safety Analysis Report

foot (feet)

cubic foot (feet)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

gallon(s)

gaseous centrifuge

U.S. Global Change Research Program

gaseous diffusion

Generic Environmental Impact Statement

Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear

Facilities Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors

greenhouse gas

gallon(s) per minute

gallon(s) per day

Ground Water Protection Program

gray(s)

hectare(s)

high-level waste

hour(s)

heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

hertz

Interstate

International Atomic Energy Agency

International Commission on Radiological Protection.

internal monitoring point

inch(es)

square inch(es)

Individual Plant Examination

intake pumping station

independent spent fuel storage installation

kilogram(s)

kilometer(s)

square kilometer(s)

kilovolt(s)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 xxii July 2011
1 L/d liter(s) per day

2 L/s liter(s) per second

3 L/yr liter(s) per year

4 lb pound(s)

5 LLW low-level waste

6 LPZ Low Population Zone

7 LVWTP Low Volume Waste Treatment Pond

8 LWR light water reactor

9 m meter(s)

10 m3/s cubic meter(s) per second

11 MACR maximum averted cost risk

12 MACCS2 MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System

13 MEI maximally exposed individual

14 MGD million gallons per day

15 mGy milligray(s)

16 mGy/yr milligray(s) per year

17 MHz megahertz

18 mg/L milligram(s) per liter

19 mi mile(s)

20 mi 2 square mile(s)

21 MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

22 mo month(s)

23 mrad millirad(s)

24 mrad/d millirad(s) per day

25 mrem millirem(s)

26 mrem/yr millirem(s) per year

27 msl mean sea level

28 mSv millisievert(s)

29 mSv/yr millisievert(s) per year

30 MW megawatt(s)

31 MW(e) megawatt(s) electric

32 MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal

33 NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

34 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended

35 NESC National Electrical Safety Code

36 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

37 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

38 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

39 NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System

40 O&M operation and maintenance

41 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

42 OL Operating License

43 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

44 PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

45 pCi/L picocurie(s) per liter

46 PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

July 2011 xxiii Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

ppm

PRA

PWR

RAI

RCRA

RCW

rem

REMP

ROI

ROS

Ryr

s/im2

SACE

SAMA

SAMDA

SCCW

SEIS

SFES

SFES-OL-1

SFES-OL-2

SHPO

SPCC plan

Sv

TACIR

TDEC

TDOH

TDOT

TDS

TOSHA

TN

tpy CO 2e

TRM

TRO

TVA

TWRA

USGS

V

WBN

yd 3

YHP

yr

parts per million

probabilistic risk assessment

pressurized-water reactor

Request for Additional Information

Resource Conversation and Recovery Act

Raw Cooling Water

roentgen equivalent man

radiological environmental monitoring program

region of influence

Reservoir Operations Study

reactor-year

second(s) per square meter

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

severe accident mitigation alternative

severe accident mitigation design alternative

Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water

supplemental environmental impact statement

supplemental final environmental statement

NRC 1995 Supplement No. 1 to the Final Environmental Statement related to

the operating license

NRC 2011 Supplement No. 2 to the Final Environmental Statement related to

the operating license

State Historic Preservation Officer

Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan

sievert(s)

Tennessee Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

Tennessee Department of Health

Tennessee Department of Transportation

total dissolved solids

Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Tennessee State Route

tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent

Tennessee River Mile

Total Residual Oxident

Tennessee Valley Authority

Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency

U.S. Geological Survey

volt(s)

Watts Bar Nuclear

cubic yard(s)

Yard Holding Pond

year(s)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 xxiv July 2011
1 1.0 Introduction

2 The Watts Bar Nuclear (WBN) plant site is located in southeastern Tennessee and is owned by

3 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The site contains two Westinghouse-designed pressurized4 water reactors (PWRs). In early 1996, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued

5 an operating license for WBN Unit 1. TVA has not yet completed WBN Unit 2. The proposed

6 action is for the NRC to issue a facility operating license for Unit 2 at the WBN site.

7 WBN Units 1 and 2 possess a unique licensing history, which is shown in the following timeline:

8 • 1972 - TVA published the Final Environmental Statement (FES), WBN Units 1 and 2

9 (TVA 1972).

10 • 1973 - Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor to the NRC) issued construction permits

11 (CPs) CPPR-91 and CPPR-92 for WBN Units 1 and 2.

12 a 1978 - NRC published the FES related to the operating license for WBN Units 1 and 2

13 (1978 FES-OL) (NRC 1978).

14 e 1995 - NRC published the Supplemental FES (SFES) related to the operation of WBN Units

15 1 and 2, Supplement No. 1 (1995 SFES-OL-1), NUREG-0498, Docket Nos. 50-390 and

16 50-391 (NRC 1995).

17 * 1996 - NRC issued a full power operating license (NPF-90) for Watts Bar Unit 1.

18 • 1998 - TVA published the Final Environmental Assessment related to the WBN

19 Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water Project (TVA 1998).

20 * 2006 - TVA informed the NRC of its intent to study the feasibility of completing WBN Unit 2,

21 with the goal of producing power from the reactor in 2013 (TVA 2006).

22 e 2007 - TVA notified the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on August 3,

23 2007, of its intention to complete construction activities at WBN Unit 2 (TVA 2007).

24 * 2007 - The NRC Commission, in the Staff Requirements Memorandum SECY-07-0096

25 directed the staff to use the current licensing basis for Unit 1 as the reference for reviewing

26 and licensing WBN Unit 2 (NRC 2007).

27 • 2008 - TVA transmitted its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the

28 completion and operation of WBN Unit 2 (TVA) to the NRC (TVA 2008).

29 * 2009 - TVA submitted an update to the application for a facility operating license from NRC

30 to possess, use, and operate WBN Unit 2 (TVA 2009a).

31 • 2009 - NRC published a notice of the receipt of application and the opportunity for hearing

32 in the Federal Register (FR) on May 1, 2009 (74 FR 20350).

September 2011 1-1 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Introduction

1 This document supplements NRC's 1978 FES-OL (NRC 1978) and updates the 1995

2 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1995). This draft SFES related to the operating license for WBN Unit 2

3 (SFES-OL-2) focuses on changes to impacts associated with operation of WBN Unit 2 as a

4 result of changes in the environment, plant design, and proposed methods of plant operation

5 since 1978. It covers matters that have changed since the 1978 FES-OL or were introduced

6 subsequent to publication of the 1995 SFES-OL-1. New sections have been added in this draft

7 SFES to address issues not previously considered.

8 1.1 Background

9 The WBN plant, which includes Units 1 and 2, is located approximately 80 km (50 mi) northeast

10 of Chattanooga, Tennessee (Figure 1-1). The WBN site occupies approximately 427 ha

11 (1,055 ac) on Federal property controlled by TVA. The reservation comprises 690 ha (1,700 ac)

12 on the western shore of Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River at Tennessee River

13 Mile (TRM) 528, as measured from the mouth of the river. The reservation includes the WBN

14 site, the Watts Bar Dam and Hydro-Electric Plant, the Watts Bar Fossil Plant, the TVA Central

15 Maintenance Facility, and the Watts Bar Resort Area (TVA 2008). The WBN site lies

16 approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of Watts Bar Dam (TRM 529.9). TVA designed, is building,

17 and proposes to operate WBN Unit 2. The facility, administrative and support facilities, and all

18 associated parking occupy Federal property controlled by the applicant.

19 Each of the two identical plants (WBN Units 1 and 2) uses a four-loop PWR nuclear steam

20 supply system furnished by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (NRC 1995). The Unit 2 reactor

21 would operate at 3,425 MW(t). The net electrical output would be 1,160 MW(e), and the gross

22 electrical output would be 1,218 MW(e) for the rated core power (TVA 2009b).

23 Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.92(a), the NRC is required to

24 supplement an FES if the proposed action has not been taken and (1) substantial changes in

25 the proposed action exist that are relevant to environmental concerns, or (2) significant new

26 circumstances or information exist relevant to environmental concerns and bear on the

27 proposed action or its impacts. Under 10 CFR 51.92(c), the NRC may prepare a supplement

28 when, in its opinion, preparing one will further the purposes of the National Environmental Policy

29 Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).

30 The staff prepared this supplement to the 1978 FES-OL to further NEPA purposes. This

31 supplement updates 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1995) and discusses new information related to

32 the need for power and alternative sources of energy. As part of its assessment of TVA's

33 application, the staff reviewed the 1972 FES-CP, the 1978 FES-OL, the 1995 SFES-OL-1, and

34 the applicant's submittals. The staff also conducted a multidisciplinary environmental site visit

35 and met with TVA and appropriate Federal and State regulatory and resource agencies at and

36 in the vicinity of the WBN site.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 1-2 September 2011
Introduction

';,.-J ; 7--. jF,-•:"

I-.

!.'

/ - r * WBN Site 50 Mile Buffer

- Highways State Boundaries 7

0 -- Interstates County Boundaries

2 (To convert miles [mi] to kilometers [km], multiply by 1.6 km/mi)

3 Figure 1-1. The WBN Site and the 80-km (50-mi) Vicinity

September 2011 1-3 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Introduction

1 1.2 NRC Operating License Application Review

2 The purpose of the NRC's environmental review of the TVA application is to determine if a

3 second nuclear power plant of the proposed design can be operated at the WBN site without

4 unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment. NRC regulations 10 CFR 51.95(a) and

5 10 CFR 51.95(b) guide staff reviews of supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs)

6 at the initial operating license stage. The NRC's Environmental Standard Review Plan

7 (NRC 2000) presents detailed guidance for conducting the environmental review.

8 The NRC initiated the environmental review process for acceptance of TVA's application on

9 September 11, 2009, by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare a supplement to the 1978

10 FES-OL and conduct scoping in the Federal Register (74 FR 46799). This action complies with

11 10 CFR Part 51. On October 6, 2009, the NRC held two scoping meetings in Sweetwater,

12 Tennessee, to obtain public input on the scope of the environmental review. The NRC also

13 contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. Appendix B

14 provides a list of the agencies and organizations contacted. The staff reviewed the comments

15 received during the scoping process. Appendix D includes comments from scoping and their

16 associated responses.

17 In October 2009, the NRC and its contractor, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL),

18 visited the WBN site to gather information and become familiar with the site and its environs.

19 During the site visit, the staff and its contractor met with TVA staff, public officials, and members

20 of the public. This SFES lists documents reviewed during the site visit as references, where

21 appropriate.

22 The NRC's standard of significance for impacts was established using the Council on

23 Environmental Quality terminology for "significant". In addition, NRC guidance (NRC 2000)

24 states that "Information in the GElS [Generic Environmental Impact Statement] for license

25 renewal, for example, the impact categorization approach (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, and

26 LARGE), may also be used in the preparation of NEPA documents prepared in conjunction with

27 other types of applications such as ESPs [early site permits] and COLs [combined licenses]

28 when it is appropriate to do so." The NRC staff used the following impact categories in this draft

29 SFES:

30 SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will

31 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

32 MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

33 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

34 LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to

35 destabilize important attributes of the resource.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 1-4 September 2011
Introduction

1 This SFES presents the staff's analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental impacts

2 of the proposed action at the WBN site. The analysis describes environmental impacts

3 associated with operation of a second reactor at the WBN site and the cumulative effects of the

4 proposed action along with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The

5 analysis also considers the no-action alternative to granting the operating license. This SFES

6 provides the NRC's preliminary recommendation to the Commission for issuing TVA an

7 operating license for WBN Unit 2.

8 A 45-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental

9 Protection Agency Notice of Availability of the filing of this draft SFES. A public meeting will be

10 held near the WBN site during the public comment period. During this public meeting, the staff

11 will describe the results of the NRC environmental review, provide members of the public with

12 information to assist them in formulating comments on the SFES, respond to questions, and

13 accept comments. After the comment period, the staff will consider all comments. Those

14 comments within the scope of the environmental review will be addressed in the final SFES.

15 1.3 Compliance and Consultations

16 Before operating WBN Unit 2, TVA is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local

17 environmental permits, as well as meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. TVA

18 provided a list of environmental approvals and consultations associated with the WBN site as

19 part of the responses to the Request for Additional Information dated April 9, 2010 (TVA 2010).

20 Appendix G provides the list of approvals and consultations associated with WBN Unit 2.

21 The NRC reviewed this list and contacted the appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, and local

22 agencies to identify any compliance, permit, or environmental issues of concern that could affect

23 the acceptability of the WBN site for operating WBN Unit 2. Appendix C lists this

24 correspondence in chronological order. Appendix F provides the actual correspondence.

25 1.4 Report Contents

26 Chapter 2 of this SFES describes the proposed site and the environment that would be affected

27 by operating WBN Unit 2. Chapter 3 discusses the power plant layout, structures, and activities

28 related to operating proposed WBN Unit 2. The staff uses Chapters 2 and 3 as the basis for

29 evaluating environmental impacts. Chapter 4 examines site acceptability by updating the 1978

30 FES-OL analysis of environmental impacts of operating proposed WBN Unit 2. Chapter 5

31 discusses the environmental monitoring programs at the WBN site. Chapter 6 analyzes

32 environmental impacts of postulated accidents involving radioactive materials. Chapter 7

33 discusses alternatives to the proposed action. Chapter 8 addresses the need for power.

34 Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters, provides a benefit-cost

35 evaluation, and presents the staff's preliminary recommendation to the Commission.

September 2011 1-5 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Introduction

1 The appendices to this SFES provide the following additional information.

2 9 Appendix A - Contributors to the Supplement

3 9 Appendix B - Organizations Contacted

4 9 Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Environmental Review Correspondence Related to TVA

5 Application for an Operating License at the WBN Site

6 e Appendix D - Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses

7 9 Appendix E - Draft Supplemental Final Environmental Statement Comments and

8 Responses (Reserved)

9 9 Appendix F - Key Consultation Correspondence Regarding the WBN Unit 2 Operating

10 License

11 * Appendix G - List of Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications

12 * Appendix H - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

13 e Appendix I - Supporting Documentation for Radiological Dose Assessment

14 1.5 References

15 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

16 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

17 74 FR 20350, May 1, 2009. "Notice of Receipt of Update to Application for Facility Operating

18 License and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 and Order

19 Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information and

20 Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation." Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear

21 Regulatory Commission.

22 74 FR 46799, September 11, 2009. "Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplement to the Operating

23 License Final Environmental Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register.

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

25 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

26 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1972. Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear

27 Plant Units 1, and 2. TVA-OHES-EIS-72-9, Office of Health and Environmental Science,

28 Chattanooga, Tennessee. Accession No. ML073470580.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 1-6 September 2011
Introduction

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1998. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser

2 Cooling Water Project, Environmental Assessment. Knoxville, Tennessee. Available at

3 http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/wattsbar2/related/aug_1998. pdf.

4 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2006. Letter from K.W. Singer (Tennessee Valley Authority,

5 Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

6 dated November 14, 2006, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - Unit 2 - Feasibility Study for the

7 Completion of Construction Activities." Accession No. ML063200135.

8 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2007. Letter from William R. McCollum (Tennessee Valley

9 Authority, Chief Operating Officer) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency dated August 3. 2007,

10 "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - Unit 2 - Reactivation of Construction Activities." Accession

11 No. ML072190047.

12 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

13 Statement; Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Rhea County,

14 Tennessee, submitted to NRC as the TVA Environmental Report for an Operating License,

15 Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML080510469.

16 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009a. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

17 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated March 4, 2009, "Watts Bar

18 Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Operating License Application Update." Accession

19 No. ML090700378.

20 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - Unit 2 - Final

21 Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Amendment 94, Spring City, Tennessee. Accession

22 No. ML092460757.

23 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2, vice

24 President) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated April 9, 2010, "Watts Bar Nuclear

25 Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Response to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Request for

26 Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession

27 No. ML101130393.

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978. Final Environmental Statement Related to

29 Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Washington, D.C.

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995. Final Environmental Statement Related to

31 the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2. NUREG-0498 Supplement No. 1,

32 Washington, D.C

September 2011 1-7 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Introduction

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan2 Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555,

3 Washington, D.C.

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Memo from Annette L. Vietti-Cook

5 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Secretary) dated July 25, 2007, "Commission Voting

6 Record, Decision item: SECY-07-0096, Possible Reactivation of Construction and Licensing

7 Activities for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2." Accession No. ML072080173.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 1-8 September 2011
1 2.0 Affected Environment

2 This chapter describes the affected environment in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear (WBN)

3 Unit 2. Section 2.1 describes the location of the site and land use. Sections 2.2 through 2.8

4 describe water use, ecology, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, radiological

5 environment, nonradiological human health, and meteorology and air quality. Section 2.9

6 examines related Federal projects, and references are presented in Section 2.10.

7 2.1 Land Use

8 This section describes the WBN site location and land use within and around the WBN site.

9 2.1.1 Station Location

10 Figure 2-1 shows the WBN Unit 2 location adjacent to WBN Unit 1, both wholly located within

11 WBN site boundaries. The WBN site lies in rural Rhea County, Tennessee, about 13 km (8 mi)

12 southeast of Spring City, which has a population of 2,025. The nearest population centers with

13 more than 25,000 residents include Chattanooga, 97 km (60 mi) to the southwest (population

14 155,554) and Knoxville, about 97 km (60 mi) to the northeast (population 184,802) (USCB

15 2008a, b, c, d). Figure 2-2 shows the WBN Unit 2 site in relation to the counties, cities, and

16 towns located within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the site. Interstate Highway 75 (1-75) passes

17 within 29 km (18 mi) to the east of the site, and Interstate 40 (1-40) passes within 45 km (28 mi)

18 to the north of the site. Workers and visitors access the site from Tennessee State Route 68

19 (TN-68), which connects with U.S. Highway 27 (US-27) to the west, and TN-302, TN-58, and

20 1-75 to the east. The WBN site occupies approximately 427 ha (1,055 ac) within the Watts Bar

21 Reservation, which is 690 ha (1,700 ac) of land owned by the U.S. Federal Government in the

22 custody of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The reservation includes the WBN site, the

23 Watts Bar Dam and Hydro-Electric Plant, the Watts Bar Fossil Plant, the TVA Central

24 Maintenance Facility, and the Watts Bar Resort Area (TVA 2008a).

25 2.1.2 The Site and Vicinity

26 The WBN site is bounded by Chickamauga Reservoir to the east and south. The WBN site

27 contains structures to support two nuclear units. WBN Unit 1 is currently operating and WBN

28 Unit 2 is partially constructed. Figure 2-1 shows the layout of the WBN site. A rural road,

29 Morrison Lane, and forested land form the western border of the site (see Figure 2-1), while

30 TN-68 (also known as Watts Bar Highway) makes up the northern border. The WBN site lies

31 entirely within an unincorporated area of Rhea County, Tennessee, approximately 13 km (8 mi)

32 southeast of Spring City. The town of Spring City is zoned for commercial and residential land

33 uses; however, unincorporated areas of Rhea County are not zoned for any particular land

34 uses.

September 2011 2-1 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
o>

0) C0

C Watts Bar a"

rn Morrtson Lane To Watts Bar Flna C) . - ... To Watts Bar Highway (TN-68)

/) -.. Highway (T-4s) "0

/ B uilding

"Co / .. .. . W. • B C-n / " : i ': 1 C.D'

-o.U S i It

/1 / - Cainingg

H u:. Cooin

R. 

Alum " """<Temperaryin 'Onlined 4 - 'Chemical .Ilin.

". udB Holding Pond

. ................ ,

< : ... :. "i.' • Intake

/ Tretmen Pon ": • /..Pnda.t-o,

Ni) N)a 2P ' ...

:~~' .. Hor oe ding:

Lo Volume Wasr Holdin

Pon

....Nuclear."

Plant."

Boundaryr

1 " -

• ~0 230460 920 "1,380 1,840

3 2 (To convert feet [ft] to meters [m], multiply by 0.3048 m/ft) Cr

3 Figure 2-1. The WBN Site (WVA 2008a) OJ
Affected Environment

S WBN Site - 50 Mile Buffer /...

Highways C State Boundaries0

--'"Interstates i ...... County Boundaries •

(To convert miles [mi] to kilometers [krn], multiply by 1.6 km/mi)

Figure 2-2, The WBN Site and the 80-kin (50-mi) Vicinity

1

2

3

September 2011 2-3 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-1 includes the acreage estimates for land categories within the WBN site. Deciduous

2 and evergreen forest, along with grass, shrub, and brush cover more than 70 percent of the

3 WBN site. The reactor complex, cooling towers, and supporting infrastructure make up about

4 15 percent.

5 Table 2-1. Acreage Estimates for Land Categories Within the WBN Site

Acreage Percent

Land-Use Coverage ha(ac) of Total

reactor complex, buildings, and supporting infrastructure 64.4 (159.2) 15

miscellaneous use, disturbed land (includes a 0.2-ha [0.5-ac] cemetery) 26.8 (66.1) 6

grass, shrub, and brush 155.7 (384.7) 36

forest (deciduous and evergreen) 147.8 (365.1) 35

wetlands 15.7 (38.8) 4

water 16.9 (41.7) 4

6 2.1.3 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas

7 Four 500-kV transmission lines currently support the transmission of power from the WBN

'8 Unit 1 reactor on the WBN site (see Figure 3-4). The site also houses two 1.6-km- (1-mi-) long

9 161-kV lines (Watts Bar Hydro-Watts Bar Nuclear Nos. 1 and 2). The four 500-kV lines include

10 the Bull Run-Sequoyah loop into the WBN site, the Watts Bar-Volunteer line, the Watts Bar11 Roane line, and the Watts Bar-Sequoyah line. The Bull Run-Sequoyah loop extends northeast

12 to the Bull Run Substation and loops into the WBN site on its way to the Sequoyah substation

13 approximately 64 km (40 mi) to the southwest of the WBN site. The Watts Bar-Volunteer line

14 runs from the WBN site to the northeast, connecting with the Volunteer substation near

15 Knoxville, Tennessee. The Watts Bar-Roane line runs from the WBN site north to the Roane

16 substation, near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Watts Bar-Sequoyah line runs southwest to the

17 Sequoyah substation, providing a second 500-kV line connecting the WBN site substation with

18 the Sequoyah nuclear site substation. TVA owns the right-of-ways associated with all 500-kV

19 lines supporting the WBN site and actively maintains these transmission lines and corridors

20 (TVA 1972, 2010a; NRC 1978). TVA acquired approximately 1,281 ha (3,165 ac) of right-of21 ways to support the construction of the 500-kV lines from the WBN site. When this land was

22 originally acquired, approximately 25 percent of the land was forested, 25 percent was used for

23 farming and pastures, and the remainder was primarily uncultivated open land (TVA 1972;

24 NRC 1978).

25 2.1.4 The Region

26 The WBN site lies on the western shore of Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River at

27 Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 528 (TVA 2008a). The site is approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of

28 the Watts Bar Dam (TRM 529.9) (NRC 1995). The 1972 TVA Final Environmental Statement

29 related to the construction permit for WBN Units 1 and 2 (1972 FES-CP) and other earlier

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-4 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 studies described land use in the area around the site. Since that time, housing and

2 commercial development has increased while open space and land used for farming has

3 decreased (TVA 2008a).

4 TVA owns and manages both the Chickamauga Dam and Reservoir and Watts Bar Dam and

5 Reservoir. TVA also owns and manages several thousand acres of land around the two

6 reservoirs with a combined shoreline totaling just over 2,400 km (1,500 mi) (TVA 2004a). TVA

7 has developed comprehensive plans for the management of the public land around each

8 reservoir (TVA 2009a).

9 Deciduous and some evergreen and mixed forest cover most of the land surrounding the WBN

10 site. Pasture land and row crops make up the second most common form of land coverage in

11 the region. TVA classifies approximately 1,101 ha (2,720 ac) of the land it manages on the

12 Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs as recreational (TVA 2004a; TDEC 2005).

13 2.2 Water

14 This section describes the surface and groundwater resources and hydrologic processes in and

15 around the WBN site including existing water use and water quality in the environment in the

16 vicinity of WBN Unit 2. During proposed Unit 2 operations, Watts Bar and Chickamauga

17 reservoirs on the Tennessee River would provide cooling water. Only Chickamauga Reservoir

18 would receive discharge water.

19 2.2.1 Hydrology

20 Hydrological features of the site are described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

21 portion of the application (WVA 2009b) and the 1995 Supplement No. 1 to the Final

22 Environmental Statement related to the operating license (1995 SFES-OL-1) (NRC 1995).

23 Site-specific and regional hydrological features and their characteristics are summarized below.

24 2.2.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology

25 The WBN site is located on the western shore of Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee

26 River at TRM 528 (WVA 2008a) approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) south of Watts Bar Dam

27 (TRM 529.9) (NRC 1995). The Tennessee River system is the fifth largest river system in the

28 United States (Bohac and McCall 2008) and one of the most highly regulated for flood control,

29 navigation, and power generation (WVA 2009b). The Tennessee River watershed above the

30 WBN site drains 44,830 km 2 (17,319 M2 ) of land (WVA 2009b). Dams on the mainstem of the

31 Tennessee River create nine reservoirs. Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs are the two

32 closest to the WBN site and their characteristics are listed in Table 2-2. Fort Loudon Reservoir

33 is upstream of Watts Bar Reservoir, and Nickajack, Guntersville, Wheeler, Wilson, Pickwick,

34 and Kentucky reservoirs are downstream of Chickamauga Reservoir (WVA 2004a).

September 2011 2-5 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

Table 2-2. Physical Characteristics of Watts Bar and Chickamauga Reservoirs

Volume

Drainage Mean Area at Full Pool Mean Residence

Area Annual Flow at Full Pool 106 m3 Depth Time

Reservoir km 2 (mi 2) m3/s (cfs) ha (ac) (106 ft3

) m (ft) days

Watts Bar 44,830 778 15,783 1,246 7.9 17

(17,310) (27,500) (39,000) (44,000) (26)

Chickamauga 53,850 962 14,326 775 5.4 8

(20,790) (34,000) (35,400) (27,400) (18)

From Table 4.4-02 Reservoir Operations Study May 2004 (TVA 2004a), Section 4.4, page 4.4-8.

Mean depth and residence time are based on average, rather than full, pool area and volume.

2 Since the publication of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) 1995 SFES-OL-1

3 (NRC 1995), TVA has altered the operation of reservoirs on the Tennessee River. TVA

4 completed a Reservoir Operations Study (ROS) in 2004 (TVA 2004a) that resulted in

5 modifications of the operation of Watts Bar and Chickamauga reservoirs. Historically, TVA

6 maintained the summer high water pool at Watts Bar Reservoir at 225.7 m (740.5 ft) above

7 mean sea level (msl) (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929) from April through October (TVA

8 1998a). Between November and March, TVA reduced the pool level and maintained it at

9 approximately 224 m (736 ft) above msl. As a result of ROS findings, TVA now maintains the

10 summer high water level at 226 m (740 ft) above msl between May and October and 224 m

11 (736 ft) above msl from November to April (TVA 2004a).

12 TVA has instituted similar operational changes at Chickamauga Rese~rvoir. Historically, TVA

13 maintained the summer high water pool at 208 m (682 ft) above msl from April to June, dropped

14 it to 207 m (680 ft) above msl from July through September, then gradually dropped it to 206 m

15 (676 ft) above msl between October and December. TVA held the water at that elevation

16 through March. As a result of the ROS findings, TVA now maintains the summer pool elevation

17 at 208 m (682 ft) above msl from May to September and lowers it to 206 m (676 ft) above msl

18 from December through April (TVA 2004a).

19 As Table 2-2 notes, Watts Bar Dam releases water at a mean annual flow of approximately

20 778 m3/s (27,500 cfs). The FSAR (TVA 2009b) summarizes information about low flows past

21 the WBN site, The FSAR indicates that, since January 1942, the TVA system of dams and

22 reservoirs, particularly Watts Bar and Chickamauga dams, has regulated low flows at the site.

23 Under normal operating conditions, periods of several hours daily may occur when no water is

24 released from either or both dams. However, TVA has recorded average daily flows of less

25 than 280 m3/s (10,000 cfs) only 4.8 percent of the time and less than 140 m3/s (5,000 cfs) only

26 0.9 percent of the time at the site.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-6 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 During special operations to control watermilfoil, on March 30 and 31, 1968, neither Watts Bar

2 Dam nor Chickamauga Dam released any water. TVA has recorded daily average releases of

3 zero on four other occasions during the last 25 years (TVA 2009b).

4 The 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1995) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

5 (NPDES) permit renewal application (TVA 2006a) describe surface-water features of the site,

6 including two chemical cleaning holdup ponds (for waste from the turbine generator building),

7 the Yard Holding Pond (YHP), Construction Run Off Holding Pond, Yellow Creek, and an

8 unnamed tributary of Yellow Creek. In addition, TVA (2005a) identified the Horseshoe Pond in

9 the southeastern area of the WBN site. TVA created the chemical holding ponds, the YHP, and

10 the Construction Runoff Holding Pond to support WBN site operations. Yellow Creek and its

11 tributary are natural water bodies resulting from surface-water runoff and/or interaction with

12 Chickamauga Reservoir. Horseshoe Pond predates WBN development and receives surface13 water runoff. The 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1995) also describes a 9,500-m3 (2.5-million-gal)

14 evaporation/percolation pond. TVA closed the pond and revegetated the area in 1999 (TDEC

15 1999).

16 2.2.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology

17 The Conasauga Shale, which forms the bedrock beneath the site, consists of about 84 percent

18 shale and 16 percent limestone and has poor water-bearing qualities. Poorly sorted, fine-grained

19 terrace deposits and more recent alluvial deposits overlie the shale. The Knox Dolomite, which

20 overlies the Conasauga Shale, elsewhere is a significant aquifer within the region, but is not

21 present at the WBN site and is not used as a source of groundwater within 3.2 km (2 mi) of WBN

22 Unit 2 except for small water supplies (TVA 2009b).

23 The local hydrogeologic characteristics were significantly altered by the construction of WBN

24 Units 1 and 2. Unconsolidated material was removed in the vicinity of the reactor and turbine

25 buildings and replaced by engineered backfill. Excavations for installation of piping between

26 Units 1 and 2 and the intake and discharge structures created pathways of higher hydraulic

27 conductivity than the surrounding material. A recent groundwater investigation performed for

28 WVA calculated the hydraulic conductivity of this material to be 1.71 m/d (5.6 ft/d) and 2.65 m/d

29 (8.7 ft/d) (TVA 201 Ob).

30 WVA developed a water table map for the WBN site in January 1972 that showed the water table

31 conformed fairly closely to surface topography before site construction (WVA 2009b). The water

32 table elevation in the vicinity of the reactor locations was approximately 219 m (720 ft) above

33 msl (FSAR Figure 2.4-105). A recent water table map of the site indicates the construction of

34 WBN Units 1 and 2 and operation of Unit 1 has modified the water table (Figure 2-3). Water

35 levels in the vicinity of the power block and turbine building are approximately 216 m (710 ft)

36 above msl as a result of dewatering through a French drain surrounding the building.

September 2011 2-7 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

Legend:

............ French Drain

...... Groundwater Flow Divide Water Table Map

M Surface Water Body

- Water Table Contour Line (ft above msl)

WBN = Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

Feet

0 230 460 920 1,380 1,840 1

2

3

(To convert feet [ft] to meters [m], multiply by 0.3048 m/ft)

Figure 2-3. Water Table Map for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (TVA 201 Ob)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-8 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Water levels near the YHP approach the level of the pond (approximately 213 m [700 ft] above

2 msl). A groundwater divide exists between these two features with a water table elevation of

3 approximately 218 m (715 ft) above msl. Water levels drop toward the shore of the Tennessee

4 River/Chickamauga Reservoir at an approximate elevation of 206 m (676 ft above msl) (TVA

5 2010b).

6 In 1972, the groundwater gradient between the plant site and Chickamauga Reservoir at

7 maximum water-table elevation and minimum river stage measured about 13 m (44 ft) in 980 m

8 (3,200 ft) (TVA 2009b). The recent groundwater study performed for TVA indicates the average

9 gradient for the study period (1996 to 2003) was 0.018 resulting in a groundwater travel time of

10 approximately 9 years from the reactor units to the river (TVA 201 Ob).

11 2.2.2 Water Use

12 The following sections describe consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of surface water and

13 groundwater at the WBN site. Consumptive water use reduces the available water supply. For

14 instance, evaporation due to cooling-tower operation results in a transfer of water from the

15 cooling system to the atmosphere, thereby reducing the volume of water in the cooling system.

16 However, nonconsumptive water use does not reduce the available water supply. Water

17 discharged back into the river is not consumed by the plant. For example, water used to rinse

18 impinged fish off the intake screens does not change the water supply because the same

19 volume of water pumped from the reservoir eventually returns to the reservoir.

20 2.2.2.1 Regional Water Use

21 Surface Water

22 The 1995 SFES-OL-1 updated information about downstream water users from the 1978 Final

23 Environmental Statement related to the operating license for WBN Units 1 and 2 (1978 FES-OL)

24 by identifying users of both public and industrial water supplies within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant.

25 TVA updated the information in 2010, indicating that a number of water users have ceased

26 withdrawal and several have changed names (TVA 2010a).

27 Table 2-3 lists current water users downstream of the plant. There are no water users between

28 the WBN plant and the Watts Bar Dam. Examples of nonconsumptive uses of water in the

29 Tennessee River include power production, transporting materials on the commercial waterway,

30 recreation, and wildlife habitat protection and restoration (TVA 2004a).

31 TVA and the U.S. Geological Survey have extensively studied water use in the Tennessee

32 Valley (Hutson et al. 2004a; Bohac and McCall 2008). WVA uses this information to inform its

33 policies and practices for operating the reservoirs (TVA 2004a). The 2008 TVA report (Bohac

34 and McCall 2008) indicates that consumptive use of water in the Tennessee River system in

35 2005 totaled 1,640 million L/d (432 MGD) for irrigation, public water supply, and industrial and

36 thermoelectric uses. Consumptive use within the Watts Bar-Chickamauga reservoir area for

37 2005 totaled 153 million L/d (40.40 MGD) (TVA 2005a).

September 2011 2-9 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1

2

Table 2-3. Downstream Water Users Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the WBN Plant and

Selected Users Located Further Downstream

Water User

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

Dayton, Tennessee

Soddy-Daisy Falling Water Utility District

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

East Side Utility

U.S. Army Volunteer Ammunition Plant

Chickamauga Dam

Invista-DuPont Company

Tennessee-American Water

BUZZI UNICEM USA

Raccoon Mountain Pump Storage

Signal Mountain Cement

Nickajack Dam

South Pittsburgh, Tennessee

Bridgeport, Alabama

Widows Creek Steam Plant

Smurfit Stone Corporation

Source: TVA 2010a

(a) Right bank looking downriver

(b) Left bank lookina down river

Location

TRM 528.8R a,

TRM 503.8R

TRM 487.2R, Soddy Creek 4.0

TRM 483.6R

TRM 473.0

TRM 473.0LI8 I

TRM 471.0

TRM 469.9R

TRM 465.3L

TRM 454.2R

TRM 444.7L

TRM 433.3R

TRM 424.7

TRM 418.OR

TRM 413.6R

TRM 407.7R

TRM 405.2R

3 Groundwater

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Groundwater reportedly supplies 1.5 percent of water used within the Tennessee River Valley

(Bohac and McCall 2008). TVA does not pump groundwater for use at the site, although

approximately 9.8 x 108 L/yr (2.6 x 108 gal/yr) are removed from the surficial aquifer through the

French drain that surrounds the power blocks for the two reactor units at the site (TVA 2010a).

The shallow aquifer on the WBN site is hydraulically isolated from surrounding water users by

Yellow Creek and Chickamauga Reservoir to the west, south, and east. It is also hydraulically

isolated to the north by the relatively impermeable Rome Formation underlying the site (TVA

2009b).

Table 2.4-10 in the FSAR (TVA 2009b) identifies groundwater users within a 3.2-km (2-mi)

radius of the WBN site. Results from a 1972 TVA survey provided in this table identified

89 wells, 58 of which had pumps (TVA 2009b). The survey also identified two springs equipped

with pumps. TVA estimated total groundwater consumption within the surveyed area to be less

than 630 L/s (10,000 gpm) from these wells and springs (TVA 2009b).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-10 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 TVA identified five water supplies within 32 km (20 mi) of the WBN site currently relying on

2 groundwater (TVA 2009c). Table 2-4 lists the users, current withdrawal rates, and distance from

3 the WBN site. As discussed above, these users are all farther than 3.2 km (2 mi) from the site.

4 Table 2-4. Groundwater Users, Current Withdrawal Rates, and Distance from the WBN Site

2005 Annual Withdrawal Radial Distance from the

Groundwater User million L/d (MGD) WBN Site km (mi)

Watts Bar Utility District 2.6 (0.7) 6.4 (4)

Decatur Water Department 2.6 (0.7) 6.4 (4)

Athens Utility Board 3.8 (1.0) 23.8 (14.8)

Graysville Water Department 0.8 (0.2) 29.8 (18.5)

Laurelbrook School 0.11 (0.03) 32.5 (20.2)

Source: TVA 2009c

5 2.2.3 Water Quality

6 2.2.3.1 Surface-Water Quality

7 The 1978 FES-OL summarizes water quality in the Tennessee River near the WBN site (NRC

8 1978). The quality of the water is generally good, with total dissolved solids ranging from 60 to

9 180 mg/L. In response to Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) for this environmental

10 review, TVA provided analyses performed between January 2006 and December 2008. The

11 results fall within the range previously observed (TVA 2009c).

12 Under the authority of the Clean Water Act, the Tennessee Department of Environment and

13 Conservation (TDEC) identifies streams and lakes in the state whose desired water use is

14 limited in some way due to water quality or that are expected to exceed water quality standards

15 in the next 2 years and need additional pollution controls. The identified water bodies are

16 identified on a list published by the State that is commonly known as the 303d list. The

17 Hiwassee River embayment of Chickamauga Reservoir is identified as having an impaired use

18 for fish consumption because of mercury. Watts Bar Reservoir is identified as having an

19 impaired use for fish consumption because of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (TDEC201 Oa).

20 Portions of the reservoir are also identified as impaired for fish consumption due to mercury and

21 chlordane. The Emory River Arm of the reservoir is on the 303d list for arsenic, coal ash

22 deposits, and aluminum, as well as mercury, PCBs, and chlordane (TDEC 2010a). The Emory

23 River Arm was the area of the reservoir most affected by the ash spill that occurred at the

24 Kingston Fossil Plant.

25 Concerns aired during the scoping process for this SFES related to the impact of the ash spill

26 that occurred at the Kingston Fossil Plant upstream of the WBN site (Appendix D). On

27 December 22, 2008, a retaining wall for a coal ash holding pond failed at the Kingston Fossil

September 2011 2-11 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Plant, a coal-fired electrical generating plant operated by TVA. As a result, more than

2 4.1 million m3 (5.4 million yd 3) of coal ash spilled from the holding pond. Ash spilled into the

3 Emory River, a tributary of the Tennessee River upstream of the WBN site. The Emory River

4 flows into the Clinch River, which enters the Tennessee River (Watts Bar Reservoir) at

5 TRM 567. This is 63 km (39 mi) upstream of the WBN site. The TDEC has been monitoring

6 water quality in the Emory River near the site of the spill (TDEC 2010b).

7 In the early days of monitoring the spill, contaminants that violated Tennessee water-quality

8 criteria for protection of either human health or fish and aquatic life included thallium, arsenic,

9 lead, aluminum, iron, copper, mercury, and cadmium. A summary of results for February and

10 March 2009 for these contaminants in the Emory River indicates concentrations had dropped

11 below applicable water-quality standards (TDEC 2009a). Recent analyses confirm that

12 concentrations of these metals remain below water-quality standards in the Emory River

13 (TDEC 2010c). Concentrations of contaminants from the Kingston ash spill are expected to be

14 further diminished by the time water reaches the WBN site due to dilution in the Tennessee

15 River.

16 2.2.3.2 Groundwater Quality

17 Because groundwater is not used on the WBN site, the main water-quality interest is tritium in

18 groundwater due to past operations at the site. TVA summarized recent information on tritium

19 in groundwater at the WBN site in its Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2008a). TVA stated that,

20 in August 2002, it detected tritium in one of the onsite environmental monitoring locations just at

21 the detectable level. As a result, in December 2002, TVA modified its radiological

22 environmental monitoring program (REMP) and installed four new environmental monitoring

23 wells on the site. TVA reports results from the new wells and existing monitoring locations

24 annually to the NRC and the State of Tennessee in its WBN Annual Radiological Environmental

25 Operating Reports. In addition to the six REMP monitoring wells, TVA has added 19 non-REMP

26 monitoring wells to track the onsite groundwater plume to indicate the presence or increase of

27 radioactivity in the groundwater (WVA 2011 a).

28 TVA reported in the ER that samples taken from groundwater wells from January 2003 through

29 December 2004 showed low levels of tritium in three of the four monitoring locations. In

30 response, WVA made numerous modifications to Unit 1 to stop tritium leakage. In addition, TVA

31 sealed the fuel transfer tube for Unit 2 and coated the fuel transfer canal. WVA completed these

32 modifications by November 2005 (TVA 2008a).

33 Results from two of the four new wells, sampled in February 2005 and June 2005, showed

34 tritium levels greater than the NRC reporting level of 1,100 becquerels per liter [Bq/L]

35 (30,000 picocuries per liter [pCi/L]). Further inspections of underground radioactive effluent

36 piping revealed no leakage. WVA determined that the increased tritium levels resulted from a

37 previous effluent piping leak at Unit 1, which had been repaired. The highest concentration of

38 tritium detected in 2005 was approximately 20,400 Bq/L (550,000 pCi/L) (TVA 2008a).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-12 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Maximum tritium concentrations observed in groundwater samples in 2010 were 106 Bq/L (2860

2 pCi/L) (TVA 2011 b). Current concentrations in groundwater are well below the NRC reporting

3 level of 1,100 Bq/L (30,000 pCi/L). No other groundwater quality impacts from past operations

4 at the site have been identified and tritium concentrations in offsite groundwater wells have not

5 been affected by site operations (TVA 2011 b).

6 Additional information about the REMP and groundwater monitoring can be found in Section 2.6

7 of this document.

8 2.3 Ecology

9 Understanding WBN site ecology plays an important role in assessing the impacts of operating

10 and maintaining proposed Unit 2 on the surrounding environment. Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2

11 provide general descriptions of terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic environments on and in the

12 vicinity of the WBN site.

13 2.3.1 Terrestrial Resources

14 This section identifies terrestrial ecological resources and describes species composition and

15 other structural and functional attributes of biotic assemblages that could be affected by the

16 operation and maintenance of WBN Unit 2. It also identifies important terrestrial resources, as

17 defined in NRC guidance (NRC 1999, 2000), such as wildlife sanctuaries and natural areas the

18 proposed action might affect.

19 2.3.1.1 Terrestrial Communities of the Site

20 The WBN site lies within the Appalachian Valley and Ridge physiographic province (TVA 1995),

21 distinguished by the parallel ridges separated by valley floors that extend from New York to

22 Alabama (USGS 2002). Historically, forest occupied about 65 percent of the landscape. Oak23 hickory represents the principal forest type in the region, with oak-gum forest also present (TVA

24 1972, 2007a). Softwood forest such as yellow pine (Pinus spp.), hardwood, and Virginia pine

25 also are present (TVA 1972). Sumac shrub communities, old-field vegetation, horseweed

26 (Conyza canadesis), and fescue (Festuca spp.) meadow grow in disturbed areas (TVA 2007a).

27 In the early 1970s, agriculture occupied an additional 10 percent of the regional landscape (TVA

28 1972). Currently, deciduous forest is the predominant landcover on the WBN site (Table 2-5).

29 Figure 2-4 provides landcover information for the WBN site. About 91 ha (225 ac) of the site

30 are occupied by facilities. About 115 ha (284 ac) of previously disturbed land around the WBN

31 facilities now supports old field vegetation, represented by poorly and minimally maintained

32 grass habitats shown in Figure 2-5.

September 2011 2-13 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-5. Current Landcover Amounts of the WBN Site

Landcover Area % of WBN Site

Facilities 91.1 ha (225.3 ac) 22

Deciduous forest 133.5 ha (330.0 ac) 31

Coniferous forest 14.2 ha (35.2 ac) 3

Lawn/landscaping 5.7 ha (14.4 ac) 1

Old field 115.3 ha (284.8 ac) 27

Shrub scrub 34.6 ha (85.5 ac) 8

Wetlands 15.7 ha (38.8 ac) 4

Water 16.9 ha (41.7 ac) . 4

Total 427.2 ha (1055.6 ac) 100

Source: TVA 2010a.

2 Numerous wetlands and streams are present on the WBN site, and wetlands occupy almost

3 16 ha (40 ac) (Figure 2-5). Five minor stream systems of varying size are present. Open water

4 exists in engineered and industrial ponds.

5 Invasive species, including Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese

6 honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Russian olive

7 (Elaeagnus angustifolia) have become established on the WBN site (TVA 2007a). TVA also

8 observed autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) on the

9 site, and mentioned that other common invasive plants including kudzu (Pueraria montana var.

10 lobata), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), princess-tree (Paulownia tomentosa), and the tree-of11 heaven (Ailanthus altissima) may also be present (TVA 2010a). Animal communities are typical

12 of the region and populations appear locally abundant in the expected habitats.

13 2.3.1.2 Important Species and Habitat

14 NRC guidance defines important species as rare, economically or recreationally valuable,

15 essential to the maintenance of an important species, playing a critical role in the function of an

16 ecosystem, or serving as biological indicators for environmental change (NRC 1999, 2000).

17 Further, NRC guidance defines rare species as one of the following: listed as threatened or

18 endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Title 50 of the Code of Federal

19 Regulations (CFR) 17.11 or 50 CFR 17.12; proposed for listing as threatened or endangered;

20 published in the Federal Register as a candidate for listing; or listed as threatened, endangered,

21 or other species of concern status by the State in which the proposed facility is located (NRC

22 1999, 2000).

23

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-14 September 2011
(n,

CD

3

0-

CD

C?

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

November 7, 2009

M,ý Reactor Building

• 1j Related building/complex

C_ Cooling tower facility

Communication tower

(7] Miscellaneous use area

[s;1 Monitoring equipment

.1 Substation

Li Switchyard

Main access/auxiliary road ROW

Parking Lot (Paved)

Ii.-J Parking Lot (Unpaved)

(I"] Helicopter port

Cemetery

Active borrow area

Landfill

Disturbed area

Deciduous (2/3 or more of stand is deciduous)

Evergreen (2/3 or more of stand is evergreen)

I.. Well-maintained grass

Minimally-maintaned grass

Poorly-maintained grass

Railroad

Shrub and brush

Spillway

Water

Industial pond (excavated)

LL) Wetland

CD

0~

:3

z

m

_0

'a

(D3

CD

N

+

0 260 5We 1,eoe 1.500 2,000

............ ...... ........... .... . Feet

Trnn1 ..- Valityeutont

E&T -Elnlon. ,niaI et-..

eograehic in fleo & E& git• gnn

uate on map imagery: Novemberf, zeuu

1 Map compiled: January 14, 2010

2 (To convert feet [ft] to meters [m], multiply by 0.3048 m/ft)

3 Figure 2-4. Landcover Information for the Watts Bar Nuclear Site (TVA 201 Oa)
0

;• Watts

r'n

(0"

0,0

C T ovr et[t omtr mmlil y034 /t

CD• iue25 elnsadSrem dniidb -A('A21a

(D

N)

o)

Bar Nuclear Plant

ovember 7, 2009

jStreams and Wetlands

ore of map knogay: 09009bea 7, 2009 Map 090Pded: Ja-lay 14, 2010

N

2,50 50 +1.000 1.500 2.,0

0

CD

0. M

CD
Affected Environment

1 Terrestrial Species of Ecological Concern

2 Wildlife

3 In 1995, TVA counted 33 terrestrial genera (23 plants, 4 mammals, 3 birds, 2 arthropods,

4 1 lichen) that were Federally listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed to be listed as

5 endangered or threatened within the Tennessee River Basin (TVA 1995). However, the

6 Tennessee River Basin includes many species and habitats not present on the WBN site, in the

7 vicinity of the site, or near the transmission corridors. In 1994, the NRC identified two Federally

8 listed animal species known to occur on or near the WBN site or within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the

9 WBN transmission corridors (NRC 1995). The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is the only one still

10 listed at the time of this publication.

11 The gray bat species, listed as endangered by the FWS (41 FR 17736) and the State of

12 Tennessee, is limited to limestone karst areas within the southeastern United States (Brady

13 et al. 1982). Most gray bats winter within a few known caves and disperse during seasonal

14 migration to maternal caves for summer. This bat species possesses very specific microclimate

15 requirements and only uses caves that offer these conditions. Summer colonies occupy

16 traditional home ranges that include a maternal cave and several roost caves usually along a

17 water body. In 1982, three Tennessee caves served as major hibernacula for gray bats (Brady

18 et al. 1982). During summer, gray bats are known to roost in two caves within 8 km (5 mi) from

19 the WBN site (NRC 1995). Eves Cave, located approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) south of the site,

20 contained 385 gray bats in 2002. Almost 13 km (8 mi) northeast of the WBN site, Sensabaugh

21 Cave contained 340 gray bats during the same year (Harvey and Britzke 2002). Adult gray bats

22 feed on insects almost exclusively over water bodies (Brady et al. 1982), are known to forage

23 over and along the Tennessee River, and have been known to forage more than 19 km (12 mi)

24 from summer roost caves. Therefore, although no direct observations of gray bats foraging over

25 the Tennessee River immediately adjacent to the WBN site or under transmission lines that

26 service the site have been recorded, the staff concludes gray bats routinely forage at these

27 locations based on habitat preferences and the proximity of known active summer roost caves.

28 The 1978 FES-OL and subsequent documents discussed the bald eagle (Haliaeetus

29 /eucocephalus) as a Federally listed species on the WBN site (TVA 1995; NRC 1978). The

30 FWS delisted this species in 2007 (72 FR 37346) and it is no longer protected under the

31 Endangered Species Act. However, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act does protect the

32 bald eagle (16 USC 668-668c). Bald eagles also occur near the WBN site and TVA has

33 observed them nesting along the Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs with the nearest nest

34 located across the river and less than 1.6 km (1 mi) downstream from the WBN site (TVA

35 2010a). This nest was reported as active from 2000-2002, but was unoccupied during 2007.

36 The FWS considers a bald eagle nest site active for 5 years following the last year of

37 occupation. Two additional nests are located upstream along the Watts Bar Reservoir about 6.4

September 2011 2-17 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 and 8 km (4 and 5 mi) from the WBN site (TVA 2010a). The FWS has not designated critical

2 habitat in Rhea or Meigs counties for bald eagles.

3 In addition to the Federally listed gray bat, the State of Tennessee currently lists three wildlife

4 species known to occur in Rhea and Meigs counties as threatened or endangered (Table 2-6)

5 (TDEC 2009b). Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) is a bird native to the southeastern

6 United States that prefers open habitats and frequents utility ROWs (Dunning 2006). The Berry

7 Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus) is restricted to caves (Amphibia Web 2010) and is

8 not known to occur in Rhea County. The northern pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus

9 melanoleucus) prefers well-drained, sandy, upland pine and pine-oak forests (New Jersey

10 Division of Fish and Wildlife 2009). The osprey (Pandion haliaetus), which the State of

11 Tennessee previously listed as endangered, was observed at the WBN site (NRC 1995).

12 However, the State no longer lists osprey as endangered (TDEC 2009b).

13 Table 2-6. Rare Animal Species Listed by the State of Tennessee Known to Occur on the WBN

14 Site, Within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the Transmission Corridor or Within Rhea and Meigs

15 Counties, Tennessee

State Federal

Common Name Latin Name Status Status Location

Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Endangered None Transmission corridor

Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered LE Watts Bar vicinity and

transmission corridor

Berry Cave salamander Gyrinophilus gulolineatus Threatened None Meigs County only

Northern pinesnake Pituophis melanoleucus Threatened None Rhea County only

melanoleucus

Source: TDEC 2009b

LE = Listed Endangered.

16 The State of Tennessee also classifies additional species as being in need of management

17 (Table 2-7). This status is analogous to Special Concern and the State believes these species

18 should be investigated to determine management needs to sustain them. No other Federally or

19 State-listed animal species is known to occur on or immediately adjacent to WBN Units 1 and 2

20 or within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the transmission system that supports the WBN site.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-18 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-7. Animal Species Listed by the State of Tennessee as Being In Need of Management

2 Known to Occur Within Rhea and Meigs Counties, Tennessee

Federal

Common Name Latin Name State Status Status Location

Barn owl Tyto alba In need of management None Meigs County only

Bald eagle Haliaeetus In need of management None Watts Bar vicinity and

leucocephalus transmission corridor

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis In need of management None Meigs County only

Allegheny woodrat Neotoma magister In need of management None Rhea County only

Eastern small- Myotis leibli In need of management None Rhea County only

footed bat

Meadow jumping Zapus hudsonius In need of management None Rhea County only

mouse

Southern bog Synaptomys In need of management None Rhea County only

lemming cooped

Source: TDEC 2009b

3 In addition to listed or rare species, recreational species on the WBN site include white-tailed

4 deer (Odocoileus virginianus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallapavo), eastern cottontail rabbit

5 (Sylvilagus floridanus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and various

6 waterfowl (TWRA 2009). Ecologists consider white-tailed deer to be habitat generalists.

7 White-tailed deer populations benefit from landscape disturbances and thrive in edge habitats8 places where two or more distinct habitats meet, such as where the edge of a forest meets a

9 clearing (Cadenasso and Pickett 2000). Wild turkeys also prefer a mix of forest and open

10 habitats. The cottontail rabbit thrives in habitats created by fairly recent disturbance, including

11 old field, agricultural edges, and fescue patches (NatureServe 2009a). The opossum is also a

12 habitat generalist and adapts to thrive in many different habitat types (NatureServe 2009b). The

13 raccoon is also highly adaptable, but usually is associated with bottomland forests near streams

14 or rivers (NatureServe 2009c). Waterfowl usually occur in or near wetlands, streams, and

15 rivers.

16 Plants

17 No vascular plants listed Federally as threatened or endangered are known to occur on the

18 WBN site, within 8 km (5 mi) of the site, or within Rhea or Meigs counties. However, in 2003

19 TVA found 20 scattered populations of the large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria montana), a

20 Federally and Tennessee State-threatened species, at two locations in Hamilton County that lie

21 between 0.4 and 0.8 km (0.25 and 0.5 mi) of a transmission line that supports the WBN site

22 (TVA 2010a). This perennial herb is found on rocky, dry slopes, ravines, and stream bottoms

23 under mature deciduous forest (FWS 1991). Although listed as Federally endangered in 1986,

24 subsequent discovery of other populations resulted in the reclassification of this species as

25 threatened by the FWS (67 FR 1662).

September 2011 2-19 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 The State of Tennessee lists 12 other plants occurring in Rhea or Meigs counties as threatened

2 or endangered (TDEC 2009c). None of these species is known to occur on the WBN site or

3 within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the transmission system supporting the site. However, TVA identified

4 five State-threatened or endangered plant species within 8 km (5 mi) of the WBN site (TVA

5 2008a), four of which are still threatened or endangered. A population of Appalachian bugbane

6 (Cimicifuga rubrifolia) and a population of northern bush honeysuckle (Diervilla lonicera) were

7 last confirmed on a very steep slope along the Chickamauga Reservoir about 4.8 km (3 mi)

8 south of the WBN site in the early 1990s (TVA 201 Oa). A population of slender blazing-star

9 (Liatris cylindracea) occurs on an Andropogon spp. (bluegrass) barren about 5.6 km (3.5 mi) east

10 of the WBN site in Meigs County (TVA 201 Oa). The location of the prairie goldenrod (Solidago

11 ptarmicoides) population TVA listed in 2007 is unknown.

12 In addition to the State-listed species found in Rhea and Meigs counties within 8 km (5 mi) of

13 the WBN site, four State-listed species have been identified in the region that are known to

14 occur in open habitats and could become established within the transmission corridors (NRC

15 1995) (Table 2-8). The earleaf false-foxglove (Agalinis auriculata), tall larkspur (Delphinium

16 exaltatum), and prairie goldenrod are State-listed endangered; the false-foxglove and larkspur

17 are also Federal species of concern. The State lists mountain bush-honeysuckle (Diervilla

18 rivularis) as threatened, but like the goldenrod, it is not Federally listed. No populations of these

19 four species are known to grow within any of the transmission corridors, and the corridors do not

20 cross any known populations. However, habitat preferences indicate any or all of these species

21 could occur within maintained transmission corridors.

22 The State of Tennessee also classifies additional plants as being of special concern. None of

23 these occurs on the WBN site, but five occur either within 8 km (5 mi) of the WBN site or within

24 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of its transmission system. TVA reports that the previously State-threatened

25 spreading false-foxglove (Aureolaria patula) occurs within 8 km (5 mi) of the WBN site (TVA

26 2008a). Three populations of the spreading false-foxglove and one population of American

27 barberry (Berberis canadensis) occur along the Lower Little Tennessee River in Loudon County.

28 An individual heavy-fruited sedge (Carex gravida) grows within a Meigs County transmission

29 corridor, and a single swamp lousewort (Pedicularis lanceolata) population was identified about

30 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from a transmission line in Roane County (TVA 2010a).

31 The TVA 1972 FES-CP also discusses a spider lily (Hymenocallis occidentalis) as being a

32 Federally listed species (TVA 1972). TVA did not find this plant during field surveys it

33 conducted on the WBN site in 1978 and 1994, and the spider lily is not currently Federally or

34 State listed (NRC 1995).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-20 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-8.

2

3

Rare Plant Species Listed by the State of Tennessee and Known to Occur Within

8 km (5 mi) of the WBN Site or within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the WBN Transmission

System

Federal

Common Name Latin Name State Status Status Location

Earleaf falsefoxglove

Spreading falsefoxglove

Large-flowered

skullcap

Heavy-fruited

sedge

Appalachian

bugbane

American

barberry

Tall larkspur

Northern bushhoneysuckle

Mountain bushhoneysuckle

Swamp

lousewort

Slender blazingstar

Prairie goldenrod

Agalinis

(Tomanthera)

auriculata

Aureolaria patula

Scutellaria montana

Carex gravida

Cimicifuga rubifolia

Berberis canadensis

Delphinium

exaltatum

Diervilla lonicera

Diervilla sessilifolia

var. rivularis

Pedicularis

lanceolata

Liatris cylindracea

Endangered Species of

Concern

Could occur within

transmission corridor

Special Concern

Threatened

Special Concern

Threatened

Special Concern

Endangered

Threatened

Threatened

Special Concern

Threatened

Not Listed Transmission corridor,

Rhea and Meigs

counties, and the WBN

site 8-km (5-mi) radius

Threatened Hamilton County

transmission corridor

Not Listed The WBN site 8-km

(5-mi) radius and Meigs

County

Not Listed Transmission corridor

and the WBN site 8-km

(5-mi) radius

Not Listed Loudon County

transmission corridor

Species of Could occur within

Concern transmission corridor

Not Listed Transmission corridor,

Meigs County, and the

WBN site 8-km (5-mi)

radius

Not Listed Transmission corridor

Not Listed Roane County

transmission corridor

Not Listed Rhea and Meigs

counties and the WBN

site 8-km (5-mi) radius

Not Listed Transmission corridor,

Rhea County, and the

WBN site 8-km (5-mi)

radius

Solidago

ptarmicoides

Endangered

September 2011 2-21 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Habitats of Importance

2 The NRC deems habitat important if it meets one of four criteria and occurs on lands that may

3 be adversely affected by facility or transmission-line construction, operation, or maintenance.

4 Important habitat criteria include (1) set-aside lands, (2) habitats designated by State/Federal

5 governments to receive protection priority, (3) wetlands/floodplains, and (4) critical habitat

6 designated as such for species Federally listed as threatened or endangered (NRC 2000). The

7 following sections discuss these habitats located in the vicinity of the WBN site.

8 Set-Aside Lands

9 The Yuchi Wildlife Refuge at Smith Bend, Tennessee, is about 1.6 km (1 mi) southwest of the

10 WBN site (TWRA 2007). The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) manages this

11 957-ha (2,364-ac) waterfowl refuge, which provides about 400 ha (1,000 ac) of wetlands and

12 upland forest (TWRA 2009). Watts Bar Wildlife Management Area is located 2.7 km (1.7 mi)

13 north of the WBN site and across the Tennessee River in Roane County. This area comprises

14 numerous parcels totaling 1,570 ha (3,880 ac). Hunting of both big and small game is allowed.

15 The TWRA also manages Chickamauga State Wildlife Management Area, a series of parcels

16 totaling about 1,600 ha (4,000 ac). Some parcels lie 10 to 11 km (6 to 7 mi) southwest of the

17 WBN site. The State allows small game, deer, and waterfowl hunting.

18 State/Federal Priority Protection Habitats

19 There are no habitats on the WBN site that receive priority protection from the State of

20 Tennessee or the federal government.

21 Wetlands/FloodPlains

22 Wetlands are not prevalent within the WBN landscape (as a result of local geology) and only

23 total around 15.8 ha (39 ac) or about 4 percent of the WBN site land area (TVA 201 Oa).

24 Wetlands on the site are primarily associated with open water, including reservoirs of the

25 Tennessee River (TVA 2004a). Most lie in the western third of the site, are scrub-shrub or

26 emergent, and are found along streams (Figure 2-5). A 0.4-ha (1-ac) forested wetland exists

27 between a road and a rail line outside of the northeast corner of the Unit 2 footprint. This

28 wetland is associated with an unnamed stream and dominated by tag alder (Alnus serrulata),

29 sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and black willow (Salix nigra). Scattered emergent wetlands

30 are also present along the Tennessee River and within the ash disposal sites and containment

31 ponds in the southwest portion of the site (TVA 2007a). TVA manages water levels within the

32 Tennessee River by operating dams throughout the river system. A policy approved by the TVA

33 Board of Directors dictates surface-water elevations (TVA 2004a). TVA maintains the Watts Bar

34 Reservoir summer high-water pool from May through October at 1.2 m (4 ft) higher than the

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-22 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 winter low-water pool. At the Chickamauga Reservoir, the summer high water pool (May

2 through September) is maintained at 1.8 m (6 ft) higher than the low winter pool (TVA 2004a).

3 Critical Habitat

4 The FWS has not designated critical habitat for Federally listed species on the WBN site.

5 Other Important Habitat Features

6 TVA documents two additional habitat features deemed important to regional wildlife: rookeries

7 and caves. Rookeries are nesting locations for colonial water birds that are usually located very

8 near a water body. One great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery is located on the western

9 side of the WBN site adjacent to the horseshoe pond wetland area (TVA 201 Oa). This rookery

10 was active during the mid-1 980s, but its current activity status is unknown. TVA has

11 documented three additional great blue heron rookeries within 8 km (5 mi) of the WBN site. All

12 are located on the Watts Bar Reservoir upstream of the site, and nesting activity was noted as

13 recent as 2006 (TVA 2010a).

14 Caves provide unique habitats and often host important species. As discussed in the gray bat

15 section above, Eves Cave, located about 4 km (2.5 mi) south of the WBN site, is the only known

16 cave within 8 km (5 mi) of the WBN site. Sensabaugh Cave, another cave used by gray bats, is

17 northeast of the site and within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of a transmission line. Additional caves located

18 within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the WBN transmission system include Cooley Cave near the Watts Bar

19 Volunteer transmission line in Roane County and two unnamed caves within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of

20 the Sequoyah-Watts Bar transmission line in McMinn County. TVA also disclosed the location

21 of six other named and unnamed caves within 4.8 km (3 mi) of the WBN transmission system.

22 Wildlife Travel Corridors

23 The NRC requires discussion of potential impacts on wildlife corridors (NRC 1999, 2000). Many

24 species of wildlife use both natural and man-made features in the landscape to travel from one

25 environment to another, essentially a corridor. Mammals may use roads, trails, levees, streams,

26 strips of forest, or features such as ridge tops or valleys - depending on their habitat

27 preferences (Frey and Conover 2006; Atwood 2004; Spackman and Hughes 1994). Also,

28 waterfowl may use the Tennessee River as a travel corridor. Beyond these natural travel

29 corridors, no major wildlife travel corridors are known to exist on the WBN site, within 8 km

30 (5 mi) of the site, or within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the transmission system.

31 2.3.1.3 Ongoing Ecological and Biological Studies

32 There are no ongoing terrestrial ecological or biological studies at the WBN site.

September 2011 2-23 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 2.3.1.4 Offsite Transmission and Access Corridors

2 The transmission system that supports the WBN site includes six individual transmission lines

3 totaling 298 km (185 mi) (NRC 1978). The longest, the 142 km (88 mi) Watts Bar-Volunteer

4 line, is a 500-kV line TVA built through woodland, agriculture, and uncultivated open land (NRC

5 1978). Three other 500-kV lines support the WBN site: the 64-km- (40-mi-) long Watts Bar6 Rome line, 64-km- (40-mi-) long Watts Bar-Sequoyah No. 2 line, and the 16-kin- (10-mi-) long

7 Bull Run-Sequoyah loop into the WBN site. TVA also uses two additional 1.6-kin- (1-mi-) long

8 161 -kV lines (Watts Bar Hydro-Watts Bar Nuclear Nos. 1 and 2). These transmission corridors

9 occupy 1,465 ha (3,621 ac) of land area (NRC 1995).

10 2.3.2 Aquatic Ecology

11 The 1972 FES-CP describes the characteristics of the WBN site's aquatic environment and

12 biota based on site-specific data and general knowledge of the Tennessee River tailrace

13 habitats and their associated aquatic biota (TVA 1972). The NRC 1978 FES-OL evaluates

14 supplemental information from preoperational monitoring programs conducted in the years

15 between the two reports (NRC 1978). In April 1995, the NRC updated the 1978 FES-OL to

16 support the operation of Unit 1. The updated information included results of a report detailing

17 preoperational monitoring efforts and results from 1973 to 1985, which was published in 1986

18 (TVA 1986). The 1995 SFES-OL-1 also discussed and analyzed changes that had occurred

19 either in the aquatic biota or the aquatic habitat within the vicinity of the WBN site (NRC 1995).

20 The following sections update background information about aquatic ecology since publication

21 of the 1978 FES-OL and expand the discussion of specific areas, such as the Watts Bar

22 Reservoir, to evaluate environmental changes that may occur because of the use of the

23 Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water (SCCW) system. The sections also include the results

24 of monitoring studies of the aquatic ecology of the Tennessee River in the vicinity of the WBN

25 site, including freshwater mussels and fish.

26 2.3.2.1 Aquatic Communities in the Vicinity of the WBN Site

27 Onsite Ponds and Streams

28 Aquatic communities in the vicinity of the WBN site include onsite ponds and streams and the

29 Tennessee River. Previous information related to the aquatic ecology of onsite ponds and

30 streams is still valid. TVA does not plan to disturb forested wetland areas (TVA 1998a).

31 TVA retains the ability to use the emergency overflow of the plant YHP (Outfall 102, which

32 discharges to a local stream channel at TRM 527.2). However, historically, the WBN plant has

33 released water from Outfall 102 only a few times since Unit 1 started operating. Outfall 102 was

34 used during maintenance operations for Outfall 101 and once during an ice storm (TVA 2008a;

35 PNNL 2009).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2 -24 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Tennessee River

2 The Tennessee River drains an area of approximately 105,000 km 2 (40,540 mi2) in portions of

3 Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. A series of

4 impoundments TVA constructed from the late 1930s to the 1960s altered the character of the

5 Tennessee River. TVA impounded Chickamauga Reservoir, where the WBN site is located, in

6 1940 and Watts Bar Reservoir, immediately above the site, in 1942 (NRC 1995). Although

7 impoundment has changed much of the environment from riverine to lacustrine (lake-like),

8 riverine qualities still exist in the upper reaches of some reservoirs where water flows through a

9 dam from one reservoir to another.

10 The WBN site is located in an area of the Chickamauga Reservoir approximately 1.6 km (1 mi)

11 downstream of Watts Bar Dam where the inflow from the dam creates an environment with a

12 faster river flow than occurs farther downstream. Even so, the impoundments have altered the

13 dynamics of river flow even at this location. For example, spring floods that once occurred

14 along the river no longer occur, and the expansive rocky or gravel shoal areas that once

15 abounded in the Tennessee River no longer exist (Etnier and Starnes 1993). In addition,

16 changes in water depth, temperature, reductions in the amount of dissolved oxygen, and

17 increased sedimentation are all factors that accompany the placement of dams. These changes

18 have affected or are continuing to affect the organisms in the river and result in detectable

19 changes to the aquatic ecosystem.

20 The assemblage of organisms living in the river changed in response to the impoundments.

21 According to Parmalee and Bogan (1998), a total of 11 species of the unionid mussel genus

22 Epioblasma, which inhabited the shoal and riffle areas in the Tennessee River and its

23 tributaries, are now extinct. Parmalee and Bogan attribute this to either the direct or indirect

24 result of impoundment. As Neves and Angermier (1990) reported, obligatory river species

25 typically do not survive in reservoirs. Further, they reported that, even though fish sampling on

26 the Tennessee River was not extensive in the years before construction of the dams began (late

27 1930s), enough surveys were conducted to allow the documentation of the adverse effect that

28 impoundment had on native fish species. For example, fish surveys reported in 1968, that were

29 conducted before and after the impoundment of Melton Hill Reservoir showed a shift in the

30 fauna. Those species requiring shoal and riffle habitats were no longer present in the post31 impoundment surveys. The Melton Hill Reservoir is located upstream of Watts Bar Dam on the

32 Clinch River in East Tennessee.

33 The impoundments created good reservoir fisheries for sport and commercial fishermen. This,

34 in turn, changed the character of the aquatic biota. According to Etnier and Starnes (1993),

35 resource managers and others, whether purposely or accidentally, have introduced other

36 species (including nuisance species) into the system. Nuisance species are those non-native

37 species whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm.

38 These introduced species include Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), spiny leaf

September 2011 2-25 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 naiad (Najas minor), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha),

2 Asiatic clams (Corbicula fluminea), and a variety of fish species. These species and their

3 potential effect on the native aquatic biota are discussed in further detail later in this section.

4 Aquatic biota, particularly those in the Watts Bar Reservoir, also may have been affected by

5 chemical contamination from a coal ash fly spill at the Kingston Fossil Plant located on the

6 Emory River. Other chemical contaminants in the Watts Bar Reservoir include PCBs, metals,

7 mercury, organic compounds, and radionuclides from other facilities including the U.S.

8 Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory located on Clinch River upstream of

9 Watts Bar Reservoir (ATSDR 2010). Section 4.14.6 contains a discussion of the cumulative

10 impacts of the operation of other facilities on the aquatic ecosystem.

11 A description of the aquatic organisms in the Watts Bar Reservoir forebay and the Chickamauga

12 Reservoir inflow that could potentially be affected by operations of WBN Unit 2, follows.

13 Figure 2-6 illustrates a typical food web for this location.

14 Zooplankton and Phytoplankton

15 Plankton are small plants or animals that float, drift, or weakly swim in the water column of any

16 body of water (EPA 2010). There are two main categories of plankton; phytoplankton and

17 zooplankton. Plankton, also known as "microscopic algae," contain chlorophyll and require

18 sunlight to live and grow. Zooplankton, are small microscopic animals, mainly invertebrates

.19 (animals that are lacking a true vertebrate or backbone). In a balanced ecosystem,

20 phytoplankton and zooplankton form the basis of the food chains and play key ecosystem roles

21 in the distribution, transfer, and recycling of nutrients and minerals.

22 TVA conducted phytoplankton and zooplankton sampling quarterly at seven stations from

23 February 1973 through November 1977. After publication of the 1978 FES-OL, TVA conducted

24 further phytoplankton and zooplankton sampling from May 1982 through November 1985 as

25 indicated in the 1995 SFES-OL-1. As reported in the 1995 SFES-OL-1, sampling results

26 indicated that the well-mixed, relatively fast-flowing riverine portion of the Chickamauga

27 Reservoir that occurs near the WBN site prevented phytoplankton from obtaining enough light to

28 photosynthesize and did not provide adequate residence time for phytoplankton to grow and

29 reproduce. Thus, TVA determined that if operational impacts on the phytoplankton community

30 occur, they would not be apparent. The results also indicated that the highest densities of

31 zooplankton typically occurred in the Watts Bar Reservoir forebay and substantially decreased

32 in the swiftly flowing section of the Chickamauga Reservoir near the WBN site and several miles

33 downstream (TVA 1986). Because the Watts Bar Dam still influences the flow of water in the

34 Tennessee River past the WBN site, these observations are still valid today.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-26 September 2011
Affected Environment

Watts Bar Reservoir Forebay Chici

Sports fish

(bass, crappie, sauger)

Forage Fish

(e.g. shad)

Plankton including phytoplankton and / zooplankton (originating largely in Watts B.r reservoir)

(aquatic plants) -- Lo-Chickamauga

transported to, Reservoir

Catfish and suckers

kamauga Reservoir Inflow

Sports fish

(bass, crappie, sauger)

Forage Fish

(e.g. shad)

Freshwater

eIs and

cia ms

Cafs/n

Benthic macroinvertebrates

Dominated by oligochaetes (segmented worms) and

chironomids (caddis flies)

Benthic macroinvertebrates

including bivalves, snails, isopods, chironomids,

planarians, segmented worms etc.

1

2 Figure 2-6. Foodweb for Watts Bar Reservoir Forebay and Chickamauga Reservoir Inflow

3 Periphyton

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Periphyton are organisms that grow on underwater surfaces. They can include algae, bacteria,

fungi, and other organisms. Periphyton plays an important ecological role as a food source for

invertebrates, frog larvae (commonly called "tadpoles"), and some types of fish (Lee 2005).

TVA described periphyton sampling in its preoperational monitoring reports, as discussed in the

1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1995). In general, the sampling results indicated that the periphyton

community structure appeared to be more similar in the three stations closest to the WBN site

and Watts Bar Dam (TRMs 529.5, 528.0, and 527.4) than in the lower stations (TRMs 496.5,

516, and 518). Overall, the communities among the stations comprised similar genera, but they

differed in abundance (TVA 1986). TVA has not conducted additional periphyton studies at the

WBN site since Unit 1 began operating.

14 Aquatic Macrophytes

15

16

17

18

19

20

Aquatic macrophytes are vascular aquatic plants (plants with true stems, roots, and leaves),

mosses, and in some cases large algae. TWRA (2008) reported that introduced or non-native

species of aquatic macrophytes make up the most abundant aquatic plant species. The most

abundant species include exotic or non-native species such as Eurasian watermilfoil, spiny leaf

naiad, and hydrilla. In addition, alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), a vascular plant

that roots in bottom sediments, and Asian Spiderwort (Murdannia keisak) have been found in

September 2011 2-27 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Chickamauga Reservoir. Invasive aquatic plants provide benefits such as food and cover for

2 waterfowl, fish, and smaller organisms, and they reduce wave action, filter sediments

3 suspended in the water, add oxygen to the water, and help protect shorelines from erosion. The

4 plants also benefit the sport-fishing industry by making it easier for recreational and professional

5 anglers to catch fish, which in turn attracts more anglers. However, the plants conflict with

6 activities such as swimming, skiing, bank fishing, and boating, and they can clog intake screens,

7 decrease native plant diversity, and create mosquito habitat. Two additional invasive aquatic

8 plants that have moved into the Tennessee River system but have not been reported to affect

9 recreation are the Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) and the curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton

10 cripsus).

11 As NRC discusses in its 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1995), macrophytes were rare in the region of

12 the Chickamauga Reservoir near the WBN site. Macrophytes are still rare and have never

13 reached nuisance levels in this area (TVA 2008a) because the relatively shallow overbank

14 habitat that is suitable for macrophyte growth is not present. Because the WBN site is located

15 near the tailwater area of the reservoir where water velocity is higher, aquatic plants have

16 difficulty establishing dense growths, even during years of peak coverage in the rest of the

17 reservoir (NRC 1995). Peak aquatic plant coverage occurs in Chickamauga Reservoir in

18 shallow, overbank lacustrine (lake-like) habitat far downstream of the WBN site.

19 Benthic Macroinvertebrates Including Freshwater Mussels

20 Benthic macroinvertebrates are animals that live all or part of their life on or near the bottom of

21 streams or reservoirs. Invertebrates, as defined previously, are animals that do not have a true

22 backbone. Macroinvertebrates are animals that are large enough to see with the human eye.

23 Macroinvertebrates include animals such as flatworms, roundworms, leeches, crustaceans,

24 aquatic insects, snails, clams, and mussels. Benthic macroinvertebrates are an important food

25 source for other aquatic organisms, including fish. Researchers use studies of benthic

26 macroinvertebrate abundance and distribution to detect major environmental changes because

27 these animals do not migrate rapidly and generally do not make major changes in location.TVA

28 performed three sets of studies in the past and in recent years to monitor the presence of

29 benthic macroinvertebrates in the vicinity of the WBN site. The first set of studies monitored the

30 density of benthic macroinvertebrates prior to operation of WBN Unit 1 compared with the 2

31 years after the start of operations. The second set was a series of monitoring studies upstream

32 of the dam and in the vicinity of the WBN site. The third set of studies looked specifically at

33 freshwater mussels and clams in more detail. These studies are discussed in more detail in the

34 following paragraphs.

35 First, TVA (1998b) conducted both preoperational (1983 to 1985) and operational (1996 to

36 1997) studies for WBN Unit 1 and compared preoperational and operational results for each

37 individual sampling station. The results showed the total number of benthic macroinvertebrate

38 taxa collected in the inflow of the Chickamauga Reservoir increased from 59 recorded during

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-28 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 preoperational monitoring to 104 during operational monitoring. Densities of benthic

2 macroinvertebrates also increased considerably at all five stations after WBN Unit 1 began

3 operating. TVA indicated that the connection with the plant operation is not clear and that most

4 likely the density in organisms increased as a result of an aeration system installed in the

5 reservoir upstream of Watts Bar Dam in early summer 1996 to reduce stratification in the vicinity

6 of the dam. This in turn increased the dissolved oxygen levels in the water released through the

7 dam. During preoperational monitoring, three taxa, Asiatic clams; a trichopteran (caddis fly),

8 Cyrnellus fraternus; and oligochaeta (segmented worms) composed approximately 85 percent

9 of the total community. During operational monitoring, four taxa, Asiatic clams; a planarian,

10 Dugesia tigrina; an amphipod, Gammarus minus; and oligochaeta composed 87.5 percent of

11 the total community (TVA 1998b). Based on a comparison of species composition, occurrence,

12 and densities between the preoperational and operational monitoring periods, TVA (1998b)

13 concluded that the WBN site had no effect on the benthic macroinvertebrate community in

14 Chickamauga Reservoir immediately below the dam during the first 2 years of operation.

15 Second, TVA conducted studies between 1999 and 2008, collecting benthic macroinvertebrates

16 annually during autumn in the forebay (the deep water above or upstream of the dam) of the

17 Watts Bar Dam (TRM 533.3) and in the inflow of the Chickamauga Reservoir (TRM 527.4) as

18 part of its annual monitoring program (Simmons and Baxter 2009). A comparison of the data

19 obtained from the two sampling locations (Table 2-9) during the most recent sampling year

20 (2008) indicates a greater number of species at the downstream sampling location. In contrast,

21 the density of organisms at the upstream sampling location (above the dam) is nearly double

22 that at the downstream sampling location. Oligochaetes (earthworms) and chironomids (non23 biting midges) dominated the sampling area above the dam, which is expected because it is a

24 slower, deeper aquatic habitat compared to the more turbulent and faster moving habitat at the

25 near the WBN site (Simmons and Baxter 2009).

26 Third, TVA surveyed the mussel population in the vicinity of the WBN site from 1983 through

27 2010. As NRC discusses in the 1978 FES-OL and 1995 SFES-OL-1, the Tennessee River is

28 home to both introduced and native mussel and clam species. Approximately 130 of nearly

29 300 species of freshwater mussels in the United States live or are known to have lived in waters

30 within Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). However, stressors such as farming, strip

31 mining, industry, power dam construction, and commercial exploitation have greatly reduced

32 species distribution and abundance (Parmalee and Bogan 1998).

33 Mussels spend their entire juvenile and adult lives buried either partially or completely in the

34 substrate. Although mussels are able to change their position and location, they rarely move

35 more than a few hundred yards during their lifetime unless they are dislodged. Individuals from

36 some species of freshwater mussels are known to live for more than 100 years (Parmalee and

37 Bogan 1998). Native freshwater mussels have a unique reproductive cycle. Sperm are

38 released into the water and carried into the female mussel's body where they fertilize the eggs,

39 which have previously been discharged into tubes in the gills. The fertilized eggs develop into

September 2011 2-29 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

small larvae, called glochidia, which release into the water. If the glochidia do not encounter a

passing fish and attach to its gills, then they fall to the bottom and die a short time later. The

glochidia remain on the fish around 1 to 6 weeks and then fall off and begin their growth into

adulthood. Each mussel species has specific species of fish that serve as a host fish for the

glochidia (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). The survival of freshwater mussel species depends not

only on the environmental conditions for the mussel, but on the survival and health of the host

fish populations. Some species of freshwater mussel have been reported to be sexually mature

at 4 to 6 years of age (Jirka and Neves 1992), although age of sexual maturity is reported to be

8 to 10 years of age for other species of freshwater mussels (Downing et al. 1993).

Table 2-9. Average Mean Density per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream

and Downstream Sites near the WBN Site, Autumn 2008

Downstream TRM 527.4 Upstream TRM 533.3

Taxa (Chickamauga Reservoir) (Watts Bar Reservoir)

Tubellaria 47 --

Tricladida

Planariidae

Oligocheata 15 250

Oligochaetes

Hirudinea 23 --

Crustacea 3 20

Amphipoda

Isopoda 20 --

Insecta

Ephemeroptera

May flies other than Hexagenia 2 --

Chironomidae

Chironomids 7 70

Gastropoda 10 --

Snails

Bivalvia 35

Veneroida

Corbicula (510 mm)

Sphaeriidae 2 --

Fingernail clams

Dressenidae 23 --

Dreissena polymporpha

Density of organisms per square meters 187 320

Number of areas sampled 10 10

Total areas sampled (square meters) 0.6 0.6

Source: Simmons and Baxter 2009

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-30 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 The numbers of native mussels have been declining since the early 1940s when TVA filled the

2 Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs. As the NRC discusses in its 1995 SFES-OL-1,

3 ecologists believe a total of 64 freshwater mussel species occurred near the WBN site prior to

4 impoundment of the river, based on studies of shell midden material and evaluations conducted

5 before the impoundments were built (TVA 1986). Parmalee et al. (1982) studied aboriginal shell

6 middens in the Chickamauga Reservoir (TRM 495-528). The five most abundant species during

7 the Middle Woodland (A.D. 1) to Late Woodland Mississippian times (approximately 600 A.D. to

8 1600 A.D.) included the currently endangered dromedary pearly mussel (Dromus dromas),

9 spike mussel (Elliptio dilatatus), mucket (Actiononaias ligamentina), elephant ear (Elliptio

10 crassidens), and rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum). Together these species composed about

11 66 percent of the community surveys at 16 prehistoric aboriginal sites along the Chickamauga

12 Reservoir. In the 1995 SFES-OL-1, the NRC stated that the mussel species in the Watts Bar

13 tailwater have been in decline since impoundment of the Chickamauga and Watts Bar

14 reservoirs. Further, most specimens found in surveys conducted prior to the 1995 FES-OL-1

15 were adults 30 or more years old and in poor condition (i.e., emaciated soft parts and extreme

16 shell erosion) (NRC 1995). Watters (1999) points to impoundments, dredging, snagging, and

17 channelization as having long-term detrimental effects on freshwater mussels. The

18 impoundments result in silt accumulation, loss of shallow water habitat, stagnation,

19 accumulation of pollutants, and nutrient-poor water.

20 As a result of the loss of diversity in mussel species, the State of Tennessee created a

21 freshwater mussel sanctuary in the Chickamauga Reservoir in the vicinity of the WBN site. As

22 NRC stated in its 1995 SFES-OL-1, the State extended the freshwater mussel sanctuary, which

23 originally was 4.8 km (3 mi), from TRM 529.9 to 526.9, to 16 km (10 river mi) in which

24 harvesting mussels is illegal (from TRM 520.0 to 529.9) (TVA 1998a). Figure 2-7 shows the

25 extent of the freshwater mussel sanctuary, as well as the approximate locations of the mussel

26 beds and the locations of TVA's mussel sampling stations.

27 TVA has monitored three known concentrations of mussels (mussel beds) within this sanctuary

28 since 1983. The beds are all located on submerged gravel and cobble bars in water 2.7 to

29 6.4 m (9 to 21 ft) deep (TVA 2010b). The furthest downstream is located at TRM 520 to 521 on

30 the left descending bank of the river. This bed is 10 km (6 mi) downstream of the plant and on

31 the opposite side of the river. A second bed is roughly from TRM 526 to 527 on the right

32 descending bank, and the third from TRM 528 to 529 on the left descending bank (TVA 1998b,

33 2011c).

September 2011 2-31 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

Dam

Watts Bar

Watts Bar

TRM 526-527 R

528-529 L

North

0- Mussel Sampling Station

+ -River Mile Marker 0 1 2 mi

I ' 3 ' I I , , , I

o 1 3 5km

1 N 1

2 Figure 2-7. Mussel Beds (in gray) and Monitoring Stations (after TVA 1998b)

3 Although mussel abundance was sampled in 10 different years from 1983 to 2010, the data in

4 Table 2-10 shows the species identified in the years 1983, 1992, 1997, and 2010, as

5 representative years, with the mussel surveys in 1983 and 1992 occurring prior to operation of

6 WBN Unit 1 and the mussel surveys from 1997 and 2010 occurring after the start of WBN Unit 1

7 operation. Table 2-10 breaks out the data so that the differences between the mussel beds can

8 also be observed (TVA 1998b, 201 Ic). This provides information related to the potential

9 changes in mussel population size since operation of WBN Unit 1. The mussels in the two

10 downstream beds (see Figure 2-7) are located downstream of the discharge diffuser (the

11 submerged diffuser, which is Outfall 101) and the IPS intake. The upstream bed (TRM 528.2-

12 528.9) is located slightly downstream of the SCCW discharge (Outfall 112) but on the opposite

13 shore.

14 Table 2-11 shows the number of individual mussels and the number of species that were

15 identified in each of the preoperational (1983-1994), operational (1996-1997) and recent (2010)

16 surveys. Between 1983 and 1988 the number of individuals and species remained fairly

17 constant (991-1610 individuals; 18-22 species). In 1992 the number of individuals and species

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-32 September 2011
c,,

CD

CD

21

C)

Table 2-10. Results of 15 Native Mussel Surveys During 1983, 1992, 1997 and 2010 in the Vicinity of the Watts Bar

Nuclear Site

Native Mussel Common

Species Name

TRM 520.0-520.8 TRM 526.0-526.8 TRM 528.2-528.9 Total

1983 1992 1997 2010 1983 1992 1997 2010 1983 1992 1997 2010 1983 1992 1997 2010

C>

0

CD

CD:3

-0

,--3

Elliptio Elephant ear 414 110 123 247 132 42 109 172 208 272 257 115 754 424 489 534

N,

crassidens

Pleurobema Ohio pigtoe

cordatum

Cyclonaias Purple

tuberculata wartyback

Quadrula Pimpleback

pustuloso

Potamilus alatus Pink

heelsplitter

Ellipsana Butterfly

lineolata

Amblema plicata Threeridge

Obliquana Threehorn

reflexa wartyback

Leptodea fragilis Fragile

papershell

Quadrula Monkeyface

metanevra

Anodonta Giant floater

grandis

Lampsilis ovate Pocketbook

Ligumia recta Black

sandshell

Tntigonia Pistolgrip

verrucosa

Megalonaias Washboard

nervosa

Lampsilis Pink mucket

abrupta

90 26 28

45 44 31

32 14 9

6 6 2

15 8 5

1 2 0

1 1 1

0 0 0

8 2 0

0 1 0

2 0 0

3 2 0

0 2 0

0 1 0

0 0 0

17 109

49 18

16 45

13 7

6 8

0 15

1 12

2 1

2 4

0 14

0 0

0 1

0 5

0 2

0 1

27

12

16

5

3

6

4

0

3

4

0

0

7

3

2

18

3

6

6

1

4

2

2

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

73

21

51

15

20

1

5

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

65

25

22

1

1

2

1

0

2

4

1

2

1

0.

2

29

12

18

5

3

5

1

0

3

0

0

1

0

0

4

55

13

9

4

2

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

13

7

3

1

1

4

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

88

99

14

24

18

14

1

14

18

3

6

6

2

3

68

48

16

14

13

6

0

8

5

0

3

9

4

6

47

24

12

8

5

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

0

0

35 264 82 101 125

0)

z

6)

(0

C

3

CD
o>

Table 2-10. (contd)

z

Native Mussel Common TRM 520.0-520.8 TRM 526.0-526.8 TRM 528.2-528.9 Total rn

G) Species Name 1983 1992 1997 2010 1983 1992 1997 2010 1983 1992 1997 2010 1983 1992 1997 2010 _

C Actinonaias Mucket 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0

co ligamentina 3

Plethobasus Sheepnose 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

cyphyus

- Pleurobema Tennessee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 oviforme clubshell

(D

=3) Elliptio dilatata Spike 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 2

N) Fusconaia Longsolid 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1

subrotunda

Utterbackia Paper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

imbecillis pondshell

Cyprogenia Fanshell 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

stegana

Dromus dromas Dromedary 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

jpearly mussel

Pleurobema Rough pigtoe 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

plenum

Grand total 625 220 199 354 375 135 154 365 341 353 344 183 1341 708 697 902

From TVA 1998b, TVA 201 Oc and WVA 2011 c.

2

3

4

CDb0

CD3

(D

C)
Affected Environment

1

2

Table 2-11. Mussel Abundance and Numbers of Species Present in the Vicinity of the Watts

Bar Nuclear Plant from 1983 to 2010

Numbi

Year Individ

1983 (September) 1341

1983 (November) 1422

1984 (July) 1270

1984 (November) 1368

1985 (July/August) 1063

1985 (October) 1427

1986 (July) 1075

1986 (October) 1180

1988 (July) 1610

1990 (July) 991

1992 (Summer) 708

1994 (Summer) 880

1996 (July) 846

1997 (July) 697

2010 (September) 902

Source: TVA 1998b, TVA 2011c

er of

uals

Number of

Species

22

21

20

19

20

20

18

20

22

22

16

17

17

14

17

Federally

Threatened and

Endangered

Speciesllndividuals

4/7

3/9

2/8

2/3

3/3

1/7

1/6

1/2

1/12

1/4

1/6

1/2

1/4

0/0

1/1

Plant Status

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

preoperational

during WBN Unit 1 operations

during WBN Unit 1 6perations

during WBN Unit 1 operations

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

started dropping. The largest drop in the number of species and abundance of individuals was

observed in 1992, several years before the start of operations of WBN Unit 1, which occurred in

1995. However, the decline appears to have stabilized somewhat and the number of individuals

and species found in 2010 is similar to that found in 1992 and 1994, before the start of

operations at Unit 2. The surveys conducted in 2010 showed increased abundance for some

species compared with the operational surveys conducted in 1996 and 1997 across all of the

mussel beds, although the middle bed showed an increase for 11 species between 1997 and

2010, while the downstream bed showed an increase in the population size for 8 species and

the upstream bed for only 4 species. Considering the total number of mussels from all three

beds, the size of the elephant ear, Ohio pigtoe (Pleurobema cordatum), purple wartyback

(Cyclonaias tuberculata), pimpleback (Quadrula pustuloso), pink heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus),

butterfly (Ellipsaria lineolata), monkeyface (Quadrula metanevra), threehorn wartyback

(Obliquaria reflexa), and fragile papershell (Leptodea fragilis) mussel populations increased

since 1996-1997. The number of purple wartyback, pink heelsplitter and butterfly mussels

observed in 2010 is approaching or has exceeded the number observed during sampling in the

1980s (TVA 2011 c).

September 2011 2-35 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 The 2010 surveys found that 62 individuals from 7 species were less than 10 years old. This

2 information is indicative that mussels have reproduced in the last decade, during the time that

3 WBN Unit 1 was operating. These species included the purple wartyback, elephant ear, fragile

4 papershell, threehorn wartyback, pink heelsplitter, pimpleback, and paper pondshell

5 (Utterbackia imbecillis) (TVA 2011 c). These data lead to a different interpretation than in the

6 1995 FES-OL-1 (NRC 1995). The 1995 FES-OL-1 stated that "...no young or juvenile mussels

7 have been found during sampling since monitoring began in 1983. Although the reason for the

8 mussels' lack of recruitment is not known, it is reasonable to assume that impoundment of the

9 river and the resulting modifications to the riverine system are largely responsible." It now

10 appears that this statement is no longer valid and that some species of mussels are

11 reproducing, the young are surviving, and are likely also reproducing.

12 Possible causes of population fluctuations in mussel numbers and species include competition,

13 predation, and changes to the mussels' environment. Because mussels are long-lived, events

14 that occurred in previous decades, such as impoundment of the river, pollution, silting or

15 changes in fish host species or improvements, may have a negative effect on the population

16 structure. Other changes that were discussed in Section 2.2.1 may have have resulted in a

17 positive effect on the mussel populations. This includes the minimum flow requirements that

18 TVA instituted for the Watts Bar Dam or the installation of an aerator in the Watts Bar Reservoir

19 in 1996 to increase dissolved oxygen concentrations behind the dam and in the inflow to the

20 Chickamauga Reservoir.

21 An additional survey was conducted at TRM 529.2 in 1997 in the vicinity of the SCCW

22 discharge (TVA 1998a). One specimen of the pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), an endangered

23 species, was identified. In addition, TVA found live representatives of 13 native mussels. The

24 elephant ear, again the most abundant species, made up 57 percent of the total number of

25 individuals. Three other species (pink heelsplitter, pimpleback, and Ohio pigtoe) each

26 accounted for at least 5 percent of the total. Mussels were relatively scarce in this area and

27 appeared to be distributed evenly. The freshwater mussels that were in an area of 46 m by

28 46 m (150 ft by 150 ft) at the outlet to the SCCW system (23 m [75 ft] upstream and

29 downstream of the centerline of Outfall 113) were relocated before the startup of the SCCW.

30 (TVA 1999). TVA moved these mussels in an effort to prevent adverse effects from operation of

31 the SCCW system discharge.

32 In 2000, TVA established four experimental plots of freshwater mussels in a boulder field that is

33 approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) downstream from Watts Bar Dam. TVA undertook this action as a

34 result of the conditional site approval for the SCCW system outfall. The TDEC specified that

35 TVA should provide measures to enhance the available habitat for the mussel population by

36 submitting a habitat enhancement proposal. The experimental effort was designed to determine

37 if mussel habitat enhancement through relocation to an artificial boulder field would provide a

38 refuge from high flow events resulting from dam discharges. The result of that proposal was the

39 placement of mussels in a boulder field approximately 3.7 to 4.3 m (12 to 14 ft) deep and

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-36 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 approximately 50 m (164 ft) from the right (descending) shore. This location is along the right

2 (descending) margin of the navigation channel between the loading facility for the Watts Bar

3 Fossil Plant and the WBN intake channel. In 2010, TVA attempted to find the plots in the

4 boulder field (TVA 2011 c). Only two historic sampling stations were located. Divers looked for

5 mussels using two types of survey techniques. Five live mussels were found during a

6 20-minute sampling study throughout the boulder field. The mussels included one purple

7 wartyback, one pimpleback, one pink heelsplitter, and two threehorn wartybacks. Other

8 researchers have tried relocation of mussel species with mixed success (Parmalee and

9 Bogan 1998)

10 A large population of invasive, non-native, Asiatic clams and an increasing population of the

11 zebra mussel also inhabit the section of the Tennessee River near and downstream of the WBN

12 site. The Asiatic clam is in almost every river and reservoir in Tennessee. The Asiatic clam

13 competes with native bivalve species for food and habitat. Asiatic clams are known to cause

14 biofouling in power plant intakes and industrial water systems, which can result in a large

15 economic impact. Ecologists first found zebra mussels in 1995 at TRM 528.0 (adjacent to the

16 intake channel) (TVA 1998b). Zebra mussels also cause biofouling problems. In addition, they

17 can have large negative effects on the ecosystems, including reductions in the biomass of

18 phytoplankton and zooplankton, which can adversely affect planktivorous and larval fish (TWRA

19 2008). They also negatively affect freshwater mussels and are likely the cause of freshwater

20 mussel extirpation from Lake St. Clair (Schloesser et al. 2006). Asiatic clams were observed

21 during the mussel surveys conducted in 2010, but the numbers of specimens were not

22 recorded. No zebra mussels were encountered during the surveys.

23 Fish

24 The fish populations in the Tennessee River have changed considerably as a result of human25 initiated activities (e.g., impoundment of the river and introduction of invasive non-native

26 species). Etnier et al. (1979) and Neves and Angermeier (1990) both indicate that the

27 Tennessee River was poorly studied prior to impoundment, especially for small fish. In 1997

28 and 1978, Etnier et al. (1979) examined samples of over 49,000 fish specimens collected by

29 TVA field crews during 1937 to 1943, prior to impoundment of the river. Based on an analysis

30 of the specimens that were collected, and a comparison with more recent observations, Etnier

31 et al. (1979) stated that "many changes have occurred in the Tennessee River fish fauna

32 coincident with main channel impoundments," including the disappearance of species in

33 response to drastic alteration of the Tennessee River system. Fish extirpated from the

34 Tennessee River system include the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), the shovelnose

35 sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus), and the silvery minnow (Hybognathus nuchalis)

36 (Etnier et al. 1979).

37 TVA has conducted sampling studies to determine the populations of fish and ichthyoplankton

38 (fish eggs and larvae) in the Tennessee River in the vicinity of the WBN site. Sampling of fish

September 2011 2-37 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 populations, especially near the WBN site, has occurred fairly consistently over the past 40

2 years. Coves located downstream of the plant (TRM 504 to 509) were sampled using rotenone

3 in the early 1970s (1970, 1972, and 1973) (NRC 1978). Starting in 1977, the sampling was

4 conducted using electrofishing techniques. Because of the differences in rotenone sampling

5 and electrofishing, only the electrofishing results are used for comparison of the fish populations

6 during the years from 1977 to the present.

7 Two comparisons are made in the following paragraphs. First, the fish species and abundance

8 below the Watts Bar Dam and in the vicinity of the WBN site are compared to the fish species

9 and abundance above the Watts Bar Dam. As discussed further in Chapter 4, fish living above

10 the dam would not be affected by the discharge from WBN Unit 1, but they could be affected by

11 the movement of water into the SCCW intake. Fish below Watts Bar Dam could be affected by

12 the thermal and chemical discharge, as well as the use of the Intake Pumping Station located

13 below the dam. Second, a comparison of fish species and abundance below the Watts Bar

14 Dam is made for discrete periods of time beginning in 1977 and ending in 2007. This

15 comparison provides information about the potential change in species and population size over

16 time, and can be used to provide insight related to the potential effect of operation of WBN Unit

17 1 on the fish species in the Chickamauga Reservoir in the vicinity of the WBN site, as will

18 discussed in Chapter 4. Section 5.5.2 contains the detailed information on the sampling

19 techniques and locations of sampling studies.

20 Table 2-12 presents the electrofishing results for the years 1999 to 2007 at a location

21 downstream of the Watts Bar Dam (see Section 5.5.2 for a discussion of the sampling studies

22 during these years). This is new information that was not reported in the 1978 FES-OL or the

23 1995 SFES-OL-1. TVA identified 45 species (including the hybrid sunfish) from 10 different

24 families. Table 2-13 shows the results of electrofishing and gill netting upstream of the WBN

25 site (in Watts Bar Reservoir) for the same time period. The results yielded 46 species (including

26 the hybrid sunfish, hybrid shad, or hybrid bass) from the same 10 families. The bluegill

27 (Lepomis macrochirus), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), and redear sunfish (Lepomis

28 microlophus) tended to be consistently numerically dominant in the fish community below the

29 dam. In some years the threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) also was one of the numerically

30 dominant fish below the dam. Bluegill, gizzard shad, and redear sunfish were numerically

31 dominant in the fish community above the dam.

32 Table 2-14 provides a summary of the percent composition of the electrofishing catch from

33 preoperational (1977 to 1985) and operational periods (1996 to 1997 and 1999 to 2007) for

34 sampling sites below the Watts Bar Dam. The data from 1996 to 2007 is new information that

35 was not reported in the 1978 FES-OL or the 1995 SFES-OL-1. Section 5.5.2 describes the

36 sampling studies and provides the location of the studies. The sampling results show 43

37 species from 12 families for the 1977 to 1985 preoperational monitoring period; 40 species from

38 10 families for the 1990 to 1995 preoperational monitoring period; 36 species from 11 families

39 during the operational monitoring period (1996 to 1997); and 44 species from 10 families during

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-38 September 2011
(D

CD

C?)

Table 2-12. Electrofishing Downstream of the Watts Bar Dam for Years 1999 to 2007

Species Collected

Family Scientific Name

Atherinopsidae Labidesthes sicculus

Menidia beryllina

Catostomidae Moxostoma duquesnii

Moxostoma erythrurum

Hypentelium nigncans

Moxostoma cannatum

Moxostoma macrolepidotum

Minytrema melanops

Ictiobus bubalus

Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Lepomis macrochirus

Micropterus salmoides

Lepomis cyanellus

Hybrid Lepomis sp.

I.'.)

C),

(0

Common Name

Brook silverside

Inland silverside

Black redhorse

Golden redhorse

Northern hog sucker

River redhorse

Shorthead redhorse

Spotted sucker

Smallmouth buffalo

Black crappie

Bluegill

Largemouth bass

Green sunfish

Hybrid sunfish

Longear sunfish

Redbreast sunfish

Redear sunfish

Rock bass

Smallmouth bass

Spotted bass

Warmouth

White crappie

Gizzard shad

Threadfin shad

Percentage Composition of Fish Caught During Electrofishing

Downstream of the WBN Site (TRM 529)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0 0 3.4 1.6 0.19 0.53 0.10 1.6 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0

0.90 0 0.18 0.16 0.58 0 0.20 0.65 0.26

1.3 0.43 1.4 0.54 0.58 0.13 0.80 1.3 1.2

0.72 0.11 0 0.08 0 0 0.10 0 0.13

0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.6 0.54 1.1 0.62 0.39 0.27 0.80 0.32 0.65

0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0

0.72 4.7 0 1.4 1.3 1.5 2.6 0.54 0.52

9.3 39 30 19 34 5.9 18 27 52

1.4 5.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 4.3 3.0 1.7 2.2

0.90 0.43 2.0 0.31 0.29 0.33 3.0 0.32 0.39

0.18 0.22 0.18 0 0.19 0.07 0 0 0

0 0.98 0.36 0.62 0.29 2.1 4.6 2.7 1.2

1.1 1.7 2.7 1.5 0.68 1.3 2.9 2.1 2.8

11 15 25 17 5.9 4.3 8.5 9.0 7.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.13

0.54 2.1 0.36 1.2 0.97 1.7 2.5 1.1 0.52

2.0 3.8 2.8 2.4 2.3 3.3 5.6 3.5 3.9

0 0.98 0.18 0.39 0.10 0 0 0 0.78

0 0 0.18 0 0.10 0.40 0 0 0

8.3 9.9 7.8 11 17 50 31 29 14

47 2.9 0 29 26 13 5.6 0.11 0.13

(D

CL

0

M

(D

0

z

C)

(D

90C,,

Clupeidae tCD

3 2

CD

Lepomis megalotis

Lepomis auntus

Lepomis microlophus

Ambloplites rupestris

Micropterus dolomieu

Micropterus punctulatus

Lepomis gulosus

Pomoxis annularis

Dorosoma cepedianum

Dorosoma petenense
z

C:

70

9D

C:

(D

CD

I\)

Table 2-12. (contd)

Family

Cyprinidae

Species Collected

Scientific Name

Cypnnus carpio

Notropis athennoides

Pimephales notatus

Pimephales vigilax

Notemigonus crysoleucas

Cypnnella spiloptera

Cypdnella whipplei

Luxilus chrysocephalus

Campostoma oligolepis

Ictalurus furcatus

Ictalurus punctatus

Pylodictis ofivans

Table 2-12, (contd)

Percentage Composition of Fish Caught During Electrofishing

Downstream of the WBN Site (TRM 529)

Common Name 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Common carp 0.72 4.1 0.36 0.54 0.58 0.40 0.60 0.11 0.13

Emerald shiner 1.1 0.43 5.9 0.16 0.29 0.60 4.4 2.1 0.78

Bluntnose minnow 0.36 0 0.18 0 0.19 0.07 0 0 0

Bullhead minnow 0 0 0 0.47 0 0 0 0 0

Golden shiner 1.1 0.11 0.53 0.23 0.29 0.07 0.30 0 0.13

Spotfin shiner 1.6 2.5 5.5 2.2 1.1 0.73 0.40 4.8 3.5

Steelcolor shiner 0 0 0 0 0.39 0 0 0 0.13

Striped shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.20 0 0

Largescale stoneroller 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0

Blue catfish 0 0.11 2.0 0 0 0 0.20 0.11 0

Channel catfish 0.72 0.33 2.0 1.7 0.48 0.60 1.5 2.2 1.6

Flathead catfish 1.1 0.54 1.4 0.47 0.48 0.60 1.7 0.76 3.6

Longnose gar 0.36 0 0 0 0.29 1.2 0.10 0.22 0.13

Spotted gar 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.07 0 0.22 0

Striped bass 0 0.11 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.13

White bass 0.54 0.65 0.18 0.70 0.19 2.1 0 0 0

Yellow bass 1.1 3.7 0.18 2.7 1.6 1.7 1.3 0.86 0.90

Logperch 3.4 0 0.53 0 0.10 1.2 0.40 2.4 0.65

Sauger 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0.10 0 0 0 0

Freshwater drum 0.54 0.11 1.1 0.47 0.29 1.1 0.30 2.1 0.39

CD

0

CD

0.

m

0

3

Ictaluridae

0o

Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus

Lepisosteus oculatus

Moronidae Morone saxatilis

Morone chrysops

Morone mississippiensis

Percidae Percina caprodes

Sander canadensis

Sander vitreus

Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens

Adapted from Simmons and Baxter 2009

(1)

-0 2

CD

3 3

0D
(I)

CD

3

CD

(D

Table 2-13. Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream of the Watts Bar Dam for Years 1999 to 2007

Family Scientific Name

Atherinopsidae Labidesthes sicculus

Menidia beryllina

Catostomidae Ictiobus cyprinellus

Ictiobus niger

Moxostoma duquesnii

Moxostoma erythrurum

Hypentelium nigricans

Ictiobus bubalus

Minytrema melanops

Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Lepomis macrochirus

Lepomis cyanellus

Hybrid Lepomis sp.

Common Name

Brook silverside

Inland silverside

Bigmouth buffalo

Black buffalo

Black redhorse

Golden redhorse

Northern hog sucker

Smallmouth buffalo

Spotted sucker

Black crappie

Bluegill

Green sunfish

Hybrid sunfish

Largemouth bass

Longear sunfish

Redbreast sunfish

Redear sunfish

Smallmouth bass

Spotted bass

Warmouth

White crappie

Gizzard shad

Hybrid shad

Percentage Composition of Fish Caught During Gillnetting and

Electrofishing Upstream of the WBN Site

(in Watts Bar Reservoir at TRM 531.0)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0 2.3 1.62 0.61 6.6 3.1 3.9 0.21 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.97 3.3 0.84

0 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0.10 0 0.15 0.09 0.17 0.45 0.07 0.36

0 0.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.17 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0

1.0 0.38 0.35 1.2 1.1 0.87 0.22 0.49 1.1

0.33 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.1 0.96

0 0.86 4.2 4.0 1.2 1.1 4.0 2.2 5.3

7.8 32 31 39 40 32 40 34 34

0.33 2.0 0.92 1.1 1.5 0.95 2.6 1.7 0.60

0 0 0 0.46 0.09 0.61 0.15 0 0.24

2.3 2.7 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.3 1.6 2.4 5.5

0.17 0 0 0 0.19 0 0.37 0.42 0.12

1.2 3.4 4.2 2.1 1.7 4.9 1.9 5.8 0.96

3.0 4.21 6.5 5.5 4.7 3.7 2.6 3.8 3.7

0.83 1.6 0.81 1.2 1.2 2.3 0.97 0.76 0.48

0.17 1.5 0.35 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.15 0.21 0.48

0 0.29 0.12 0.61 0 0.43 0.60 0.21 0.24

0.66 1.9 0 0.30 0.09 0.26 0.30 0.35 0.48

47 18 13 13 18 32 15 27 27

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7

CD'

CDCL

0

CD

Z

z

m0

9o Clupeidae

"0(I)

3

CD

-',

Micropterus salmoides

Lepomis megalotis

Lepomis auritus

Lepomis microlophus

Micropterus dolomieu

Micropterus punctulatus

Lepomis gulosus

Pomoxis annularis

Dorosoma cepedianum

Hybrid Dorosoma
0

z

C

X

G)

CD)

3,

Table 2-13. (contd)

Percentage Composition of Fish Caught During Gillnetting and

Electrofishing Upstream of the WBN Site

(in Watts Bar Reservoir at TRM 531.0)

(D

CI

0~

0

23 Family Scientific Name

Alosa chrysochloris

Dorosoma petenense

Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus

Pimephales vigilax

Cypuinus carpio

Notropis athennoides

Notemigonus crysoleucas

Cypnnella spiloptera

Cypnnella whipplei

Luxilus chrysocephalus

Ictaluridae Ictalurus furcatus

Ictalurus punctatus

Pylodictis olivans

Common Name

Skipjack herring

Threadfin shad

Bluntnose minnow

Bullhead minnow

Common carp

Emerald shiner

Golden shiner

Spotfin shiner

Steelcolor shiner

Striped shiner

Blue catfish

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

1999 2000 2001 2002

2.2 0.48 0.23 0

2.8 0.10 0.35 0.15

0 0.86 0.35 0.30

0 0 0 0

3.2 1.91 1.2 1.5

1.0 0 0 0

0 0.48 0 0

1.0 6.3 11 0.91

0 0.10 3.6 0

0 0.10 0 0

6.1 0.77 0.58 1.7

1.8 0.96 1.3 0.91

1.5 2.0 1.3 4.3

0.17 0 0 0.46

0 0 0.23 0.15

0 0.29 0.12 0.46

0.5 0.38 0.46 0.76

1.7 0.19 0.81 2.9

7.5 10 8.2 6.4

0 0 0.46 0

0.33 0.38 0 0

0 0 0.58 0

4.8 2.2 2.0 2.1

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0.19 2.9 0.67 0.14 0.48

0.57 0.09 0.37 0.42 0.72

0.19 0 0.07 1.5 0.12

0 0 0 0 0.12

1.1 0.69 0.75 0.90 0.10

0 0.95 0.15 0 0

0.57 0 0.07 0 0

4.7 1.4 7.6 6.0 1.9

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0.28 0.26 0.30 0.14 0.36

0.95 0.87 0.90 0.35 0.72

2.0 0.69 2.1 1.0 2.5

0 0.09 0 0 0

0.19 0 0.37 0.14 0

0 0 0 0 0

0.66 0.26 0.22 0.14 1.1

0.76 1.6 1.3 2.2 0.48

5.1 0.52 5.7 1.8 5.5

0.19 0 0.22 0.49 0

0.09 0.09 0 0 0

0 0.43 0.07 0.21 0

0.57 1.0 1.1 0.49 0.96

Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar

Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar

Moronidae Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) Hybrid striped x white bass

Morone saxatilis Striped bass

Morone chrysops White bass

Morone mississippiensis Yellow bass

Percidae Percina caprodes

Sander canadensis

Perca flavescens

Logperch

Sauger

Yellow perch

Freshwater drum

C',

CD

(D

CD

Sciaenidae Aplodinotus gnjnniens

Adapted from Simmons and Baxter 2009
C,)

CD

-a

CD3

0*

CD

K')

0D

1

2

3

Table 2-14. Comparison by Species of Percent Composition of the Catch from Preoperational (1977-1985 and

1990-1995) and Operational (1996-1997) Monitoring Periods and Additional Operational Monitoring

Periods (1999-2007)

1999-2007

1975-1985 1990-1995 1996-1997 Operational

Preoperational Preoperational Operational (range for all

Family Scientific Name Common Name (a) (a) (a) years)(b)

Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel 0(c)

CD

0

C'D

am

3

CD

Atherinopsidae

Catostomidae

1'&

Labidesthes sicculus

Menidia beryllina

Carpiodes carpio

Moxostoma duquesnhi

Moxostoma erythrunim

Mosostoma cannatum

Moxostoma

macrolepidotum

Hypentelium nigncans

Ictiobus bubalus

Minytrema melanops

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Ambloplites rupestris

Lepomis macrochirus

Lepomis cyanellus

Hybrid Lepomis sp.

Micropterus salmoides

Lepomis megalotis

Lepomis auritus

Brook silverside

Inland silverside

River carpsucker

Black redhorse

Golden redhorse

River redhorse

Shorthead redhorse

Northern hog sucker

Smallmouth buffalo

Spotted sucker

Black crappie

Rock bass

Bluegill

Green sunfish

Hybrid sunfish

Largemouth bass

Longear sunfish

Redbreast sunfish

5.4

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.1

0.0

1.2

0.0

0.0

10.0

0.0

3.4

0.2

0.9

1.1

0.2

0.5

Centrarchidae

0.1

0.1

1.3

0.8

32.4

0.4

0.0

7.8

0.1

1.3

0.3

1.2

0.1

0.1

2.0

1.8

45.1

0.3

0.2

6.9

0.3

0.4

0-0.72

0-0.07

0.27-1.6

0-4.7

0-0.13

5.9-52

0.29-3.0

0-0.22

1.4-5.1

0-4.6

0.68-2.9

0 - 3.4

0-3.2

0 - 0.90

0.13-1.4

0-0.18

0-0.18

C

x

M

C)

CO

CD

3

MD
1

z

C:

46)

(0

(D)

CD

Table 2-14. (contd)

Family

Clupeidae

Cyprinidae

Scientific Name

Lepomis microlophus

Micropterus dolomieu

Micropterus punctulatus

Lepomis gulosus

Pomoxis annulans

Dorosoma cepedianum

Alosa chrysochloris

Dorosoma petenense

Pimephales notatus

Pimephales vigilax

Cypnnus carpio

Notropis athennoides

Common Name

Redear sunfish

Smallmouth bass

Spotted bass

Warmouth

White crappie

Gizzard shad

Skipjack herring

Threadfin shad

Bluntnose minnow

Bullhead minnow

Common carp

Emerald shiner

Golden shiner

Silver chub

Spotfin shiner

Steelcolor shiner

Striped shiner

1975-1985 1990-1995 1996-1997

Preoperational Preoperational Operational (a) (a) (a)

7.2 13.4 12.5

0.3 1.8 3.5

1.0 3.1 3.2

0.1 0.7 0.2

0.8 0.2 0.4

(d) (d) (d)

1.5 0.7

(d) (d) (d)

-- 0.1 0.1

0.0 0.1 --

1.2 1.0 3.8

58.6 17.1 1.5

0.2 0.4 0.1

1999-2007

Operational

(range for all

years)(b)

4.3-25

0.36-2.5

2.0-5.6

0-0.98

0-0.40

7.8-50

0-47

0-0.36

0-0.47

0.11 -4.1

0.16-5.9

0-1.1

0.4-5.5

0-0.39

0-0.20

0-0.07

CD'

CD

0.

0

:3

CD

Notemigonus

crysoleucas

Macrhybopsis storenana

Cypnnella spiloptera

Cyprinella whipplei

Luxilus chrysocephalus

Campostoma oligolepis

0.0

0.1

Hiodontidae

Ictaluridae

Hiodon tergisus

Ictalurus furcatus

Ictalurus punctatus

Pylodictis olivans

Largescale

stoneroller

Mooneye

Blue catfish

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

1.8

2.5

0.0

0.1

1.6

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.6

0.9

0-2.0

0.33 -2.0

0.48-3.6

0)

CD

3

Cr

CID

IN
Cn

CD

-0

CD

3,

0r

CD

Table 2-14. (contd)

1999-2007

Operational

1975-1990 1990-1995 1996-1997 (range for all

Family Scientific Name Common Name Preoperational Preoperational Operational years)

Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar 0.5 0 0.1 0- 1.2

Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar 0.01 - -- 0 - 0.22

Moronidae Morone saxatilis Striped bass 0.1 0.2 0.2 0-0.13

Morone chrysops White bass 1.3 1.7 1.8 0-2.1

Morone mississippiensis Yellow bass 4.1 4.3 8.5 0.18-3.7

Percidae Percina caprodes Logperch 0.1 1.5 1.3 0-3.4

Sander canadensis Sauger 0.1 0.1 0.4 0- 0.18

Sander vitreus Walleye 0.0 - - 0-0.10

Perca flavescens Yellow perch 0.4 0.4 0.6

Pteromyzontidae Ichthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut lamprey -- -- 0.1 --

Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.11 -2.1

Number of Species 43 40 36 45

Number of Families 12 10 11 10

(a) TVA 1998b

(b) Simmons and Baxter 2009

(c) A "0" means "present" but less than 0.01 percent.

(d) Threadfin and gizzard shad are not included in percent composition but are included in species and family counts.

CD

0

CD

z

6)

CD

90

CD

3

CD

NJ

2
Affected Environment

1 the reservoir monitoring studies below the dam (1999 to 2007). These counts also include the

2 hybrid fish. These results are fairly consistent when considering that there were differences in

3 sampling technique and duration of sampling that likely affected the species counts. For

4 example, during the period from 1977 to 1985, sampling occurred monthly. In 1990, TVA began

5 sampling annually, in the fall.

6 As with the mussel community, the fish community may be changing in response to historical

7 changes in land use, river regulation, and other human activities. For example, data taken over

8 the past 35 years indicate that emerald shiners (Notropis aterinoides) declined substantially in

9 numerical importance - most obviously in the period from 1977 to 1997. The emerald shiner

10 composed 58.6 percent of the community from 1977 to 1985, 17.1 percent from 1990 to 1995,

11 and only 1.5 percent from 1996 to 1997. During sampling from 1999 to 2007, the emerald

12 shiner composed 0.16 to 5.9 percent of the community. No other species appeared to have

13 declined significantly. Because the decline began before WBN Unit 1 started operating, it is

14 unlikely that operation of WBN Unit 1 is the impetus for the decline. Further, there have been

15 documented cases of dramatic reductions in emerald shiner populations in other locations

16 (Crowder 1980). In several cases this was attributed to competition with another fish species

17 (alewife [Alosa pseudoharengus]). Alewife has not been found in the vicinity of the Watts Bar

18 plant, but other cluepids (gizzard shad) are prolific in the reservoir. In other cases, researchers

19 identified a decline in water quality as the impetus for reduced emerald shiner populations

20 (Short et al. 1998).

21 Bluegill appear to have increased in numerical importance through the preoperational period

22 and the first 2 years following startup of WBN Unit 1. In 1975 to 1990, bluegill composed 10

23 percent of the population. The percentage of bluegill increased to 32.4 percent from 1990 to

24 1995. After startup of the facility, 1996 to 1997, bluegill composed 45.1 percent of the fish

25 population in the Chickamauga Reservoir in the vicinity of the WBN site. Between 1999 and

26 2007, the numerical importance of the bluegill has varied from a low of 5.9 percent of the

27 population in 2004 to a high of 54 percent in 2007 below the dam. Above the dam, in Watts Bar

28 Reservoir the numerical importance of bluegill remained about 30 percent starting with sampling

29 year 2000.

30 Another source of information regarding the fish populations in the vicinity of the WBN site

31 comes from the ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) surveys conducted by TVA (see Section

32 5.5.2 for a detailed description of the sampling studies and locations). Just as for fish,

33 ichthyoplankton surveys were conducted below the dam in Chickamauga Reservoir (in the

34 vicinity of the WBN site) and above the dam in Watts Bar Reservoir. The two locations are

35 discussed separately in the following paragraphs.

36 TVA conducted three sets of ichthyoplankton studies in Chickamauga Reservoir in the vicinity of

37 the WBN site. TVA conducted the first set of studies between 1976 and 1979 and between

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-46 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 1982 and 1985 prior to operation of WBN Unit 1. TVA conducted additional surveys in 1996

2 and 1997 after Unit 1 began operating (TVA 1998b; TVA 2010c). TVA conducted the third and

3 most recent sampling study from April through June 2010 in the same sampling locations and

4 using the same procedures as in 1996 and 1997, except that the 2010 samples were collected

5 weekly instead of biweekly (TVA 201 1d). The second and third studies are new information that

6 was not reported in the 1978 FES-OL or the 1995 SFES-OL-1. Section 5.5.2 describes the

7 sampling studies and provides the location of the studies.

8 In the first study, conducted between 1976 and 1979 and between 1982 and 1985, prior to the

9 start of operations at WBN Unit 1, TVA (1 998b, 201 Od) reported that overall egg densities were

10 low in the ichthyoplankton samples indicating that the short distance between the dam and the

11 WBN site may not be an area of high productivity. The total number of eggs varied from 31 in

12 1985 to 1,312 in 1983. During the preoperational surveys, the percentage of eggs that were

13 freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) ranged from 13 percent (1983) to greater than 90

14 percent (1976, 1979, and 1982). The remainder of the eggs were unidentifiable. During the

15 second set of studies, the surveys conducted in 1996 and 1997, after the start of operations for

16 WBN Unit 1, the total number of fish eggs collected ranged from from 1,605 (1997) to 2,929

17 (1996) (TVA 1998b, 2010c). During these years it was reported that over 99 percent of the

18 eggs were "mutilated and unidentifiable," (TVA 201 1d). The small percentage of identifiable

19 eggs were mostly freshwater drum eggs (TVA 1998b). Freshwater drum eggs also dominate

20 samples commonly observed in other areas of the reservoir, such as near the Sequoyah

21 Nuclear Plant (Baxter and Buchanan 2006).

22 During the first study, the preoperational surveys (TVA 1998b) that started in 1976, the number

23 of fish larvae collected ranged from 2,565 (1979) to 34,086 (1977) larval fish. The numerically

24 dominant larvae were generally unspecifiable clupeids (likely threadfin shad and gizzard shad)

25 followed by lesser numbers of centrarchids (bluegill or other sunfish) and freshwater drum.

26 Depending on the year, the clupeids composed between 48 percent and 95 percent of the

27 larvae. During the second study, operational monitoring of larval fish was conducted in 1996-

28 1997. Researchers in 1996 and 1997 collected 4,929 and 9,851 larval fish, respectively, during

29 the operational monitoring for WBN Unit 1 (TVA 1998b). The clupeid larvae (largely threadfin

30 shad and gizzard shad) represented 82 and 86 percent of the individuals in the larval fish

31 community during operational monitoring, for the years 1997 and 1996, respectively, followed by

32 bass (Morone spp.) in 1997 and freshwater drum in 1996 and centrarchids (Lepomis spp.). TVA

33 researchers took larval size into account to determine whether the larvae originated in Watts

34 Bar Reservoir or in the tailwater of the dam. They determined that Sander spp. (walleye and

35 sauger), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), clupeids (gizzard and threadfin shad), crappie

36 (Pomoxis spp.), and freshwater drum likely were spawned above the dam. TVA (1998b, 2010c)

37 found sunfish larvae in greater numbers near the shoreline and in intake canal samples,

38 indicating these two areas serve as spawning and nursery areas for sunfish.

September 2011 2-47 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 TVA conducted a third sampling study from April through June 2010. TVA (201 ld) collected

2 1,002 fish eggs. The composition of the eggs was centrarchids (Lepomis spp.) (55 percent),

3 freshwater drum (38 percent), moronids (yellow or white bass) (4.3 percent), and clupeids

4 (threadfin and gizzard shad) (2.7 percent). Because this sampling study obtained a larger

5 number of intact eggs, the data provide a better understanding of the types of eggs in the

6 vicinity of the WBN site. During larval ichthyoplankton sampling in April through June 2010

7 (TVA 201 1d), TVA collected 6,249 larval fish. Members of the clupeid family again dominated

8 the sample (64 percent), followed by centrarchids (17 percent), moronids (12.4 percent), and

9 freshwater drums (5.1 percent). These data are within the range of that found during

10 preoperatio.nal studies.

11 TVA also conducted three studies related to ichthyoplankton density in the Watts Bar Reservoir

12 near the Watts Bar Dam. The first study (TVA 2009d) was conducted in 1975 when the SCCW

13 system was used as the intake for the Watts Bar Fossil Plant. The second was conducted in

14 the spring of 2000 after the start of operation of the SCCW system. The third was performed

15 during May and August of 2010. The second and third studies are new information that was not

16 reported in the 1978 FES-OL or the 1995 SFES-OL-1. Section 5.5.2 describes the sampling

17 studies and provides the location of the studies.

18 The first sampling study occurred between March 24 and July 28, 1975, at five transects in the

19 Watts Bar Reservoir. In addition, TVA obtained pumped samples in three of the six intake

20 screen wells. TVA personnel conducted sampling biweekly. Egg collections consisted mostly

21 of unidentified fish eggs in the intake samples and freshwater drum eggs in the reservoir

22 samples. TVA identified fish larvae of 19 taxa from 10 families. Unspecified clupeids

23 dominated larvae collections (95 percent for intake samples, 97 percent for reservoir samples)

24 throughout the sampling season. Of the non-clupeid larvae, only Lepomis species had more

25 than 1 percent of the abundance (1.2 percent).

26 TVA personnel conducted the second study (Baxter et al. 2001) during spring 2000 to look at

27 the spatio-temporal concentrations of ichthyoplankton near the WBN SCCW intake. They

28 sampled weekly, from April through June 2000, along the same transect and with equipment

29 similar to that used in the 1975 study. However, no fish eggs were obtained in the samples,

30 even though previous sampling studies used the same type of sampling gear and techniques.

31 The samples of larval fish in spring 2000 included five taxa. Clupeid larvae composed

32 69 percent of the larval fish sampled in 2000, which is less numerous than in 1975. Larvae from

33 the genus Lepomis (includes bluegill) composed 19 percent and were more abundant in the

34 samples. Morone spp. (bass) and Pomoxis spp. (crappie) larvae densities were 6 percent and 4

35 percent, respectively, which was similar to the data obtained in 1975. The variation in the

36 percentage of clupeid larvae are in line with the increased population size of adult bluegill in

37 years 2001, as discussed previously.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-48 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 The third study (TVA 201 le) also provides insight into the ichthyoplankton residing in the vicinity

2 of the SCCW intake. The purpose of this study, performed during May and August 2010, was to

3 describe the temporal and spatial distribution of fish eggs and larvae with respect to the thermal

4 plume from the SCCW. This study also reported that clupeid larvae (includes threadfin and

5 gizzard shad) dominated the samples above the Watts Bar Dam and in front of the SCCW

6 intake and that centrarchid larvae (includes Lepomis larvae) were next in abundance. Very

7 small numbers of eggs were found at either location, and very small numbers of larvae were

8 found in the August samples.

9 Commercially, Recreationally, and Biologically Important Fish Species. The operation of WBN

10 Unit 2 may directly or indirectly affect commercially, recreationally, and biologically important

11 species. This section describes these species and provides information about their life

12 histories.

13 TVA and the TWRA allow commercial fishing on Chickamauga Reservoir. The boundary

14 established for commercial fishing is the full pool elevation of 14,000 ha (34,500 ac). However,

15 commercial fishing in the section of Chickamauga Reservoir near the site is practically

16 nonexistent because current velocities make netting virtually impossible (TVA 2001). Although

17 commercial fishing is allowed in Watts Bar Reservoir, very little actually occurs.

18 The most recent report on commercial fishing indicates that small numbers of paddlefish

19 (Polydoton spathula) were harvested in the Chickamauga Reservoir. Only one paddlefish was

20 reported in Watts Bar Reservoir in 2007 and none were reported in 2008. Commercial fishing

21 summaries for 2008 and 2009 for both roe and non-roe harvest for Chickamauga Reservoir and

22 for Watts Bar Reservoir are given in Table 2-15. Paddlefish were not observed in the sampling

23 in the vicinity of Watts Bar as shown in Table 2-16. The majority of fish being caught for

24 commercial use include catfish (blue, channel, and flathead [Ictalurus spp. and Pylodicitis

25 olivaris]), buffalo (Ictiobus spp.), and carp (bighead, silver, and common [Hypophthalmichthys

26 sp. and Cyprinus carpio]). However, freshwater drum (Alpodinotus grunniens) and gar

27 (Lepisosteus sp.) are also taken, as well as a small number of snapping turtles (Chelydra

28 serpentina) (TWRA 2010).

29 Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs are popular locations for recreational fishing. In 2008,

30 they ranked fourth (Watts Bar) and fifth (Chickamauga) in a list of 16 lakes in terms of angling

31 effort (number of hours spent angling) during the annual creel survey conducted by TWRA.

32 They ranked third (Chickamauga) and fourth (Watts Bar) for number of fish caught. Important

33 recreational species for both reservoirs are shown in Table 2-17 for 2008 and 2009. The most

34 frequently caught species include bluegill, redear sunfish, black and white crappie (Pomoxis

35 nigromaculatus and Pomoxis annularis), black bass (largemouth bass, spotted bass, and

36 smallmouth bass [Micropterus spp.]), catfish (blue and channel), white bass (Morone chrysops),

37 yellow bass (Morone mississippiensis), and sauger (Sander canadensis) (TWRA 2010).

September 2011 2-49 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1

2

3

4

Table 2-15. Commercial Harvest Rates for Paddlefish from Chickamauga and Watts Bar

Reservoirs in 2007, 2008, and 2009

Chickamauga Reservoir Watts Bar Reservoir

Paddlefish 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009

Number 35 166 74 1 0 0

Roe (eggs) (lb)(a) 119.1 208.63 90.79 6.22 0 0

Flesh (Ib)(a) 136 1,339 208.36 0 0 0

Source: TWRA 2010

(a) To convert Ib to kg multiply by 0.45 kg/lb.

Table 2-16. Commercial Harvest Rates for Non-Roe Fish from Chickamauga and Watts Bar

Reservoirs in 2008 and 2009

Chickamauga

Reservoir Total Watts Bar Reservoir

Weight (Ibs)(a) Total Weight (Ibs)(a)

Species Common Name 2008 2009 2008 2009

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Bighead or silver carp(b) 331 63

and H. nobilis

Ictalurus furcatus and Blue or channel catfish 147,104 244,035

L. punctatus

Ictiobus bubalus Buffalo fish 14,641 5,525 ....

Multiple species Catfish 1,289 13,814 ....

Cyprinus carpio Common carp 2,536 3,944 --

Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish 2,806 9,132 ....

Alpodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 6,674 7,456 ....

Lepisosteus sp. Gar 67 881 ....

Alosa chrysochioris Shad (skipjack herring) 317 0 27 --

Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtles 70 349 ....

Morone mississippiensis Yellow bass 10 0 ....

Source: TWRA 2010

(a) To convert lb to kilograms kg multiply the numbers in the columns by 0.45 kg/lb

(b) These species were not identified from Table 2-15 as being seen in the vicinity of the Watts Bar plant or the

Watts Bar Dam.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-50 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-17. Number of Fish Caught in Annual Creel Survey of the Entire Chickamauga and

2 Watts Bar Reservoirs

Chickamauga Watts Bar

Species

Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula

Amiidae

Catostomidae

Centrarchidae

Clupeidae

Cyprinidae

Ictaluridae

Esocidae

Lepisosteidae

Moronidae

Percidae

Amia calva

Ictiobus sp.

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Pomoxis annulanis

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Lepomis macrochirus

Lepomis microlophus

Micropterus salmoides

Micropterus dolomieu

Micropterus punctulatus

Lepomis gulosus

Alosa chrysochloris

Alosa pseudoharengus

Cypnnus carpio

Carassius auratus

Notemigonus crysoleucas

Ictalurus furcatus

Ictalurus punctatus

Pylodictis ofivads

Esox masquinongy x lucius

Lepisosteus osseus

Morone saxatilis

Morone chrysops

Morone mississippiensis

Hybrid striped bass x white

bass

Sander canadensis

Sander vitreus

Perca flavescens

Aplodinotus grunniens

Common Name

Paddleflsh(a)

Bowfin(a)

Buffalo

Black crappie

White crappie

Blacknose crappie(a)

Bluegill

Redear sunfish

Largemouth bass

Smallmouth bass

Spotted bass

Warmouth

Skipjack herring

Alewife(a)

Carp

Goldfish(a)

Golden shiner

Blue catfish

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

Tiger muskie(a)

Longnose gar

Striped bass

White bass

Yellow bass

Cherokee bass(a)

Sauger

Walleye

Yellow perch

Freshwater drum

20,1365

54,654

662

573,417

55,673

238,006

18,821

72,874

1,192

3,812

185

92

196

167,105

54,917

10,751

100

7,789

52,626

159,219

40

114,294

31,070

48

490,803

32,571

223,018

17,921

69,585

609

1,340

156,086

67,755

11,100

92

18,489

93,407

142,693

64

1,016 -

1,264 -

69,540 79,619

76,057 85,065

3588 1,380

191,921 189,472

184 446

167,471 253,243

40,623 36,797

38,260 58,155

43,463 967

183 -

586 -

2007 2008 2007 2008

137 - - -

82,146

28,636

7,872

35,120

153,788

60,404

1,701

76,800

51,811

8,814

25,938

323471

70,918

187

1,666 22,784 24,131 36,319

- - 242 -

- - - 187

36,095 65,696 21,438 27,141

Source: TWRA 2010

(a) Although these species are found in the Chickamauga or Watts Bar reservoirs they have not been reported in

the vicinity of the WBN plant or in the vicinity of the Watts Bar Dam.

September 2011 2-51 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 The following paragraphs present life-history information relevant to the potential of the WBN

2 Unit 2 facility to affect specific commercially and recreationally important fish. These include

3 sunfish, buffalo, catfish, carp, black bass, white and yellow bass, crappie, and sauger. Shad is

4 included because it is one of the main groups of forage fish in the Chickamauga and Watts Bar

5 reservoirs.

6 Sunfish (Lepomis spp.). Sunfish species found in the vicinity of WBN Unit 2 include the

7 bluegill and the redear sunfish. Bluegills are both a forage fish and a game fish. The young

8 are prolific and provide prey for bass. Bluegills frequent shallow water with vegetative cover,

9 submerged wood, or rocks. They spawn from late spring into summer. Like other sunfish,

10 male bluegill and redear sunfish construct nests in shallow water on varied substrates

11 (although they prefer gravel) and guard the eggs until hatching occurs. Young sunfish

12 frequent weed beds or other heavy cover. Redear sunfish feed on benthic organisms such as

13 mollusks, snails, and aquatic insect larvae (including midges and burrowing mayflies).

14 Bluegill eat a varied diet, including midge larvae and microcrustaceans. Etnier and Starnes

15 (1993) report that bluegill select larger prey items when they are abundant but become less

16 selective as the abundance of their favorite prey decreases. The population of bluegills can

17 affect the largemouth bass population.

18 Smallmouth buffalo (Ictobius bubalus). The species of buffalo caught by commercial fishers

19 is likely the smallmouth buffalo because it is more common in the Tennessee River than other

20 species of buffalo. This fish can reach sizes of 14 to 18 kg (30 to 40 Ib) (Etnier and Starnes

21 1993). Smallmouth buffalo eating habits seem to vary between populations, but they feed

22 largely on benthic invertebrates such as bivalves or on copepods, cladocerans, and aquatic

23 insects (Etnier and Starnes 1993; Metee et al. 1996). Etnier and Starnes (1993) report that

24 buffalo have a preference to spawn on submerged vegetation, although Metee et al. (1996)

25 found active spawning occurring in the rapids below Lake Tuscaloosa Dam. Eggs are

26 adhesive and range in number from 18,000 to 500,000 per female per year (Etnier and

27 Starnes 1993).

28 Catfish (Family Ictaluridae). Catfish that occur in the Chickamauga Reservoir include the blue

29 catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), channel catfish (I. punctatus), and flathead catfish (Pylodictis

30 olivaris). Catfish are both recreationally and commercially important species. Members of the

31 family Ictaluridae spawn in summer and deposit their eggs in depressions or nests they

32 construct in natural cavities and crevices in rivers. Male catfish are territorial after spawning

33 and will aggressively defend their eggs. Catfish are opportunistic feeders and eat aquatic

34 insect larvae, crayfish, mollusks, and small fish (live and dead) (Etnier and Starnes 1993;

35 Metee et al. 1996).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-52 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Carp (Cyprinius carpio). The carp is a non-native fish introduced into North America from

2 Eurasia. These fish tend to frequent deep water (up to 6 m [20 ft] deep). They are omnivores

3 that feed on the bottom (mostly in mud). Carp eat worms, insect larvae, and plankton (Metee

4 et al. 1996) as well as vascular plants and occasional small fish (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

5 They are considered detrimental to the environment because they increase the turbidity of the

6 water as they feed and spawn, which decreases light penetration and primary productivity and

7 covers the eggs of other fish species with silt. Eggs are small and adhesive. Female carp

8 may produce over 2,000,000 eggs in a given season and may release 600,000 or more in a

9 given spawning period (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Carp are a long-lived fish species (20

10 years) and reach sizes of 23 to 36 kg (50 to 80 Ib) (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

11 Black bass (Micropterus spp.). Black bass include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),

12 smallmouth bass (M. dolmieu), and spotted bass (M. punctulatus). Largemouth bass and

13 spotted bass inhabit sluggish portions of streams and larger lakes and reservoirs. In

14 reservoirs, smallmouth bass prefer steep rocky slopes along the submerged river and creek

15 channels. Smallmouth and spotted bass spawn in April or early May, and largemouth from

16 late April to June. Black bass construct nests in coarse gravel at depths less than 1 m (3.3 ft)

17 near the margins of streams or lakes (smallmouth bass) or in other types of gravel or firm

18 substrates (spotted bass and largemouth bass) along the shallow margins of lakes. For all

19 three species, the males guard the nests until the fry have hatched and dispersed. For

20 smallmouth bass, hatching requires about 4 to 6 days; fry swim up from the nest 5 to 6 days

21 later. The fecundity of females varies with the size of the fish but they may produce from

22 2,000 to 145,000 eggs. Young bass feed on zooplankton, insects, and small fish, and are

23 cannibalistic (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Smallmouth and spotted bass feed primarily on small

24 fish, crayfish, and aquatic insects. Largemouth bass prey on bluegills, redear sunfish, shad,

25 minnows, crayfish, and amphibians (Metee et al.1996).

26 White bass (Morone chrysops) and yellow bass (M. mississinpiensis). White and yellow bass

27 are important game fish in the Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs. Yellow bass are

28 schooling and avoid flowing water habitats more so than the white bass (Etnier and Starnes

29 1993). Spawning occurs in mid-water for both species, although the yellow bass migrate into

30 large streams or tributaries to spawn. The eggs drift to the bottom and the larvae hatch in 2

31 to 3 days. Larvae of white bass in the Tennessee River drift downstream where they then

32 appear to use low-velocity refugia or hug the bottom. Juveniles eat small invertebrates such

33 as cladocerans, copepods, and midge larvae. Adults are aggressive predators and feed on

34 threadfin and gizzard shad (Metee et al. 1996), as well as silversides and occasionally young

35 sunfish (Etnier and Starnes 1993). In some populations, adult yellow bass continue to feed

36 heavily on aquatic insects (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

September 2011 2-53 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Black crappie (Pomoxis niqromaculatus) and white crappie (P. annularis). Both the black and

2 white crappie are popular sport and food fishes. The white crappie inhabits sluggish streams

3 and lakes and is tolerant of turbidity. The black crappie prefers clear waters and is more

4 abundant in natural lakes, although it does well in less turbid reservoirs. Spawning occurs

5 from April to June. Spawning sites generally are located in shallow protected areas such as

6 coves or deeper overflow pools near vegetation (black crappie), brush, or overhanging banks.

7 Hatching requires 2 to 5 days depending on the water temperatures. Adult males guard the

8 nests until the fry have dispersed. Females contain from 10,000 to 160,000 mature eggs and

9 spawn repeatedly in the nests of several males over the season. Young crappies feed on

10 small invertebrates, including microcrustaceans and small insects, but prey progressively more

11 on fish as they mature. Adults feed heavily on forage fish such as shad. However, they also

12 consume microcrustacea and other plankton. (Etnier and Starnes 1993; Metee et al. 1996)

13 Sauqer (Sander canadensis). Sauger inhabit large, often turbid rivers and have been

14 successful in many reservoirs (Etnier and Starnes 1993). They spawn from April through

15 May, commonly over rubble and gravel in tailwaters (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Watts Bar

16 Dam blocks sauger from their annual spawning migration up the Tennessee River. In

17 Chickamauga Reservoir, spawning occurs approximately 13 km (8 mi) downstream of Watts

18 Bar Dam (SCCW 1998) at Hunter Shoals (Hevel and Hickman 1991). Eggs adhere to rubble

19 and gravel immediately after spawning, but shortly become nonadhesive and currents may

20 widely disperse the eggs. Larger females can produce over 100,000 eggs annually, but most

21 produce 20,000 to 60,000 eggs. Larvae feed on cladocera, copepods, and midge larvae.

22 Juveniles switch to a diet that is almost exclusively made up of fish, primarily gizzard and

23 threadfin shad, in the Tennessee River Basin (Etnier and Starnes 1993), although they are

24 also known to feed on young walleye (Sander vitreus), sauger, white bass, crappie, and

25 yellow perch (Metee et al. 1996).

26 Threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) and qizzard shad (D. cepedianum). Shad are valuable

27 forage fish. The gizzard shad is possibly less likely to be a forage fish because of its rapid

28 growth and larger maximum size (52.1 cm [20.5 in.] total length; 1.59 kg [3.5 Ib]). Threadfin

29 shad on the other hand have a maximum total length of 21.6 cm (8.5 in.). Spawning occurs

30 along the shorelines. Both species are prolific spawners. An average size female gizzard

31 shad produces about 300,000 eggs a year. Gizzard shad deposit their eggs in substrate such

32 as boulders, logs, or debris. The eggs adhere to the substrate. The fish synchronize their

33 spawning time and spawn as a group activity. Ecologists think this is an important behavior for

34 avoiding predators and rapidly building up populations that may have been depleted during the

35 winter. Shad feed on plankton (Metee et al. 1996). Both threadfin shad and gizzard shad are

36 susceptible to large winter die-offs when temperatures drop. The threadfin shad is less cold

37 tolerant than the gizzard shad. Sublethal effects such as feeding cessation can begin at 100C

38 (50 0F). Inactivity occurs at 6 to 70C (470 F) and death at 4 to 50C (39 0 F), although death has

39 been reported at as high as 12°C (55 0F) (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-54 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Non-Native Species. The introduction of non-native species has also affected the fish

2 population in the Tennessee River. Non-native aquatic plant species and mollusks were

3 discussed previously. Non-native aquatic animal species have become residents of the TVA

4 reservoir system. Invasive species are those non-native species whose introduction causes or

5 is likely to cause economic or environmental harm. Non-native and invasive fish species found

6 in parts of the Watts Bar and Chickamauga reservoirs include the common carp (Cyprinus

7 carpio), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis),

8 silver carp (H. moltrix), alewife, redbreast sunfish, inland silverside (Menidia beryllina), and

9 yellow perch. Mechanisms of introduction have included recreational boating (silver carp), bait

10 distribution (alewife), and natural forces such as interconnected waterways, pond breaches, and

11 waterfowl (TWRA 2008).

12 Carp are considered to be invasive species and they have clearly changed the environment of

13 the Tennessee River aquatic communities. Common carp have been present in the Tennessee

14 River aquatic communities for over 100 years and currently exist in all reservoirs. Common

15 carp have been found in the vicinity of the WBN site. Grass carp have been introduced

16 throughout much of the United States for biological control of nuisance aquatic plants, but were

17 not identified in the sampling studies in the vicinity of the WBN site. TVA reports grass carp

18 primarily in the lower portions of the river system (TVA 2004a). Silver and bighead carp have

19 been found in parts of Chickamauga Reservoir but were not identified in the sampling studies in

20 the vicinity of the WBN site. Carp are detrimental to the native fauna and decrease the water21 quality conditions. They are highly tolerant of poor water-quality conditions, and researchers

22 expect them to continue to spread throughout the Tennessee River system. Carp are an

23 important commercial fish, and the grass carp has a recreational value in some Tennessee

24 River reservoirs such as Guntersville Reservoir.

25 Alewife are native to the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to South Carolina. They were

26 introduced into Tennessee and other states intentionally as a forage fish. The species has been

27 found in parts of Chickamauga Reservoir where it has been identified as part of the commercial

28 catch. In other reservoirs it is believed to be the cause of recruitment failure in walleye (TWRA

29 2008). Alewife were not identified in the sampling studies in the vicinity of the WBN site.

30 The redbreast sunfish is native to the Atlantic slope drainages and has been introduced

31 intentionally for sport fishing. Redbreast sunfish have been found in the vicinity of the WBN site.

32 This species is believed to have caused the decline or extirpation of many native longear

33 sunfish populations through direct competition (Etnier and Starnes 1993). However, longear

34 sunfish still occur in the Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs (TWRA 2008).

35 The inland silverside is native to coastal and freshwater habitats from Massachusetts to Mexico.

36 In Tennessee it has invaded the Tennessee River system. The first individuals were collected

37 in the Chickamauga Reservoir in 2004, although they were not seen in the electrofishing

38 sampling data adjacent to Watts Bar until 2006. They were observed in data for Watts Bar

September 2011 2-55 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Reservoir electrofishing in 2005. The inland silverside completely replaced the brook silverside

2 in introduced populations in Oklahoma. More time is needed to understand the impact on the

3 brook silverside populations in the Tennessee River, as well as on other species with similar

4 ecological niches (TWRA 2008). The inland silverside has been found in the vicinity of the WBN

5 site.

6 The yellow perch has been introduced into many states, including Tennessee, from its native

7 range in the middle Mackenzie drainage in Canada through the northern states east of the Rocky

8 Mountains and to the Atlantic Slope drainages south to South Carolina. It was introduced in the

9 late 1800s for food and sport fishing. Yellow perch are known to compete for food resources

10 with trout but conversely, they have been valuable forage for walleye (TWRA 2008). Yellow

11 perch have been found in the vicinity of the WBN site.

12 2.3.2.2 Designated Species and Habitat

13 Table 2-18 shows Federally and State-listed aquatic species that may occur near the WBN site.

14 State-Listed Species

15 This section describes Tennessee State-listed and proposed threatened and endangered

16 aquatic species in the vicinity of the WBN site that are not also Federally listed.

17 Flame Chub (Hemitremia flammea)

18 The flame chub is a small fish, usually no more than 8.1 cm (3.2 in.) in length (Etnier and

19 Starnes 1993), that inhabits springs and spring runs. It prefers areas with lush aquatic

20 vegetation. The State deems it as "in need of management." Historical records place the flame

21 chub in tributaries off Watts Bar Reservoir in Rhea County prior to impoundment of the

22 reservoir. However, the only recent (1996 and prior) observations are from Loudon County and

23 those individuals would not be affected by operations of Unit 2 (TVA 2010a, b). As a result, this

24 SFES will not consider the flame chub further.

25 Tangerine Darter (Percina aurantiaca)

26 The tangerine darter, one of the larger Tennessee darters, reaches a length of 17.15 cm

27 (6.75 in.). It inhabits clearer portions of large-to moderate-size headwater tributaries of the

28 Tennessee River and prefers deeper riffles with boulders, large rubble, and bedrock substrate,

29 although it moves to deeper pools in the winter. The tangerine darter's range currently is

30 confined to the upper Tennessee River, although it may have occurred in the mainstem of the

31 Tennessee River before TVA impounded the river (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Because it is not

32 known to currently exist in the mainstem and the occurrence data for the area surrounding the

33 site did not show it as present (TVA 201 Oa, b), the tangerine darter is not discussed further in

34 this SFES.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-56 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-18. Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species in Rhea County, Tennessee

State of

Scientific Name Common Name Tennessee Status Federal Status

Mussels

Cyprogenia stegaria Eastern fanshell pearly mussel Endangered Endangered

Dromus dromas Dromedary pearly mussel Endangered Endangered

Lampsilis abrupta Pink mucket Endangered Endangered

Plethobasus cooperianuss Orange pimpleback Endangered Endangered

Pleurobema plenum Rough pigtoe Endangered Endangered

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose mussel Proposed

Fish

Erimonax monachus Spotfin chub Threatened Threatened

Hemitremia flammea Flame chub Deemed in need of

management

Percina aurantiaca Tangerine darter Deemed in need of

management

Phoxinus saylori Laurel dace Endangered Candidate

Phoxinus tennesseensis Tennessee dace Deemed in need of

management

Percina tanasi Snail darter Threatened Threatened

(Meigs County) (Rhea County)

Carpiodes velifer Highfin carpsucker Deemed in need of

management

(Meigs County)

Amphibians

Cryptobranchus Eastern hellbender Deemed in need of

alleganiensis alleganiensis management

(Meigs County)

Sources: U.S. Department of Interior 2009 and TVA 2009b.

2 Tennessee Dace (Phoxinus tennesseensis)

3 The Tennessee dace's range is restricted to small low-gradient woodland tributaries that do not

4 exceed 1.8 m (6 ft) in width in the upper Tennessee River drainage (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

5 Although the State considers the dace as "in need of management" for Rhea County, it has not

6 been observed in the occurrence data in the vicinity of the site and is not known to exist in the

7 mainstem of the Tennessee River. As a result, it is not discussed further in this SFES.

September 2011 2-57 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Laurel Dace (Phoxinus saylori)

2 The laurel dace is a minnow known from only three independent systems on the Walden Ridge

3 section of the Cumberland Plateau: Soddy Creek, Sale Creek, and Piney River. Although the

4 dace originates in the Tennessee watershed, it is not found in the mainstem of the river and

5 thus would not be affected by WBN Unit 2. In addition it has not been observed in the

6 occurrence data in the vicinity of the site (FWS 2007). Therefore, it is not further discussed in

7 this SFES.

8 Hicqhfin Carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer)

9 The State deems the highfin carpsucker, the smallest carpsucker in Tennessee, as "in need of

10 management" for Meigs County (located across the river from the WBN site). Its habitat occurs

11 in areas of gravel substrate in relatively clear medium-to-large rivers. The highfin carpsucker is

12 more susceptible to impoundment and siltation than other carpsuckers. It is currently known in

13 Tennessee to persist in the Nolichucky, French Broad, Clinch, Hiwassee, Sequatchie, and Duck

14 river systems. The occurrence data indicated that a single individual was observed in 1981 in

15 Sewee Creek at Creek Mile 3.6 (TVA 201 0a). Because it is not found in the mainstem of the

16 Tennessee River or in the vicinity of the site, it would not be affected by operation of WBN

17 Unit 2 and is not further discussed in this SFES.

18 Eastern Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleqganiensis)

19 The eastern hellbender, also called the mudpuppy or waterdog, is an aquatic salamander that

20 grows from 30 to 74 cm (12 to 29 in.) long. Members of this species are found distributed from

21 southern New York to northern Georgia and Alabama. They prefer habitats with swift running,

22 fairly shallow, highly oxygenated waters. This species finds flat rocks, logs, or other cover in the

23 vicinity of a riffle area essential for feeding and breeding (Mayasich et al. 2003). Its habitat is

24 generally medium-to-large clear, fast-flowing streams with rocky bottoms, especially riffle areas

25 and upper pool reaches. The species occurrence data indicate that eastern hellbenders were

26 present in 1981 in Sewee Creek at Creek Mile 3.6 (TVA 2010a). These individuals or their

27 progeny in Sewee Creek would not be affected by potential operations of Unit 2 at the WBN

28 site. No eastern hellbenders have been reported from the inflow zone of Chickamauga

29 Reservoir. As a result, they are not further discussed in this SFES.

30 Federally Listed Species

31 The NRC received a letter from the FWS (DOI 2009) indicating that five Federally endangered

32 mussels and two Federally threatened fish exist in the vicinity of the WBN site. In addition, on

33 January 19, 2011, the FWS proposed listing of the sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus)

34 as endangered (76 FR 3392). The following sections describe these species.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-58 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Eastern Fanshell Pearlymussel (Cyprocgenia stecqaria)

2 The FWS has listed the Eastern fanshell pearlymussel, also known simply as the fanshell, as

3 endangered since 1990 (55 FR 25591). Generally, this species is distributed in the Tennessee

4 and Cumberland river systems. The fanshell is generally considered a big river species, but it

5 also may be found inhabiting shallow, unimpounded upper stretches of the Clinch River as well

6 as unimpounded portions of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Fanshells are usually

7 found on coarse sand and gravel less than 1 m (3 ft) deep. Researchers believe fanshells may

8 be reproducing below Pickwick Landing Dam on the Tennessee River (Parmalee and Bogan

9 1998). The glochidial (larval form of freshwater mussel) host has been reported to be banded

10 sculpin (Cyprogenia stegaria), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdl), greenside darter (Etheostoma

11 blennioides), Tennessee snubnose darter (E.simoterum), banded darter (E. zonale), tangerine

12 darter, blotchside logperch (Percina burton,), logperch (P. caprodes), and the Roanoke darter

13 (P. roanoka). Many factors have caused the decline of this species, including impoundment,

14 navigation projects, water-quality degradation, and other forms of habitat alteration such as

15 gravel and sand dredging. These habitat modifications either directly affected the species or

16 reduced or eliminated the fish hosts (55 FR 25591). TVA last found the fanshell in 1983 in the

17 mussel bed nearest the WBN site (TRM 528.2 to 528.9) (TVA 1998a). However, the occurrence

18 data show that TVA researchers found the Eastern fanshell pearly mussel as recently as 1994

19 in the mussel beds from TRM 524 to 525.

20 Dromedary Pearlymussel (Dromus dromas)

21 The FWS listed the dromedary pearlymussel as endangered in 1976 throughout its entire range

22 in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. This species was historically widespread in the

23 Cumberland and Tennessee river systems. It inhabits small to medium, low turbidity, high to

24 moderate gradient streams. The dromedary pearlymussel is found near riffles on sand and

25 gravel substrates with stable rubble. Individuals have also been found in slower waters and up

26 to a depth of 5.5 m (18 ft). Most historic populations apparently were lost when the river

27 sections they inhabited were impounded. The more than 50 impoundments on the Tennessee

28 and Cumberland rivers eliminated the majority of riverine habitat for this species in its historic

29 range. The specific food habits of the dromedary pearlymussel are unknown, but in recent

30 studies, the FWS has identified the fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare) as the host species.

31 Other potential hosts include the banded darter (E. zonale), tangerine darter, logperch, gilt

32 darter (P. evides), black sculpin (Cottus baileyi), greenside darter, snubnose darter

33 (E. simoterum), blotchside logperch, channel darter (P. copelandl), and the Roanoke darter

34 (FWS 2010a). TVA did not find the dromedary pearlymussel in the bed closest to the WBN site

35 (TRM 528.2 to 528.9) in surveys conducted between 1983 and 1997 (TVA 1998b) or in the

36 survey conducted in 2010 (TVA 201 lc). The most recent observation of a dromedary

37 pearlymussel in the vicinity of the WBN site was in the bed located at TRM 520.0 to 520.8

38 during the September 1983 survey(TVA 1998a).

September 2011 2-59 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Pink Mucket Mussel (Lampsilis abrupta)

2 The FWS designated the pink mucket mussel as endangered in 1976 (41 FR 24062).

3 Historically, this species was found in the entire reach of the Tennessee River across northern

4 Alabama. Currently, it occurs only in the riverine reaches downstream of Wilson Dam in

5 Tennessee and Guntersville Dam in Alabama. However, FWS considers the species to be

6 uncommon to rare. Researchers report specimens younger than 10 years of age as rare in the

7 Wilson and Guntersville dam tailwaters. Pink muckets prefer free-flowing reaches of large

8 rivers, typically in silt-free and gravel substrates. Fishes that reportedly serve as hosts for

9 glochidia (the larval form of freshwater mussels) include the smallmouth, spotted, and

10 largemouth bass as well as freshwater drum and possibly sauger (Mirarchi et al. 2004). TVA

11 has found the pink mucket in the vicinity of the WBN site during every mussel survey from 1986

12 through 1996, although the number of specimens has never amounted to more than 10 (1988)

13 in the surveys from TRM 528.2 to 528.9. A single individual was found at middle site (TRM 526

14 to 527) in the September 2010 survey (TVA 201 lc).

15 Oranaefoot Pimpleback (Plethobasus cooperianus)

16 The FWS has listed the orangefoot pimpleback, also known as the Cumberland pigtoe (Mirarchi

17 et al. 2004), as endangered since 1976 (41 FR 24062). It is primarily a big river species found

18 in silt-free areas in a mixture of sand and gravel. The species still survives in the tailwaters of

19 some Tennessee River dams, such as Pickwick Dam. Its glochidial host is unknown

20 (Mirarchi et al. 2004). TVA has not found the orangefoot pimpleback near the WBN site during

21 any of the mussel surveys conducted from 1983 to 2010 (TVA 1998a, 2011 c). The occurrence

22 data provided by the State of Tennessee shows that the closest individual was found near TRM

23 595 in Watts Bar Reservoir in 1978.

24 Rough Picqtoe (Pleurobema plenum)

25 The FWS listed the rough pigtoe as endangered in 1976 (41 FR 24062). It is found primarily in

26 large rivers inhabiting a mixture of sand and gravel in areas kept free of silt by moderate to

27 strong current. Researchers have identified extant populations in the Tennessee River

28 tailwaters of Wilson Dam, where they are very rare, and possibly Guntersville Dam (Mirarchi

29 et al. 2004). A fish host for the glochidia is unknown (NatureServe 2009d). During surveys

30 conducted near the WBN site in 1985, TVA found only one specimen in the mussel bed closest

31 to the site (TRM 528.2 to 528.9). It discovered two additional specimens in the bed at

32 TRM 520.0 to 520.8 in 1983, 1984, and one specimen in 1985 (TVA 1998a). The rough pigtoe

33 mussel was not observed during the samples conducted in the vicinity of the WBN site in 2010

34 (TVA 201 c).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-60 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Sheepnose Mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus)

2 The FWS does not currently list the sheepnose mussel as endangered, but it was proposed for

3 listing on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3392). It is found across the Southeast and the Midwest, but

4 has been eliminated from two-thirds of streams where it had been known to occur. The sauger

5 is the only known host for the sheepnose mussel (FWS 2011). In the fall of 1983, two

6 specimens were found at TRM 526.0. One additional specimen was found near this same

7 location in the summer of 1992 and another at approximately TRM 526.3 in the summer of 1994

8 (TVA 1998a). In September 2010, TVA found a specimen, judged to be approximately 20 years

9 old, during sampling in the middle bed (TRM 526 to 527) (TVA 201 1c).

10 Spotfin Chub (Erimonax monachus)

11 The FWS listed the spotfin chub, a fish, as threatened in 1977. The State of Tennessee

12 considers it to be a State-endangered species. The FWS initiated a 5-year status review of the

13 spotfin chub in July 2009 (74 FR 31972). The spotfin chub formerly appeared in 12 tributary

14 systems in five states, but is extant in only four systems. Experimental populations

15 (nonessential) were established in the Lower French Broad, Lower Holston, and Tellico rivers

16 (Tennessee), and in Shoal Creek (Tennessee and Alabama) (FWS 2010b). Adults are typically

17 associated with swift currents and boulder substrates. Juveniles are encountered in moderate

18 currents with small gravel substrates (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Because spotfin chub are not

19 known to occur in the Tennessee River, the species is not further considered in this SFES.

20 Snail Darter (Percina tanasi)

21 Both the FWS and State of Tennessee list snail darters as threatened. The FWS originally

22 thought snail darters inhabited the mainstem of the Tennessee River and possibly ranged from

23 the Holston, French Broad, Lower Clinch, and Hiwassee rivers downstream in the Tennessee

24 drainage to northern Alabama (FWS 1992). However, impoundments fragmented much of its

25 range (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Researchers observed a population of snail darters

26 (estimated to be 200 to 400) in South Chickamauga Creek (between Creek Mile 5.6 in

27 Tennessee [Hamilton County] and Creek Mile 19.3 in Georgia [Catoosa County]) in 1980. They

28 also found a few darters in the Tennessee River mainstem just below Chickamauga and

29 Nickajack dams (FWS 1992). A population also was found in the upper Watts Bar Reservoir but

30 it did not appear to be reproducing subsequent to the impoundment of the Tellico Reservoir

31 (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Snail darters inhabited Sewee Creek in Meigs County as recently as

32 1985 (TVA 2010a). Snail darters inhabit larger creeks where they frequent sand and gravel

33 shoal areas in low turbidity water. They are also known from deeper portions of rivers and

34 reservoirs where current is present (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Because they are not known

35 from the Chickamauga Reservoir and because the habitat in the vicinity of the WBN site is not

36 typical for this species (gravel shoals in low turbidity water), the species is not further

37 considered in this SFES.

September 2011 2-61 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Critical Habitat

2 The FWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have not designated

3 any critical habitat in the vicinity of the WBN site. No State of Tennessee designated natural

4 areas are located in the vicinity of the WBN site. The State of Tennessee has established a

5 freshwater mussel sanctuary in the Chickamauga Reservoir between TRM 520.0 and

6 TRM 529.9, as discussed previously.

7 2.4 Socioeconomics

8 This section describes current socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or

9 indirectly affected by operating and decommissioning WBN Unit 2. WBN Unit 2 and the people

10 and communities surrounding it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The

11 nuclear power plant requires people, goods, and services from local communities to operate the

12 plant; and the communities, in turn, provide the people, goods, and services to run the plant.

13 WBN Unit 2 employees would reside in the community and receive income from the plant in the

14 form of wages, salaries, and benefits, and spend this income on goods and services within the

15 community, thereby creating additional opportunities for employment and income. People and

16 businesses in the community also receive income from the goods and services sold to WBN

17 Unit 2. Payments for these goods and services create additional employment and income

18 opportunities in the community. The measure of a community's ability to support the operational

19 demands of WBN Unit 2 depends on the ability of the community to respond to changing

20 socioeconomic conditions.

21 The socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) is defined by the areas where WBN Unit 2

22 employees and their families would reside, drive, spend their income, and use their benefits,

23 thereby affecting the economic conditions of the region. TVA currently employs a permanent

24 workforce of approximately 700 employees (TVA 201 Ob). Approximately 80 percent of these

25 employees live in Hamilton, Knox, Loudon, Meigs, McMinn, Rhea, and Roane counties,

26 Tennessee (Table 2-19). The staff assumed that WBN Unit 2 employees would reside in the

27 area in a pattern similar to that of the WBN Unit 1 employees. The remaining 20 percent of the

28 workforce is divided among other counties ranging from 1 to 29 employees per county. Given

29 the residential location of WBN Unit 1 employees, the most significant impacts of plant

30 operations are likely to occur in a four-county area that includes the counties closest to the WBN

31 site (Rhea, Meigs, McMinn, and Roane) (Table 2-19). The primary commuting routes to and

32 from the site go through this four-county area. Approximately 30 percent of the WBN Unit 1

33 employees commute from and reside in Knox and Hamilton counties where the larger cities,

34 Knoxville and Chattanooga, are located. These counties, however, are less likely to be affected

35 by activities at the WBN site due to their relatively large populations and distance from the site.

36 In addition to the permanent workforce WVA employs to operate WBN Unit 1, there are

37 approximately 1,360 construction workers on the WBN site associated with WBN Unit 2

38 construction activities. The following sections describe the population demography, housing,

39 public services, aesthetics, and economy in the four-county ROI surrounding WBN Unit 2.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-62 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-19. WBN Unit 1 Employee Residence by County

Number of

County of WBN

Residence Residents

Blount 14

Bradley 22

Hamilton 106

Knox 88

Loudon 38

McMinn 88

Meigs 40

Monroe 29

Rhea 155

Roane 53

Other 67

Source: TVA 201 Ob; USBLS 2008;,

County

Population

121,622

96,644

332,848

431,072

46,445

52,511

11,790

45,670

30,781

53,430

WBN

Residents as

% of Total

Population

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.08

0.17

0.34

0.06

0.50

0.10

Civilian

Workforce

62,876

46,688

162,400

226,238

23,274

23,236

5,140

18,639

13,101

27,405

WBN

Residents as

% of Civilian

Workforce

0.02

0.05

0.07

0.04

0.16

0.38

0.78

0.16

1.18

0.19

USCB 2008a, b, c, d.

2 2.4.1 Demographics

3 The 1995 SFES-OL-1 discussed changes in the population and the region's socioeconomic

4 characteristics related to the operation of the WBN plant since the 1978 FES-OL. In the four5 county ROI (Rhea, Meigs, McMinn, and Roane), population trends over the last four decades

6 have followed a similar pattern. From 1970 to 1980, the region experienced a period of

7 relatively higher growth, with average annual growth rates from 2 to 4 percent. A decade of low

8 growth followed this increase from 1980 to 1990; then a decade of relatively higher growth

9 occurred from 1990 to 2000. Average annual growth rates in the four-county ROI were less

10 than 1 percent from 2000 to 2008. These patterns are similar to overall population trends in the

11 State of Tennessee (USCB 2008a, b, c, d). Table 2-20 provides data on population and growth

12 rates for the four-county ROI and for the State of Tennessee. The Tennessee Advisory

13 Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) develops population projections for all

14 Tennessee counties out to the year 2030 (see Table 2-20). The overall population in the four15 county ROI is projected to increase at similar rates to the State of Tennessee out to 2020. From

16 2020 to 2030, the population in Meigs County is projected to increase at a rate greater than

17 neighboring Rhea, McMinn, and Roane counties.

September 2011 2-63 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-20. Population Growth in Rhea, Meigs, McMinn, and Roane Counties

Rhea County Meigs County McMinn County Roane County State of Tennessee

% % % % Annual %

Year Population Growtha) Population Growth Population Growth Population Growth Population Growth

1970 17,202 -- 5,219 -- 35,462 -- 38,881 -- 3,923,687 --

1980 24,235 40.9 7,431 42.4 41,878 18.1 48,425 24.55 4,591,120 17.0

1990 24,344 0.4 8,033 8.1 42,383 1.2 47,227 -2.47 4,877,185 6.2

2000 28,400 16.7 11,086 38.0 49,015 15.6 51,910 9.92 5,689,283 16.7

2008 30,781 8.4 11,790 6.4 52,511 7.1 53,430 2.93 6,214,888 9.2

2010 30,852 -- 11,798 -- 52,729 -- 53,550 -- 6,229,564 --

2020 33,862 9.8 12,680 7.5 57,607 9.3 56,776 6.02 6,860,231 10.1

2030 36,670 8.3 15,126 19.3 60,827 5.6 56,604 -0.30 7,397,302 7.8

Source: Years 1970-2008 (USCB 2008a, b, c, d); Years 2010-2030 forecasted by TACIR (2010)

-- = No data available.

(a) Percent growth rate is calculated as total growth over the previous period (in decades from 1970-2000; 2010-2030).

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Per capita and median household incomes increased in the ROI in real terms from 1970 to

1990, while the ethnic character of the population remained fairly constant from 1980 to 1990

(NRC 1995). These trends have largely continued since 1990; however, the region around the

plant has experienced a slight increase in the percentage of Hispanic populations as part of the

overall ethnic mix. Over this same period, the four-county ROI also has experienced a slight

decline in the percentage of Black or African Americans (USCB 2008a, b, c, d). The 2000 and

2008 (estimate) demographic profiles of the four-county ROI population are presented in

Table 2-21 and Table 2-22.

10 Table 2-21. Demographic Profile of the Four-County Socioeconomic Region of Influence in 2000

McMinn Meigs Rhea Roane

Population 49,015 11,086 28,400 51,910

Race (% of total population)

White 92.7 97.7 95.4 95.2

Black or African American 4.5 1.2 2.0 2.7

American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2

Asian 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Some other race 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.2

Two or more races 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.2

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 884 63 474 359

% of total population 1.8 0.6 1.7 0.7

Minority Population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity)

Total minority population 3,985 298 1,520 2,711

% minority 8.1 2.7 5.4 5.2

Source: USCB 2000

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2 -64 September 2011
Affected Environment

1

2

Table 2-22. Demographic Profile of the Four-County Socioeconomic Region of Influence in

2008

McMinn Meigs Rhea Roane

Population (2008 State estimate) 52,511 11,790 30,781 53,430

Race (% of total population)

White 93.4 97.0 95.7 95.2

Black or African American 4.4 2.0 2.4 2.8

American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2

Asian 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.5

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Some other race 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.3

Two or more races 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.3

Ethnicity

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 1,317 125 875 475

% of total population 2.5 1.1 2.8 0.9

Minority Population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity)

Total minority population 4,656 461 2,116 3,040

% minority 8.9 3.9 6.9 5.7

Source: USCB 2008a, b, c, d

1

3 2.4.2 Community Characteristics

4 WBN site activities could potentially affect socioeconomic resources in the region such as

5 housing, public services, infrastructure, and recreational resources. In terms of these

6 socioeconomic resources, the WBN site activities currently have an impact on Rhea, Meigs, and

7 possibly McMinn and Roane counties due to their proximity to the site, workforce residential

8 patterns, commuting patterns, and relatively low population levels. The following sections

9 characterize the regional community around the WBN site, and while the focus is on Rhea and

10 Meigs counties, information on other nearby counties is provided as appropriate.

11 2.4.2.1 Housing

12 Any one of the ROI counties (see Table 2-20) provides a reasonable commuting distance from

13 the WBN site. Table 2-23 presents housing data for these four counties. Census data show

14 significant levels of available housing stock in the region around the WBN site, although not all

15 vacant housing would be appropriate for in-migrants drawn by operation of WBN Unit 2.

September 2011 2-65 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-23. Selected County Housing Statistics for 2008

1

1

1

1

McMinn County Meigs County Rhea County Roane County

Total housing units 22,530 5,188 13,580 24,402

Occupied units 20,503 4,304 11,718 21,318

Owner occupied 14,879 3,526 8,600 17,047

Renter occupied 5,624 778 3,118 4,271

Vacant units 2,027 884 1,862 3,084

Median value of house $80,300 $87,200 $76,700 $86,500

Sources: USCB 2008a, b, c, d.

2 2.4.2.2 Public Services

3 The Watts Bar Utility District in Roane County handles the WBN site's potable water needs and

4 the Spring City Sewage plant handles the wastewater needs. The Watts Bar Utility District

5 water system currently operates at 50 percent permitted capacity on average, and the Spring

6 City Sewage system operates at 55 percent capacity (see Table 2-24 and Table 2-25).

7 Additional information regarding water supply and wastewater systems in Rhea and Meigs

8 counties is presented in Table 2-24 and Table 2-25. All regional water and wastewater systems

9 are currently operating below capacity (TVA 2010a). Some upgrades and expansions of

0 regional systems are planned, including an expansion of water lines in the Spring City and

1 Watts Bar District and a upgrade and expansion of the Dayton water treatment plant, supported

2 in part by grants from State of Tennessee (STDD 2008).

3 Table 2-24. Major Public Water Supply Systems in Rhea and Meigs Counties

Water System

Dayton Water Department

Grandview Utility Department

Graysville Water Department

North Utility District of Rhea County

Spring City Water System

Watts Bar Utility District

Decatur Water Department

Source: (TVA 20.10a)

NA = Not available.

Service Area

Rhea County

Rhea County

Rhea County

Rhea County

Rhea County

Rhea County

Meigs County

Daily Capacity

million Lid

(MGD)

15.26 (4.03)

NA

1.64 (0.43)

NA

5.68 (1.50)

6.81 (1.80)

3.82 (1.01)

Average Daily

Use million L/d

(MGD)

10.03 (2.65)

0.34 (0.09)

0.60 (0.16)

0,75 (0.20)

1.93 (0.51)

3.37 (0.89)

2.34 (0.62)

% of

Capacity

66

NA

37

NA

34

50

61

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-66 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-25. Major Public Wastewater Systems in Rhea and Meigs Counties

Average Daily Operating Capacity

Wastewater Daily Capacity Use million Average Daily Use

System Service Area million Lid (MGD) Lid (MGD) % of Capacity

Copperhill Rhea County 2.65 (0.70) 1.14 (0.301) 43

Spring City Sewage Rhea County 4.16 (1.10). 2.27 (0.60) 55

Dayton Wastewater Rhea County 10.11 (2.67) 6.81 (1.80) 67

Treatment Plant

South Pittsburg Meigs County 5.3 (1.4) 2.65 (0.70) 50

Decatur Operating Meigs County 1.29 (0.34) 1.16 (0.306) 90

Source: (TVA 2010a)

NA = Not available.

2 2.4.2.3 Education

3 The WBN site is located in the Rhea County School District and just across the river from the

4 Meigs County School District. Eleven public schools provide elementary and secondary

5 education to approximately 7,100 students in Rhea and Meigs counties. Two public school

6 districts serve Rhea County: the Rhea County School District and the Dayton School System.

7 The Rhea County District accommodates approximately 4,300 students (NCES 2009e). The

8 high school, one middle school, and three elementary schools currently operate at capacity, and

9 modular buildings have been located at two schools. The Dayton system operates one school,

10 the Dayton City Elementary School, which currently operates at capacity (nearly 800 students)

11 (Rhea County Schools 2009).

12 Meigs County serves approximately 1,900 students in four schools (NCES 2009c). All schools

13 in the Meigs County School System currently operate at or near capacity. The school system

14 has just completed a high school addition and plans are in place for additions at an elementary

15 school, which would include either two or four additional classrooms (TDOE 2005). In addition

16 to Meigs and Rhea counties, McMinn and Roane County School Districts could serve school17 aged children associated with the WBN workforce. McMinn County School District has

18 16 schools with approximately 8,400 students enrolled, and Roane County School District has

19 18 schools with approximately 7,500 students enrolled (NCES 2009d, f).

20 2.4.2.4 Transportation

21. Figure 2-1 shows the location of the WBN site in relation to the counties, cities, and towns within

22 an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the site. 1-75 passes within 29 km (18 mi) to the east of the site, and

23 1-40 passes within 45 km (28 mi) to the north of the site (see Figure 2-1). Workers and visitors

24 access the site from TN-68, which connects with US-27 to the west and TN-302, TN-58, and

25 1-75 to the east. TN-68, TN-302, and TN-58 are all two-lane highways in good condition.

September 2011 2-67 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 U.S. Highway 27 is a four-lane highway. Although the Tennessee Department of Transportation

2 has not developed a Level of Use grading system on these road networks, it does maintain

3 average daily traffic volume (ADTV) statistics. On TN-68, the highway that provides access to

4 the site, the ADTV in 2008 was about 4,000 near the site. The Tennessee Department of

5 Transportation considers this level of traffic to be well below the capacity for a two-lane highway

6 in this part of the county (TDOT 2008, 2009). Access to the WBN site is from a three-way

7 intersection with a turning lane off of TN-68.

8 2.4.2.5 Aesthetics and Recreation

9 The area around the WBN site consists of wooded rolling hills. The WBN site is visible from the

10 Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs and from the eastern shoreline of Chickamauga

11 Reservoir, including a public boat ramp directly across the Chickamauga Reservoir from the

12 site. It is also visible from the Watts Bar Dam and certain other locations off of TN-68. The

13 forested land and terrain provide barriers to viewing the containment, turbine buildings, and

14 support structures from most nearby areas.

15 A number of recreational facilities and resources exist in the area, including the Chickamauga

16 and Watts Bar reservoirs. More than 50 developed recreational facilities are located in the area,

17 including 15 overnight campgrounds on Chickamauga Reservoir, and more than 30 developed

18 recreational facilities on the Watts Bar Reservoir (TVA 2004a).

19 2.4.2.6 Economy

20 Table 2-26 and Table 2-27 provide comparative economic statistics for the four-county ROI.

21 Table 2-26 presents information on the unemployment rates for 2009 and median incomes and

22 percentage of individuals below the poverty line for 2008. Table 2-27 contains county

23 employment by proprietorship and industry (2007) for the four-county ROI.

24 Table 2-26. Civilian Labor Force, Percent Unemployment, Median Household Income, and

25 Individual Poverty in Region around the WBN Site

Unemployment Median

Rate Household Below Poverty

Labor Force(s) (%) Income (%)

McMinn County 24,101 13.9 37,052 18.9

Meigs County 4,944 14.4 29,354 14.5

Rhea County 13,101 14.2 30,418 18.6

Roane County 27,405 8.8 33,226 13.9

Tennessee 3,000,242 10.8 43,662 15.7

Sources: USCB 2008a, b, c, d; USBLS 2008.

(a) Labor Force and Unemployment Rates estimated from February 2009 through March 2010.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-68 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-27. County Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Type and by Industry

McMinn Meigs Rhea Roane

Industry County County County County

Total employment 27,408 6,164 14,884 22,245

Wage and salary employment 19,887 1,832 11,671 19,858

Proprietors employment 7,521 4,332 3,213 2,387

Nonfarm proprietor employment 6,394 3,974 2,781 1,819

Farm proprietor employment 1,127 358 432 568

By Industry

Farm employment 1,246 380 479 604

Construction 2,020 1,093 927 826

Manufacturing 6,479 701 4,377 1,601

Transportation and public utilities 1,001 (D) 347 (D)

Retail trade 3,183 476 1,359 2,162

Finance, insurance, and real estate 849 (D) 259 808

Services 4,666 928 2,455 4,112

Government and government enterprises 2,780 493 2,434 4,203

Source: USBEA 2007

D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.

2 The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in March 2010, unemployment rates in the relatively

3 more rural counties of McMinn, Meigs, and Rhea were slightly higher than the state average,

4 while unemployment rates in nearby Roane County were slightly below the state average. In

5 2008 the highest estimated rates of poverty were reported in McMinn and Rhea counties, while

6 Meigs County had the lowest median income.

7 Table 2-27 contains county employment by proprietorship and industry (2007) for the four8 county ROI. Although these counties are relatively rural, agriculture does not serve as a

9 primary employment source in the region. Rather, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis lists

10 manufacturing and retail as major employment sectors in McMinn and Rhea counties,

11 construction and the service industries as primary employers in Meigs County, and services and

12 government as primary employers in Roane County.

13 2.4.2.7 Tax Revenues

14 Property and sales taxes generate funding for most county and city government operations in

15 Tennessee. Cities levy a separate property tax and collect returns on sales taxes generated by

16 business within their corporate limits (Rhea County 2009). Under Section 13 of the TVA Act,(a)

(a) Section 13 of the TVA Act, 16 USC 831.

September 2011 2-69 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 TVA makes tax-equivalent payments to the State of Tennessee. The amount of the tax2 equivalent payments is determined by the book value of the TVA property in the State and the

3 value of TVA power sales in the State. In turn, the State of Tennessee redistributes

4 48.5 percent of the increase in payments to local governments. Payments to counties are

5 based on relative population (30 percent of the total), total acreage in the county (30 percent),

6 and TVA-owned acreage in the county (10 percent). The State pays the remaining 30 percent

7 to cities, based on population. In 2006, the State distributed TVA generated tax-equivalent

8 payments of $724,050 to Rhea County and $484,465 to Meigs County (TVA 2008a).

9 2.4.3 Environmental Justice

10 Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629), as amended by 60 FR 6381, requires Federal

11 agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human

12 health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. In 2004, the

13 Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in

14 NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040) that states "The Commission is

15 committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of

16 its NEPA review process."

17 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following information in

18 Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997):

19 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health effects are

20 measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, as well as other fatal

21 or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse health effects may include bodily

22 impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Disproportionately high and adverse human health

23 effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or

24 low-income population is significant (as employed by the National Environmental Policy Act

25 [NEPA]) and appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for

26 another appropriate comparison group (CEQ 1997).

27 Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A disproportionately high

28 environmental impact that is significant (as defined by NEPA) refers to an impact or risk of

29 an impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income community that

30 appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may

31 include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts. An adverse

32 environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both harmful and significant (as

33 employed by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts

34 that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or dispersed minority or low-income

35 populations or American Indian Tribes are considered (CEQ 1997).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-70 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 The environmental justice analysis assesses the potential for disproportionately high and

2 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that

3 could result from the operation of WBN Unit 2. In assessing the impacts, the NRC used the

4 following CEQ (CEQ 1997) definitions of minority individuals and populations and low-income

5 population:

6 9 Minority. Individual(s) who are members of the following population groups: American Indian

7 or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

8 * Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population of

9 an affected area exceeds 50 percent, or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected

10 area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population

11 or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.

12 * Low-income populations. Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with the

13 annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau's Current Population Reports,

14 Series P-60, on Income and Poverty.

15 2.4.3.1 Minority Populations

16 The WBN site is located in Rhea County where about 7 percent of the population identified

17 themselves as minorities, with Hispanic or Latino being the largest minority group (2.8 percent)

18 followed by Black or African American (2.4 percent) (USCB 2008c).(a)

19 Within the 80-km (50-mi) region of the site, approximately 11 percent of the population identified

20 themselves as minority. Approximately 206 census block groups wholly or partly within the

21 80-km (50-mi) radius of the WBN site were determined to have a minority population of

22 11 percent of the total population (see Figure 2-8). Of these 206 block groups, 70 had

23 aggregate minority population percentages that exceed the regional (within 80-km [50-mi] radius

24 of the WBN site) average by 20 percentage points or more, and 54 census block groups had

25 aggregate minority population percentages that exceed 50 percent. These block groups are

26 primarily located near the town centers of Maryville (Blount County), Oak Ridge (Anderson

27 County), Athens (McMinn County), Cleveland (Bradley County), and the City of Chattanooga

28 (Hamilton County). Some more rural concentrations are located in Knox County, Tennessee,

29 and Whitfield County, Georgia. No block groups with high density minority populations were

30 found in Rhea or Meigs County (USCB 2000).

(a) Although many results from the 2010 Census have been released, at the time of the writing of this

SFES, a complete set of detailed demographic data by county and block group was not yet available.

September 2011 2-71 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

* Cities

* WBN Site

1 50Mile B

2 (To convert miles

3 Figure 2-8. Minor!

4 (50-m

Aggregate Plus Hispanic

County Boundaries

uffer State Boundares ==I Miles

0 10 20

cmi] to kilometers [km], multiply by 1.6 km/mi)

ity Block Groups (11 percent or more of population) in 2000 Within an 80-km

i) Radius of WBN Unit 2 (USCB 2000)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-72 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 2.4.3.2 Low-Income Populations

2 According to 2000 census data, approximately 12 percent of the population residing within

3 80 km (50 mi) of the WBN site was identified as low-income (defined as living at or below the

4 Federal poverty threshold(a)). There were 371 census block groups within the 80-km (50-mi)

5 region of the WBN site (see Figure 2-9) with low-income populations of 12 percent or more

6 (USCB 2000).

7 According to census data estimates, the median household income for Tennessee in 2008 was

8 $43,662, with 16 percent of the state population living in households below the Federal poverty

9 threshold in 2008 (USCB 2009). Rhea County had a lower median household income average

10 ($37,965) and a higher percentage (17.7) of individuals living below the poverty level when

11 compared to the state.

12 Census block groups were considered high-density low-income block groups if the percentage

13 of the population living below the Federal poverty threshold exceeds the regional (i.e., 80-km

14 [50-mi] radius around the WBN site) average (12 percent) by 20 percent or more or if 50 percent

15 or more of the households in the block group are identified as low-income. Based on

16 2000 Census data, 38 block groups exceeded the 80-km (50-mi) average (12 percent) by

17 20 percent or more, while only 3 block groups had low-income populations of 50 percent or

18 more. These block groups are distributed throughout the 80-km (50-mi) radius in relatively rural

19 areas of Scott, Morgan, Cumberland, Grundy, Roane, and Knox counties. In addition, some

20 low-income concentrations are found near the town centers of Oak Ridge (Anderson County),

21 Athens (McMinn County), Cleveland (Bradley County), and the City of Chattanooga (Hamilton

22 County). No high-density low-income block groups were found in Rhea and Meigs counties

23 (USCB 2000).

(a) The USCB weighted average Federal Poverty threshold for a family of four was $17,603 (annual) in

the year 2000 and $22,025 in 2008 (USCB 2009e, "Poverty Thresholds" available at:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html).

September 2011 2-73 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

o Cities Low Income

WBN Site . County Boundaries

j• 50 Mile Buffer AState Boundaries

N

A

Miles

0 10 20

z (To convert miles [mi] to kilometers [km], multiply by 1.6 km/mi)

3 Figure 2-9. Low-Income Block Groups (12 percent or more of population) in 2000 Within an

4 80-km (50-mi) Radius of WBN Unit 2 (USCB 2000)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-74 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 2.5 Historic and Cultural Resources

2 in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC uses the NEPA process to comply with the

3 obligations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

4 (NHPA). The NRC identified the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this operating licensing

5 action to be the area at the power plant site and the immediate environs that may be affected by

6 operating WBN Unit 2. All new TVA construction is restricted to the previously built portion of

7 the WBN property.

8 2.5.1 Cultural Background

9 The area in and around the WBN site carries a rich cultural history and a substantial record of

10 significant cultural resources. The site is located in Rhea County, Tennessee, south of Watts

11 Bar Reservoir on the Tennessee River. For at least 12,000 years, humans have occupied the

12 Tennessee River and the Little Tennessee River Valley. This part of east Tennessee has a

13 cultural sequence that extends back to about 12,000 B.C. The record indicates prehistoric

14 occupation of the area was as follows: Paleo-lndian (12,000 to 8000 B.C.), Archaic (8000 to

15 1200 B.C.), Woodland (1200 B.C. to 1000 A.D.), and Mississippian (1000 to 1500 A.D.)

16 (TVA 2009a).

17 Beginning in the 1700s, Cherokee Indians occupied the area (TVA 2009a). The Overhill

18 Cherokee, one group of this tribe, settled along the Little Tennessee, Tellico, and Hiwassee

19 rivers, where Chickamauga and Tellico lakes are now located (Garrow et al. 1992). The

20 Chickamauga and Creek Indians also occupied these lands (TVA 1972).

21 Spanish explorers (Hernando deSoto's expedition of 1540 and the Juan Pardo expeditions of

22 1566 and 1568) were the first Europeans to explore the area (Garrow et al. 1992). During the

23 centuries following the Spanish explorations, French and British traders entered the Tennessee

24 Valley and Watts Bar area to trade with the Cherokees and other tribes but did not establish

25 settlements (Johnson and Dennings1984).

26 Euro-Americans began to settle east Tennessee in the 1760s when pioneers from the British

27 colonies of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina moved into the area (Johnson and

28 Dennings 1984).

29 Pioneers staked claims for farmsteads and created small port towns along the Tennessee River.

30 Settlers established many ferry crossings (Garrow et al. 1992). In 1791, after Congress

31 established the "Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio," the territorial governor

32 signed a treaty with the Cherokee Nation that expanded Euro-American settlement in the Watts

33 Bar area and cut a road through Cherokee lands (Johnson and Dennings 1984).

September 2011 2-75 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Historians believe the Cherokee Nation ceded lands along the Tennessee River on which the

2 WBN site is located to the United States via treaties in the late 1700s and early 1800s (Garrow

3 et al. 1992).

4 2.5.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the WBN Site

5 The NRC used the following information to identify historic and cultural resources at the WBN

6 site:

7 * The NRC Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,

8 Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-0498, Supplement No. 1, NRC 1995 and NUREG-0498, NRC 1978).

9 * The TVA ER - Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA 2008a).

10 * The TVA Supplemental Environmental Review for Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (June

11 1995).

12 * Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Watts Bar

13 Reservoir Land Management Plan for Loudon, Meigs, Rhea, and Roane Counties,

14 Tennessee. Knoxville, Tennessee (TVA 2009a).

15 * The NRC Environmental Trip - On October 6 and 7, 2009, the NRC staff conducted an

16 on-the-ground visit at the WBN plant that consisted of an environmental records review.

17 • NRC meeting with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office/Officer (SHPO) - NRC

18 staff met with the Tennessee SHPO to discuss the proposed action and any concerns related

19 to historic and cultural resources on October 8, 2009.

20 e Scoping process and consultation letters (see Appendices C and F for a complete list).

21 * RAI Responses from TVA that include several cultural resource management reports.

22 TVA has an extensive cultural resources management program and employs several

23 archaeologists, a historian, and a historic architect to manage and protect historic and cultural

24 resources on TVA lands or land affected by TVA actions (TVA 2009d). To identify historic and

25 cultural resources within the APE, TVA conducted a desktop review of all previous

26 environmental reviews and existing archaeological data on the plant property to determine if the

27 completion of Unit 2 would result in effects to historic properties (TVA 2006c).

28 TVA identified one archaeological site (40RH6) in the APE for this operating licensing action.

29 Researchers have studied this site since the 1970s construction of WBN Units I and 2. The site

30 consists of a mound complex that the University of Tennessee in Knoxville partially excavated in

31 1971. Researchers conducted the excavations to mitigate construction activities of Units 1

32 and 2 (Calabrese 1976). TVA is not certain whether intact portions of 40RH6 currently exist in

33 this location; therefore, TVA's preference is to avoid ground-disturbing activity in this area

34 (TVA 2006c).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-76 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 TVA did not identify any historic structures in the APE for this operating licensing action. The

2 Watts Bar Fossil Plant located adjacent to the APE is considered eligible for listing in the

3 National Register of Historic Places (PNNL 2009).

4 2.5.3 Consultation

5 In September 2009, the NRC initiated consultations on the proposed action by writing to the

6 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the SHPO. Also in September 2009, the NRC

7 initiated consultation with 18 Federally recognized tribes (see Appendices C, D, and E for a

8 complete list), In its letters, the NRC provided information about the proposed action and

9 indicated the NHPA review would be integrated with the NEPA process, according to

10 36 CFR 800.8. The NRC invited participation in the identification and possible decisions

11 concerning historic properties and also invited participation in the scoping process.

12 On September 22, 2009, the NRC received a letter from the Tennessee Historical Commission

13 stating that the WBN Unit 2 project as currently proposed may affect properties eligible for listing

14 in the National Register of Historic Places (THC 2009). As part of the NRC staff's independent

15 environmental assessment, NRC staff met with the Tennessee Historical Commission on

16 October 8, 2009, to discuss the proposed action, the known issues, and the path forward for

17 completing the Section 106 process for the NRC. TVA completed the Section 106 process and

18 consultation with the Tennessee Historical Commission for WBN Unit 2 in 2007. The

19 Tennessee Historical Commission responded with a letter to TVA, dated March 30, 2007, as

20 evidence of compliance with Section 106 for licensing WBN Unit 2. The Tennessee Historical

21 Commission concurred that no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible properties

22 would be affected by this undertaking (TVA 2008a). On March 5, 2010, the NRC received a

23 letter from the Tennessee Historical Commission stating that "there are no National Register of

24 Historic Places listed or eligible properties affected by this undertaking," thus completing the

25 NRC Section 106 consultation process with the Tennessee Historical Commission for the WBN

26 Unit 2 operating license action (THC 2009).

27 On September 29, 2009, the NRC received a letter from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

28 stating that the project's location is within the aboriginal territory of the Cherokee People.

29 Potential cultural resources important to the Cherokee People may be threatened due to

30 adverse effects from this undertaking. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians informed the

31 NRC that the tribe would like to act as a consulting party for this Section 106 undertaking as

32 mandated under 36 CFR Part 800. The NRC is in the process of consulting with the Eastern

33 Band of Cherokee Indians regarding the WBN Unit 2 operating license action.

September 2011 2-77 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 2.6 Radiological Environment

2 Between December 1976 and December 1995, TVA conducted a pre-operational REMP around

3 the WBN site to establish a baseline from which to observe fluctuations of radioactivity in the

4 environment after WBN Unit 1 began operating (TVA 2003). TVA has continued to conduct an

5 operational environmental monitoring program to assess the radiological impacts on workers,

6 the public, and the environment since WBN Unit 1 received its operating license in 1996.

7 The REMP measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources and includes the

8 following pathways: direct radiation, atmospheric, aquatic and terrestrial environments, and

9 groundwater and surface water. TVA documents the results of this monitoring program in its

10 Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. The report documents the results of

11 monitoring the environment for radiation and radioactive material resulting from WBN Unit 1

12 (TVA 2003a, 2004b, 2005b, 2006b, 2007b, 2008b, 2009c, 201 Od, 2011 b). The staff reviewed

13 historical REMP data from these reports for a 9-year period (2002 through 2010), (TVA 2003b,

14 2004c, 2005c, 2006d, 2007c, 2008c, 2009e, 2010e, 2011 a). Nine years was chosen because it

15 provides a representative data set that covers a broad range of activities over the years. For

16 example, years where there are refueling outages, or years where there are no refueling outage

17 years and only routine operation, or years where there may be significant maintenance

18 activities. The year 2002 was included because it was the year the tritium leak occurred at WBN

19 Unit 1, and additional monitoring of tritium was performed after that time.

20 These data show exposures or concentrations in air, water, and vegetation at locations near the

21 plant perimeter (i.e., indicator stations) and at distances greater than 16 km (10 mi) (i.e.,

22 background control locations) are comparable. During the 9-year period from 2002 to 2010, the

23 average annual direct radiation exposure at the indicator and control locations ranged from

24 0.44 mSv (44 mrem) to 0.66 mSv (66 mrem) and from 0.37 mSv (37 mrem) to 0.61 mSv

25 (61 mrem), respectively for the WBN site (TVA 2003a, 2003b, 2004b, 2004c, 2005b, 2005c,

26 2006b, 2006d, 2007b, 2007c, 2008b, 2008c, 2009c, 2009e, 201 Od, 2011 b). The indicator and

27 control location results are similarly comparable for drinking water, vegetation, and fish.

28 In its Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, TVA calculated maximum doses to a

29 member of the public. For the 9 years reviewed (TVA 2003a, b; 2004b, c; 2005b, c; 2006b, d;

30 2007b, c; 2008b, c; 2009c, e; 2010e; 201 la), the maximum annual dose to a member of the

31 public was less than 0.374 mSv (3.74 mrem) from operating WBN Unit 1. These data show that

32 doses to the maximally exposed individual (i.e., a hypothetical member of the public outside of

33 the site boundary who could potentially be exposed to all radioactive sources) around the WBN

34 site were below the limits specified in Federal environmental radiation standards, 10 CFR Part

35 20 (1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] total effective dose equivalent to members of the public); 10 CFR

36 Part 50, Appendix I (0.05 mSv/yr [5 mrem/yr] to the whole body from noble gases and 0.03

37 mSv/yr [3 mrem/yr] to the whole body from liquid effluents); and 40 CFR Part 190 (0.25 mSv/yr

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-78 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 [25 mrem/yr] to the whole body, 0.75 mSv/yr [75 mrem/yr] to the thyroid, and 0.25 mSv/yr

2 [25 mrem/yr] to other organs).

3 In the 2010 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (TVA 201 la), TVA reported that there

4 are six onsite groundwater monitoring wells that are part of the REMP and an additional 19

5 wells that are not part of the REMP. The wells are sampled semi-annually for tritium, and have

6 been showing a downward trend for tritium following the leak that was identified in the 2002.

7 TVA implemented a Ground Water Protection Program (GWPP) for the WBN site. TVA

8 developed the program to implement requirements in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 07-07,

9 including early detection, reporting, and mitigation of impacts associated with potential

10 subsurface and or groundwater contamination (NEI 2007). The program also addresses, as

11 appropriate, guidance in Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report 1015118 (EPRI 2007).

12 This report provides guidance for practical methods for locating monitoring wells and

13 establishing a groundwater protection program. The TVA GWPP assigns the Site Chemistry

14 Manager to coordinate and implement the program. In addition, the Site Radiation Protection

15 Manager provides radiation protection support, including controls for work activities and

16 documentation of spills or leaks of licensed radioactive material (TVA 2008d).

17 2.7 Nonradiological Human Health

18 This section describes aspects of the environment at the WBN site and within the vicinity of the

19 site associated with nonradiological human health impacts. The section provides the basis for

20 evaluation of impacts on human health from operation of the WBN Unit 2, which has the

21 potential to affect the public and workers at the WBN site from operation of the cooling system,

22 noise generated by operations, and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by transmission

23 systems.

24 2.7.1 Etiological Agents

25 Activities at the WBN site could compromise public and occupational health by increasing water

26 temperature and encourage growth of disease-causing thermophilic microorganisms (etiological

27 agents). Thermal discharges at the WBN site into the cooling-tower basins and then into the

28 Tennessee River have the potential to increase the growth of thermophilic microorganisms. The

29 segment of the Tennessee River near the WBN site is listed by Tennessee Department of

30 Environmental Quality as Category 5, which means that one or more uses of the water body do

31 not meet the water-quality criteria (e.g., the sediments are contaminated with PCBs) (TDEC

32 2008). There is no indication that bacteria or nutrients impair the Tennessee River near the

33 WBN site. The types of organisms of concern from water exposures for public and occupational

34 health include enteric pathogens (such as Salmonella spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa),

35 thermophilic fungi, bacteria (such as Legionella spp.), and free-living amoeba (such as

36 Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.). These microorganisms could result in potentially

37 serious human health concerns, particularly at high exposure levels.

September 2011 2-79 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Etiological agents generally occur at temperatures of 25 to 800C (77 to 1760F) with an optimal

2 growth temperature range of 50 to 660C (122 to 150'F) and a minimum temperature tolerance

3 of 20°C (680F) (Joklik and Willett 1976). However, thermal preferences and tolerances vary

4 across groups of microorganisms. Pathogenic thermophilic microbiological organisms that are

5 of concern during nuclear power reactor operation typically have optimal growing temperatures

6 of approximately 37.20C (99 0F) (Joklik and Smith 1972).

7 The microorganisms of concern are known to cause infections in people accessing water bodies

8 such as the Tennessee River. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic pathogen that

9 causes serious and sometimes fatal infections in immuno-compromised individuals by

10 producing and releasing toxins. The bacterium has an optimal growth temperature of 37.20C

11 (990F) (McCoy 1980). Legionella spp. can cause a type of pneumonia known as Legionnaires'

12 disease, and the elderly, cigarette smokers, persons with chronic lung or immuno-compromising

13 disease, and persons receiving immuno-suppressive drugs are most susceptible to the disease.

14 Legionella spp. grow best at 32 to 40.60C (90 to 105 0F) (CDC 2008a). Salmonella spp. are a

15 group of bacteria that can cause fevers, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea. Salmonella spp. can

16 occasionally establish localized infection (e.g., septic arthritis) or progress to sepsis. All ages

17 can be affected, but groups at greatest risk for infection include infants, the elderly, and persons

18 with compromised immune systems. Salmonella spp. occur at temperatures between 10 and

19 490C (50 and 120°F) (Aserkoff et al. 1970; CDC 2008b), with optimal growth occurring at 35 to

20 37.20C (95 to 99 0F) (Lake et al. 2002). There are more than 40 species of the free-living

21 amoeba, Naegleria, but only N. fowleri is pathogenic and the causative agent of human primary

22 amoebic meningoencephalitis. Infection usually occurs after water containing the amoeba

23 enters the nose and subsequently the brain through the olfactory nerve. All ages are

24 susceptible to the infection, but groups at greatest risk are children that play in the water in

25 southern-tier states. Naegleria spp. are ubiquitous in freshwater and can be enhanced in

26 thermally altered water bodies at temperatures up to 450C (1 130F) (Yoder et al. 2009). The

27 NPDES temperature limits for WBN outfalls to the Tennessee River are at or below 950C, which

28 is below the optimal growth temperatures for the above-mentioned organisms, and TVA has

29 stated they would comply with those requirements (see Table 4-1)(TVA 2010a). Although the

30 thermal discharge will change the temperature of the receiving waters, the change in

31 temperature especially after mixing would still be within the organisms' range of tolerance. Since

32 the organisms are ubiquitous in the aquatic environment, it is unlikely the minor change in

33 temperature would increase the populations by a significant amount. A review of outbreaks of

34 human waterborne diseases in Tennessee indicates that the incidence of most of these

35 diseases is not common. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that outbreaks of

36 legionellosis, salmonellosis, or shigellosis that occurred in Tennessee from 1996 to 2006 were

37 within the range of national trends in terms of cases per 100,000 population or total cases per

38 year. The CDC associated these outbreaks with pools, spas, or lakes (CDC 1997, 1998a, 1999,

39 2001, 2002a, 2003, 2004a, 2005, 2006a, 2007c, and 2008c). The CDC reported no cases in

40 the state of the disease caused by Naegleria fowleri, primary amoebic meningoencephalitis,

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-80 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 which is a brain infection that leads to destruction of brain tissue and is fatal (CDC 1998b, 2000,

2 2002b, 2004b, 2006b, 2008d, c; Yoder et al. 2009).

3 2.7.2 Noise

4 Sources of noise at the WBN site are those associated with operation of WBN Unit 1, including

5 transformers and other electrical equipment, circulating water pumps, cooling tower, and the

6 public address system, as well as with operation of the Watts Bar Fossil Plant and Dam. In

7 addition, high-voltage transmission lines emit a corona discharge noise. This section discusses

8 these noise sources.

9 The 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1995) evaluated noise. The NRC used information on operational

10 sound levels from published values on noise from larger cooling towers and TVA's own sound

11 survey data on noise emissions from 500-kV transformers. The 1995 SFES-OL-1 placed the

12 nearest residents to the plant at 900 m (3,000 ft) to 1,800 m (6,000 ft) from the WBN site

13 boundary. It estimated noise from the transformers and cooling towers combined with

14 background noise ranged from 53 to 63 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA; this scale

15 simulates human hearing sensitivity). Intermittent noise emissions from air-blast circuit breakers

16 breaking under an electrical load or steam venting ranged from 84 to 103 dBA at the residential

17 locations.

18 As illustrated in Table 2-28, noise strongly attenuates with distance. A decrease of 10 dBA in

19 noise level is generally perceived as cutting the loudness in half. At a distance of 15 m (50 ft)

20 from the source, these peak noise levels would generally decrease to the 80- to 95-dBA range

21 and at distance of 122 m (400 ft), the peak noise levels would generally be in the 60- to 80-dBA

22 range. For context, the sound intensity of a quiet office is 50 dBA, normal conversation is

23 60 dBA, busy traffic is 70 dBA, and a noisy office with machines or an average factory is 80 dBA

24 (Tipler 1982).

25 Regulations governing noise associated with the activities at the WBN site are generally limited

26 to worker health. Federal regulations governing construction noise are found in 29 CFR

27 Part 1910, Occupational Health and Safety Standards, and 40 CFR Part 204, Noise Emission

28 Standards for Construction Equipment. The regulations in 29 CFR Part 1910 deal with noise

29 exposure in the construction environment, and the regulations in 40 CFR Part 204 generally

30 govern the noise levels of compressors. The Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health

31 Administration (TOSHA) has a Special Emphasis Program for occupational noise exposure and

32 hearing conservation. TOSHA requires employers to provide hearing protection for workers

33 when noise exposure exceeds 85 dBA over 8 hours (TDLWD 2010).

September 2011 2-81 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Table 2-28. Construction Noise Sources and Attenuation with Distance

Noise Level (dBA)

Noise Level Distance from Source

Source (dBA) (peak) 50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 400 ft

Heavy trucks 95 84-89 78-83 72-77 66-71

Dump trucks 108 88 82 76 70

Concrete mixer 105 85 79 73 67

Jackhammer 108 88 82 76 70

Scraper 93 80-89 74-82 68-77 60-71

Dozer 107 87-102 81-96 75-90 69-84

Generator 96 76 70 64 58

Crane 104 75-88 69-82 63-76 55-70

Loader 104 73-86 67-80 61-74 55-68

Grader 108 88-91 82-85 76-79 70-73

Dragline 105 85 79 73 67

Pile driver 105 95 89 83 77

Forklift 100 95 89 83 77

Source: Golden et al. 1980

To convert ft to m, multiply by 0.3048 m/ft.

2 Transmission lines and substations can produce noise from corona discharge (the electrical

3 breakdown of air into charged particles). This noise, referred to as corona noise, occurs when

4 air ionizes near irregularities (such as nicks, scrapes, dirt, and insects) on the conductors.

5 Corona noise consists of broadband noise, characterized as a crackling noise, and pure tones,

6 characterized as a humming noise. The weather also affects corona noise. During dry weather,

7 the noise level off the corridor is low and often indistinguishable from background noise. In wet

8 conditions, water drops collecting on conductors can cause louder corona discharges

9 (NRC 1996; TVA 2008a).

10 2.7.3 Electromagnetic Fields

11 Transmission lines generate both electric and magnetic fields, referred to collectively as EMFs.

12 Acute and chronic exposure to EMFs from power transmission systems, including switching

13 stations (or substations) onsite and transmission lines connecting the plant to the regional

14 electrical distribution grid, can compromise public and occupational health. Transmission lines

15 operate at a frequency of 60 Hz (60 cycles per second), which is considered to be extremely low

16 frequency (ELF). In comparison, television transmitters have frequencies of 55 to 890 MHz and

17 microwaves have frequencies of 1,000 MHz and greater (NRC 1996).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-82 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in

2 metallic structures is an example of an acute effect from EMF associated with transmission lines

3 (NRC 1996). Objects close to the electric field of a transmission line can carry an induced

4 current. The current can flow from the line through the object into the ground. Capacitive

5 charges can occur in objects that are in the electric field of a line, storing the electric charge, but

6 isolated from the ground. A person standing on the ground can receive an electric shock from

7 coming into contact with such an object because of the sudden discharge of the capacitive

8 charge through the person's body to the ground. The National Electrical Safety Code has

9 criteria for the design and construction of transmission systems to control and minimize acute

10 affects from electric shock in transmission systems.

11 Research on the potential for chronic effects of EMFs from energized transmission lines was

12 reviewed and addressed by the NRC in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). At that time, research

13 results were not conclusive. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)

14 directs related research through the U.S. Department of Energy. An NIEHS report (NIEHS

15 1999) contains the following conclusion:

16 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely

17 safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia

18 hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory

19 concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses

20 electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory

21 action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public

22 and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The

23 NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes

24 provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.

25 The staff reviewed available scientific literature on chronic effects to human health from ELF26 EMF published since the NIEHS report and found that several other organizations reached the

27 same conclusions (AGNIR 2006; WHO 2007a). Additional work under the auspices of the

28 World Health Organization (WHO) updated the assessments of a number of scientific groups

29 reflecting the potential for transmission-line EMF to cause adverse health impacts in humans.

30 The monograph summarized the potential for ELF-EMF to cause disease such as cancers in

31 children and adults, depression, suicide, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders,

32 immunological modifications, and neurological disease. The results of the review by WHO

33 (2007b) found that the extent of scientific evidence linking these diseases to EMF exposure is

34 not conclusive.

September 2011 2-83 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 2.8 Meteorology and Air Quality

2 Previous environmental reviews discuss the meteorology and air quality of the WBN site

3 (TVA 1972, 1993; NRC 1978, 1995). The TVA ER (TVA 2008a) updates the discussion through

4 2005. This section summarizes the previous discussions and presents the NRC's assessment

5 of the climatology and air quality of the WBN site.

6 2.8.1 Climate

7 The WBN site is located in the Tennessee Valley between the Appalachian Mountains and

8 Great Smoky Mountains to the east and Cumberland Plateau to the west. The orientation of the

9 valley in this area is generally northeast-southwest. Currently, the area has a moderate climate

10 with cool winters (daily maximum temperatures in January averaging near 1000 [50'F]) and

11 warm summers (daily maximum temperatures in July averaging near 3200 [90°F]). Precipitation

12 averages about 130 cm (50 in.) per year, with 13 to 25 cm (5 to 10 in.) of snow. Prevailing

13 winds tend to be aligned with the valley.

14 Projected changes in the climate for the region during the life of the WBN Unit 2 include an

15 increase in average temperature of 1.1 to 1.70C (2 to 3°F) and possibly a small change in

16 precipitation (GCRP 2009). Changes in median annual runoff in the region are predicted to be

17 less than ±2 percent.

18 2.8.2 Severe Weather

19 The Appalachian Mountains and the Cumberland Plateau tend to protect the region from severe

20 weather approaching from the east or northwest. Winter storms occasionally bring snow, but

21 the accumulation of snow from individual storms is generally only a few inches and generally

22 remains on the ground for only a few days. Thunderstorms may occur during any month, but

23 are most frequent from April through September. Tornadoes occur infrequently. Based on

24 regional tornado statistics from 1950 through 2008, and the approach described in

25 NUREG/CR-4461, Rev. 2 (Ramsdell and Rishel 2007), the NRC estimates the probability of a

26 tornado striking the WBN site is about 5 x 10-4 per year. This is about a factor of three higher

27 than estimated in the FSAR (TVA 2009b). The difference in estimates, which is largely due to

28 differences in tornado strike models used to obtain the estimates, is less significant than it might

29 appear because WBN Unit 2 has been designed to withstand direct tornado strikes.

30 2.8.3 Local Meteorological Conditions

31 TVA has made meteorological measurements at the WBN site since 1971. Data from the site

32 have been reviewed, summarized, and evaluated in prior environmental reviews of the site (TVA

33 1972; NRC 1978, 1995). In the 1995 SFES-OL-1, the staff evaluated the onsite meteorological

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2 -84 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 measurements through 1993 and concluded there were no significant changes in local

2 meteorological conditions from those described in the 1978 FES-OL.

3 TVA provided NRC with Watts Bar meteorological data for the years 2004 through 2008 (TVA

4 2009f). These data form the basis of the staff's evaluation of current local meteorological

5 conditions. In addition, the staff reviewed climatological records for Chattanooga and Knoxville

6 for indications of potential regional changes in climate. The staff did not identify any significant

7 local changes in climate.

8 In its ER (TVA 2008a), TVA notes only a slight decrease in wind speeds. This change and its

9 implications are described by Wastrack et al. (2008). The staff reviewed the recent Watts Bar

10 wind data and the TVA analysis and also compared the recent meteorological data with earlier

11 Watts Bar wind data. The staff concludes that while there may appear to be a trend in the data,

12 it is likely the variations in wind speed are associated with normal climatic variations.

13 The recent wind direction data show small decreases in frequencies of direction with easterly

14 components and small increases in wind with southwesterly components. However, no change

15 was as large as 3 percent. Similarly, there are small changes in the frequencies of various

16 stability classes. Notably, there are small decreases in the frequency of unstable

17 meteorological conditions and small increases in the neutral and slightly stable classes. The

18 frequencies of the most stable classes are essentially unchanged from those described in the

19 earlier FESs. The staff does not consider the changes in either wind direction or atmospheric

20 stability to be significant.

21 In summary, the staff reviewed descriptions of local meteorological conditions at the WBN site

22 contained in its earlier FESs related to the site and compared recent data for the site provided

23 by TVA with those descriptions. The staff concludes that the recent data from the WBN

24 meteorological system indicate that current meteorological conditions are consistent with the

25 meteorological conditions described in the 1978 FES-OL and the 1995 SFES-OL-1.

26 2.8.4 Atmospheric Dispersion

27 Atmospheric dispersion for WBN Unit 2 was estimated using onsite wind and stability data.

28 These dispersion estimates are needed to evaluate the consequences of potential releases

29 from the site during normal operations and in the event of an accident.

30 TVA derived initial dispersion estimates for use in evaluation of design basis accidents (DBAs)

31 from Regulatory Guide 1.4 (NRC 1974). They based later DBA dispersion estimates on

32 measurements from the WBN meteorological system. Section 2.3 of the FSAR (WVA 2009b)

33 presents conservative dispersion estimates for use in safety DBA evaluations. More realistic

34 dispersion estimates are used in environmental reviews. The staff estimated realistic

35 (50 percentile) dispersion estimates using meteorological data for 2004 through 2008 provided

September 2011 2-85 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 by TVA (TVA 20090 following the procedures outlined in Regulatory Guides 1.111 and 1.145

2 (NRC 1977, 1983). Table 2-29 presents realistic dispersion estimates for environmental review

3 of DBA.

4 Table 2-29. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Proposed Unit 2 Design Basis Accident

5 Calculations

Time period Boundary X/Q (s/m 3

)

0 to 2 hours Exclusion Area Boundary 5.78 x 10.5

0 to 8 hours(a) Low Population Zone 7.15 x 10.6

8 to 24 hours(a) Low Population Zone 6.16 x 10.6

1 to 4 days(a) Low Population Zone 4.46 x 10-6

4 to 30 days(a) Low Population Zone 2.81 x 10-6

(a) Times are relative to beginning of the release to the environment.

6 The staff based its evaluation of the radiological impacts of WBN Unit 2 normal plant operations

7 on its analysis of the same meteorological data using the XOQDOQ computer program

8 (Sagendorf et al. 1982). This program implements the guidance set forth in Regulatory

9 Guide 1.111 (NRC 1977). The results of the staff calculations are presented in Table 2-30 for

10 the points of the maximum normalized annual air concentration and surface deposition on the

11 exclusion area boundary and the outer boundary of the low population zone. The table also

12 includes the location of and maximum normalized annual air concentration and surface

13 deposition for milk animals, gardens, and residences.

14 Table 2-30. Maximum Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for

15 Evaluation of Normal Effluents for Receptors of Interest

2.26-Day 8-Day

Downwind Distance No Deca, Decay Decay DIQ

Receptor Sector km (mi) X/Q (s/m ) IQ (s/m3) xIQ (s/m3) (/rM 2)

EAB ESE 1.1 (0.68) 1.5 x 10.5 1.5 x 10-5 1.4 x 10-5 3.3 x 10."6a)

LPZ Boundary E 4,8 (3.0) 2.0 x 10.6 2.0 x 10.6 1.6 x 10.6 2.6 x 10-9(b)

Residence SE 1.4 (0.85) 7.0 x 10-r 7.0 x 10-6 6.2 x 10.6 9.0 x 10-9

Milk Animal SSW 2.3 (1.42) 1.5 x 10.6 1.5 x 10.6 1.3 x 10.6 5.0 x 10.9

Veg. Garden NE 3.8 (2.38) 2.2 x 10.6 2.1 X 10.6 1.8 x 10.6 5.0 x 10-91c)

(a) 1.1 km (0.68 mi) NNE

(b) 4.8 km (3.0 mi) NNE

(c) 1.6 km (0.98 mi) S

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-86 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 2.8.5 Air Quality

2 The WBN site is located in Rhea County, Tennessee, in the Eastern Tennessee-Southwestern

3 Virginia Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.57). This air quality control region generally

4 includes counties to the north and east of Rhea County, including Knox County (Knoxville). The

5 area to the south of Rhea County, including Hamilton County (Chattanooga), is part of the

6 Chattanooga Interstate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.42).

7 The State of Tennessee rates Rhea County air quality as "better than national standards,"

8 "unclassifiable/attainment," or "not designated" for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.343).

9 However, the State rates several counties, or portions of counties, near Rhea County as "not in

10 attainment." An area roughly corresponding to the city limits of Chattanooga in Hamilton County

11 does not meet secondary standards for total suspended particulates; Hamilton, Knox, and

12 Loudon counties, and part of Roane County, are in nonattainment of the annual National

13 Ambient Air Quality Standards' PM2.5 standard (particles with diameters of 2.5 microns or less);

14 and Knox, Blount, and Loudon counties and part of Roane County are in nonattainment of the

15 24-hour PM2 5 standard.

16 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 designated seven mandatory Federal Class 1 areas in

17 Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Kentucky where visibility has been determined to be an

18 important value. Three of these areas are located within 160 km (100 mi) of the WBN site:

19 Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce Kilmer Wilderness Area, located about 80 km

20 (50 mi) east of the WBN site, and the Cohutta Wilderness Area located about 97 km (60 mi)

21 southeast of the WBN site.

22 The WBN Unit 2 plant is co-located with the retired Watts Bar coal-fired power plant. Previous

23 envircnmental reviews have addressed potential interactions between plumes from WBN and

24 the coal-fired plant (e.g., 1995 SFES-OL-1). Concerns with these potential interactions are now

25 moot because the coal-fired plant ceased operation in 1982, and air permits for the plant were

26 terminated in 1997.

27 2.9 Related Federal Project Activities

28 The NRC staff reviewed the possibility that other Federal agencies' activities, such as dam

29 construction, might affect its issuing an operating license to TVA. Any such activity could result

30 in cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for another Federal agency to

31 become a cooperating agency for preparation of this SFES.

32 TVA, a corporation wholly owned by the U.S. Government, is a Federal agency subject to NEPA

33 requirements. In compliance with NEPA, TVA prepared an EIS to provide the public and TVA

34 decision-makers with an assessment of potential environmental impacts from operating WBN

35 Unit 2 (TVA 2008a). The TVA EIS was submitted to NRC as the environmental report part of

September 2011 2-87 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 the of the license application, but the NRC SFES was prepared independently by NRC staff (10

2 CFR 51.10(b)(2)).

3 On the Federally owned WBN site, TVA also operates the Watts Bar Dam and Hydro-Electric

4 Plant, Watts Bar Fossil Plant, TVA Central Maintenance Facility, and Watts Bar Resort Area

5 (TVA 2009b). The dam lies approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) upstream of the plant. TVA

6 constructed Watts Bar Dam for flood control, and it serves as a major artery for barge traffic.

7 The fossil plant currently is not operating, but could be reactivated in the future. Residents and

8 visitors to the area use the reservoir for boating, fishing, swimming, camping, and other outdoor

9 activities (TVA 2009b, d; NRC 1995).

10 TVA also owns and operates the Sequoyah Power Plant, which is located approximately 50 km

11 (31 mi) south-southwest of WBN (TVA 2009b). TVA owns several recreation areas in the

12 region, including the Hiwassee Waterfowl Refuge, located upriver of Watts Bar Dam. The

13 TWRA leases most of the refuge (TWRA 2006).

14 Several other Federal wildlife and recreational areas are located within 80 km (50 mi) of the

15 WBN site, including the Cherokee National Forest. This national forest provides a wide range of

16 outdoor activities such as hiking, backpacking, fishing, biking, camping, swimming, boating,

17 horseback riding, picnic areas and playgrounds, and inns and cabins. Other Federally owned

18 and operated areas include the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Nantahala National

19 Forest.

20 No other Federally owned areas are located in the immediate vicinity of the WBN site. After

21 reviewing Federal activities in the vicinity of the WBN site, the NRC determined no Federal

22 project activities exist requiring another Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for

23 preparation of this SFES. In summary, no other Federal activities or projects are associated

24 with the permitting of the WBN site.

25 In addition to reviewing any related Federal activities, the NRC is required under

26 Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA to consult with and obtain comments from any Federal agency with

27 legal jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in the

28 subject matter of an environmental impact statement. During the course of preparing this

29 SFES, NRC consulted with TVA and the FWS. Contact correspondence is included in

30 Appendix C.

31 2.10 References

32 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

33 Protection Against Radiation."

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-88 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

2 Production and Utilization Facilities."

3 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

4 Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

5 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

6 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

7 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

8 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operation."

9 50 CFR Part 17. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

10 and Plants, Part 17, 'Wildlife and Fisheries."

11 41 FR 17736. April 28, 1976. "Determination that Two Species of Butterflies are Threatened

12 Species and Two Species of Mammals are Endangered Species; 41 FR 17742 17747 (Schaus

13 swallowtail; Bahama swallowtail; Mexican wolf, Canis lupus baileyi; gray bat, Myotis

14 grisescens)." Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior.

15 41 FR 24062. June 14, 1976. "Endangered Status for 159 Taxa of Animals." Federal Register.

16 U.S. Department of the Interior.

17 55 FR 25591. June 21, 1990. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of

18 the Freshwater Mussel, the Fanshell as an Endangered Species." Federal Register.

19 U.S. Department of the Interior.

20 59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

21 Populations and Low-Income Populations, Executive Order 12898." Federal Register. Office of

22 the President.

23 60 FR 6381. February 1, 1995. "Amendment to Executive Order No. 12898." Federal Register.

24 Office of the President.

25 67 FR 1662. January 14, 2002. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

26 Reclassification of Scutellaria montant (Large-Flowered Skullcap) from Endangered to

27 Threatened." Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior.

28 69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice

29 Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

30 Commission.

September 2011 2-89 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 72 FR 37346. July 9, 2007. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the

2 Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife."

3 Federal Register. U.S. Department of Interior.

4 74 FR 31972. July 6, 2009. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Status

5 Reviews of 23 Southeastern Species." Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior.

6 76 FR 3392. January 19, 2011. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered

7 Status for the Sheepnose and Spectaclecase Mussels. Proposed Rule." Federal Register.

8 U.S. Department of the Interior.

9 Advisory Group on Non-lonising Radiation (AGNIR). 2006. Power Frequency Electromagnetic

10 Fields, Melatonin and Risk of Breast Cancer: Report of an Independent Advisory Group on

11 Non-lonising Radiation. Documents of the Health Protection Agency, Series B: Radiation,

12 Chemical and Environmental Hazards, RCE-1, Health Protection Agency, Didcot,

13 United Kingdom.

14 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1996. Health Consultation -

15 Lower Watts Bar Reservoir Operable Unit US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge,

16 Tennessee. Atlanta, Georgia. Available at

17 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=1361 &pg=O.

18 Aserkoff, B.S., A. Schroeder, and P.S. Brachman. 1970. "Salmonellosis in the U.S.- A Five

19 Year Review." American Journal of Epidemiology 92:13-24. Atwood, T.C., H.P. Weeks, and

20 T.M. Gehring. 2004. "Spatial Ecology of Coyotes Along a Suburban-to-Rural Gradient."

21 Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):1000-1009.

22 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 16 USC 688-668c.

23 Baxter D.C. and J.P. Buchanan. 2006. Entrainment Monitoring at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

24 2004. Tennessee Valley Authority. Accession No. ML063210325

25 Baxter, D.S., K.D. Gardner, and G.D. Hickman. 2001. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental

26 Condenser Cooling Water System Fish Monitoring Program. Tennessee Valley Authority,

27 Nashville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML073510313

28 Bohac, C.E. and M.J. McCall. 2008. Water Use in the Tennessee Valley for 2005 and

29 Projected Use in 2030. Tennessee Valley Authority prepared in cooperation with the

30 U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed March 4, 2011 at

31 www.tva.gov/river/watersupply/watersupplyreport to 2030.pdf

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-90 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Brady, J., T. Kunz, M.D. Tuttle, and D. Wilson. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. Fish and

2 Wildlife Reference Service, Denver, Colorado. Accessed March 4, 2011 at

3 http:/www.fws.govlAsheville/htmlsllistedspecieslgraybat.html.

4 Cadenasso, M.L. and S.T.A. Pickett. 2000. "Linking Forest Edge Structure to Edge Function:

5 Mediation of Herbivore Damage." Journal of Ecology 88:31-44.

6 Calabrese, F.A. 1976. Excavations at 40RH6, Watts Bar Area, Rhea County, Tennessee.

7 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.

8 Available at

9 http://larc.tn.gov:8080/?config=tslaysm#section=resource&resourceid=47667¤tlndex=0&t

10 ab=detailViewDescriptionTab. Accession No. ML073510357.

11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1997. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases,

12 United States 1996." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 45, No. 53. October 31,

13 1997. Atlanta, Georgia.

14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998a. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases,

15 United States 1997." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 46, No. 54. November 20,

16 1998. Atlanta, Georgia.

17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998b. "Surveillance for Waterborne18 Disease Outbreaks - United States, 1995-1996." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,

19 Vol. 47 (SS-5). December 11, 1998. Atlanta, Georgia.

20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. " Summary of Notifiable Diseases,

21 United States 1998." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 47, No. 53. December 31,

22 1999. Atlanta, Georgia.

23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2000. "Surveillance for Waterborne24 Disease Outbreaks - United States, 1997-1998." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,

25 Vol. 49 (SS04). May 26, 2000. Atlanta, Georgia.

26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases,

27 United States 1999." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 48, No. 53. April 6, 2001.

28 Atlanta, Georgia.

29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002a. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases

30 - United States, 2000." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 49, No. 53. June 14,

31 2002. Atlanta, Georgia.

September 2011 2-91 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002b. "Surveillance for Waterborne2 Disease Outbreaks - United States, 1999-2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,

3 Vol. 51, No. SS-8." November 22, 2002. Atlanta, Georgia.

4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

5 United States, 2001 ." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 50, No. 53. May 2, 2003.

6 Atlanta, Georgia.

7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004a. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases

8 - United States, 2002." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 51, No. 53. April 30,

9 2004. Atlanta, Georgia.

10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004b. "Surveillance for Waterborne

11 Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water - United States, 2001-2002; and

12 Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water

13 not Intended for Drinking - United States, 2001-2002." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,

14 Vol. 53, No. SS-8. October 22, 2004. Atlanta, Georgia.

15 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2005. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

16 United States, 2003." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 52, No. 54. April 22, 2005.

17 Atlanta, Georgia.

18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006a. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases

19 - United States, 2004." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 53, No. 53. June 16,

20 2006. Atlanta, Georgia.

21 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006b. "Surveillance for Waterborne

22 Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water - United States, 2003-2004; and

23 Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water

24 not Intended for Drinking - United States, 2003-2004." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,

25 Vol. 55, No. SS-12. December 22, 2006. Atlanta, Georgia.

26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases -

27 United States, 2005;" Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 54, No. 53. March 30, 2007.

28 Atlanta, Georgia.

29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008a. "Patient Facts: Learn More about

30 Legionnaires' Disease." Accessed June 1, 2010 at

31 http://www.cdc.gov/legionella/patientfacts.htm

32 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008b. "Salmonellosis". Accessed June 1,

33 2010 at: http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/salmonellosis/

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-92 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008c. "Surveillance for Waterborne

2 Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Use and Other Aquatic Facility3 Associated Health Events - United States, 2005-2006; and Surveillance for Waterborne

4 Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water not Intended for Drinking -

5 United States, 2005-2006." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 57, No. SS-9.

6 September 12, 2008. Atlanta, Georgia.

7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008d. "Summary of Notifiable Diseases

8 - United States, 2006." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 55, No. 53. March 21,

9 2008. Atlanta, Georgia.

10 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the

11 National Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997. Executive Office of the President,

12 Washington, D.C.

13 Crowder, L.B. 1980. "Alewife, rainbow smelt and native fishes in Lake Michigan: competition

14 or predation?" Environmental Biology of Fishes 5(3):225-233.

15 Downing, J.A, Y. Rochon, M Perusse, H. Harvey. 1993. "Spatial Aggregation, Body Size, and

16 Reproductive Success in the Freshwater Mussel Elliptio complanata."Joumal of the North

17 American Benthological Society. 12(2): 148-156.

18 Dunning, J.B. 2006. "Bachman's Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis)." The Birds of North America

19 Online. A. Poole, Ed. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.

20 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. 2009. Letter from the Tyler Howe (Tribal Historical

21 Preservation Specialist, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

22 Commission dated September 29, 2009, "Comments Concerning the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

23 Unit 2 Operating License Application Environmental Review." Cherokee, North Carolina.

24 Accession No. ML092860591.

25 Endangered Species Act. 16 USC 1531 et seq.

26 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2007. Ground Water Protection Guidelines for

27 Nuclear Power Plants. EPRI TR-1 015118. Palo Alto, California. Accessed March 4'2011 at

28 mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/000000000001 016099. pdf.

29 Etnier, D.A., WC Starnes and BH Bauer. 1979. "Whatever Happened to the Silvery Minnow

30 (Hybognathus nuchalis) in the Tennessee River?" Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings

31 2(3).

September 2011 2-93 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee

2 Press. Knoxville, Tennessee.

3 Frey, S.N. and M.R. Conover. 2006. "Habitat Use by Meso-Predators in a Corridor

4 Environment." The Journal of Wildlife Management 70(4): 1111-1118

5 Harvey, M.J. and E.R. Britzke. 2002. Distribution and Status of Endangered Bats in

6 Tennessee. Final Report Prepared for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.

7 Garrow, P.H., R.J. Fryrnan, and J.L. Holland. 1992. Phase I Investigations at the Watts Bar

8 Dam and Lock, Meigs County. Tennessee, Garrow & Associates, Atlanta, Georgia. Not for

9 public disclosure per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Accession

10 No. ML1 01180044.

11 Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S.Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

12 Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

13 Hevel, K.W. and G.D. Hickman. 1991. Population Survey of Sauger in Chickamauga Reservoir

14 1990-1991. Tennessee Valley Authority. Accession No. ML073510353.

15 Hutson, S.S., M.C. Koroa, and C.M. Murphree. 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the

16 Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030. Water-Resources

17 Investigations Report 03-4302. U.S. Geological Survey and Tennessee Valley Authority,

18 Nashville, Tennessee.

19 Jirka, K.J. and R.J. Neves. 1992. "Reproductive Biology of Four Species of Freshwater

20 Mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) in the New River, Virginia and West Virginia." Journal of

21 Freshwater Ecology 7(1 ):35-44.

22 Johnson, L.R. and J.K. Dennings. 1984. The Watts Bar Reservoir Area: It's Enigmatic History,

23 Clio Research Company, Knoxville, Tennessee.

24 Joklik, W.K. and D.T. Smith. 1972. Zinsser Microbiology. Appleton-Century-Croft, New York,

25 N.Y.

26 Joklik, W. K, and H.P. Willet. 1976. Zinsser Microbiology, 16th ed. Appleton-Century-Croft,

27 New York, N.Y.

28 Lake, R., A. Hudson, and P. Cressey. 2002. Risk Profile: Salmonella (Non Typhoid) in Poultry

29 (Whole and Pieces). Institute of Environmental Science & Research Limited, Christchurch

30 Science Centre, Christchurch, New Zealand. Accession No. ML042790521

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-94 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 McCoy, J.W. 1980. Microbiology of Cooling Water. Chemical Publishing Company, New York,

2 N.Y.

3 Mayasich, J., D. Grandmaison, and C. Philips. 2003. Eastern Hellbender Status Assessment

4 Report. NRR/TR-2003/09. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

5 Mettee, M.F., P.E. O'Neil and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin.

6 Oxmoor House, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama.

7 Mirarchi, R., J. Garner, M. Mettee, and P. O'Neil, eds. 2004. Alabama Wildlife, Volume 2,

8 Imperiled Aquatic Mollusks and Fishes. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

9 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009a. "Hamilton County School District."

10 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

11 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index. asp.

12 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009b. "Louden County School District."

13 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

14 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index. asp.

15 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009c. "Meigs County School District."

16 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

17 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index. asp.

18 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009d. "McMinn County School District."

19 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

20 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp.

21 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009e. "Rhea County School District."

22 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

23 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearchlindex.asp.

24 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009f. "Roane County School District."

25 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

26 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearchlindex.asp.

27 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended. 42 USC 4321, et seq.

28 National Historic Preservation Act of 1969 (NHPA), as amended. 42 USC 4321, et seq.

29 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

30 Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. NIH Publication

31 No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

September 2011 2-95 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 NatureServe. 2009a. "Sylvilagus Floridanus." NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia

2 of life [web application]. Version 7.1. Arlington, Virginia. Available at

3 http://www. natureserve.org/explorer.

4 NatureServe. 2009b. "Didelphis virginiana." NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of

5 life [web application]. Version 7.1. Arlington, Virginia. Available at

6 http://wwwnatureserve.org/explorer.

7 NatureServe. 2009c. "Procyon lotor." NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life

8 [web application]. Version 7.1. Arlington, Virginia. Available at

9 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

10 NatureServe. 2009f. "Pleurobema plenum (Updated Oct 2009). " NatureServe Explorer: An

11 online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. Arlington, Virginia. Available at

12 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

13 Neves, R. J., and P. L. Angermeier. 1990. "Habitat alteration and its effects on native fishes in

14 the upper Tennessee River system, east-central U.S.A." Journal of Fish Biology 37:45-52.

15 New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Status Assessment of the Northern Pine Snake

16 (Pituophis m. melanoleucus) in New Jersey: An Evaluation of Trends and Threats. New Jersey

17 Department of Environmental Protection. Trenton, New Jersey. Accessed March 4, 2011 at

18 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/literature.htm

19 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2007. NEI 07-07, Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative -

20 Final Guidance Document. Washington, D.C.

21 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2009. Letter from JA Stegen (Pacific Northwest

22 National Laboratory) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 12, 2009. "Final

23 Watts Bar Site Audit Trip Report for JCN J-4261, 'Technical Assistance for Operating License

24 Environmental Review - Watts Bar Unit 2 Reactivation."' Accession No. ML100220022.

25 Parmalee, P.W., W.E. Klippel, and A.E. Bogan. 1982. "Aboriginal and Modern Freshwater

26 Mussel Assemblages (Pelecypoda: Unionidae) from the Chickamauga Reservoir, Tennessee."

27 Brimleyana 8:75-90.

28 Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of

29 Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.

30 Ramsdell Jr., J.V. and J.P. Rishel. 2007. Tornado Climatology of the Contiguous United

31 States. NUREG/CR-4461, Rev. 2, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML070810400.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-96 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Rhea County. 2009. "Welcome to Rhea County Tennessee, Government." Available at

2 http://www.rheacountyetc.com/government.php

3 Rhea County Schools. 2009. Phone call from Katherine Cort (Pacific Northwest National

4 Laboratory) to Jerry Levengood (Superintendent of Rhea County School System) on November

5 2, 2009, "Re: Bar Nuclear Plant Impact on Regional School System. "Accession

6 No. ML101520416.

7 Sagendorf, J. F., J. T. Goll, and W. F. Sandusky. 1982. XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the

8 Meterological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations. NUREG/CR9 2929, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commssion, Washington, D.C.

10 Southeast Tennessee Development District (STDD). 2008. Comprehensive Economic

11 Development Strategy Progress Report, 2008. Chattanooga, Tennessee.

12 Schloesser, D.W, J.L. Metcalfe-Smith, W.P. Kovalak, G.D. Longton, and R.D. Smithee et al.

13 2006. "Extirpation of Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) following the Invasion of

14 Dreissenid Mussels in an Interconnecting River of the Laurentian Great Lakes." The American

15 Midland Naturalist 155:307-320.

16 Short, P., M. Bozek and F.A. Copes. 1998. Enhancing Domestic Baitfish Production:

17 Developing Techniques for Culturing Emerald Shiners (Notropis aterinoides). Stevens Point,

18 Wiscounsin.

19 Simmons, J.W. and D.S. Baxter. 2009. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near

20 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, 2008. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and

21 Management, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Accession No. ML093510802.

22 Spackman, S.C. and J.W. Hughes. 1994. "Assessment of Minimum Stream Corridor Width for

23 Biological Conservation: Species Richness and Distribution Along Mid-Order Streams in

24 Vermont, USA." Biological Conservation 71 (3):325-332.

25 Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE). 2005. Local Consolidated District Plan FY 2004-

26 2005. Nashville, Tennessee. Accessed March 4, 2011 at

27 http://www.meigscounty.net/artman/publish/about/index.shtml

28 Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR). 2010. Population

29 Projections of the State of Tennessee. Nashville, Tennessee. Accessed March 4, 2011 at

30 http://www.state.tn.us/tacirlpopulation.html

September 2011 2-97 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC). 1999. Letter from Ashley A.

2 Holt (Division of Solid Waste Management, TDEC) to George Vickery (Tennessee Valley

3 Authority) dated August 18, 1999, "RE: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant." Accession No. ML093510802.

4 Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC). 2005. Lower Tennessee

5 River Watershed (06020001) of the Tennessee River Basin Watershed Water Quality

6 Management Plan. Accessed on May 25, 2009 at

7 http://www.tennessee.gov/environment/watersheds/three/lowertn/.

8 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2008. Final Year 2008

9 303(d) List. Available at http://tn.gov/environment/wpclpublicationslpdfl2008_303d.pdf.

10 Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC). 2009a. Summary of TDEC's

11 January Surface Water Quality Data. Accessed 3/12/2010 at

12 http://www.tennessee.gov/environment/kingston/pdf/surface-water/wqsummaryjan09.pdf.

13 Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC). 2009b. A Guide to the Rare

14 Animals of Tennessee. Nashville, Tennessee.

15 Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC). 2009c. Tennessee Natural

16 Heritage Program Rare Species Observations for Tennessee Counties. Nashville, Tennessee.

17 Available at http://tn.gov/environment/na/species/watershed.shtml.

18 Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC). 2010a. Ash Slide at TVA

19 Kingston Fossil Plant. Accessed March 13, 2010 at

20 http://www.tennessee.gov/environment/kingston/.

21 Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC). 2010b. State of Tennessee

22 Department of Health Environmental Laboratories Results for February Water Samples, TVA

23 Ash Spill Project. Accessed March 13, 2010 at

24 http://www.tennessee.,ov/environment/kinqston/pdf/surface water/02 23 2010.pdf.

25

26 Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC). 201 Oc. Year 2010 303(d) List

27 Draft Version. Accessed August 26, 2011 at

28 http:llwww.state.tn.uslenvironmentlwpclpublicationslpdfl2010draft303dlist.pdf

29 Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development (TDLWD). 2010. Noise.

30 Accessed June 1, 2010 at http://tennessee.gov/labor-wfd/toshanoise.html.

31 Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT). 2008. Total Road Mileage and Vehicle

32 Miles of Travel in Tennessee (also known as the 2008 AADT Book). Nashville, Tennessee.

33 Available at http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/projectplanning/adt/2008ADTBOOK.pdf.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-98 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT). 2009. Phone call from Katherine Cort

2 (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) to Steve Allen (TDOT Engineer, Station 18) on

3 October 22, 2009, "Re: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Impact on Regional Road Network." Accession

4 No. ML101520367.

5 Tennessee Historical Commission (THC). 2009. Letter from the Tennessee Historical

6 Commission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated September 22, 2009. "NRC,

7 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant #2, Unincorporated, Rhea County. Nashville, Tennessee." Accession

8 No. ML093510985.

9 Tennessee Historical Commission (THC). 2010. Letter from E. Patrick McIntyre, Jr. (State

10 Historic Preservation Officer) to Joel S. Wiebe (Watts Bar Special Projects Branch, Nuclear

11 Regulatory Commission) dated March 5, 2010, "Re: NRC, Watts Bar Nuclear/Unit 2 License,

12 Unincorporated, Rhea County." Accession No. ML1 00770290.

13 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1972. Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear

14 Plant Units 1, and 2. TVA-OHES-EIS-72-9, Office of Health and Environmental Science,

15 Chattanooga, Tennessee. Accession No. ML073470580.

16 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1986. Preoperational Assessment of Water Quality and

17 Biological Resources of Chickamauga Reservoir, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 1973-1985.

18 TVA/ONRED/WRF-87/1a. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML073510313.

19 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1993. Tennessee Valley Authority Review of Final

20 Environmental Impact Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units I & 2. Knoxville, Tennessee.

21 Accession No. ML073510303.

22 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1995. Energy Vision 2020 - An Integrated Resource Plan

23 and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Chattanooga, Tennessee. Accessed

24 March 4, 2011 at http://www.tva.gov/enironment/reportslenergyvision202O/ev2020_vollfm.pdf

25 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1998a. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser

26 Cooling Water Project, Environmental Assessment. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accessed March 4,

27 2011 at http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/wattsbar2lrelated/aug_1998.pdf

28 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1998b. Aquatic Environmental Conditions in the Vicinity of

29 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant During Two Years of Operation, 1996-1997. Norris, Tennessee.

30 Revised June 7, 2010.

31 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1999. July 1999 Verification Study of Thermal Discharge

32 for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water System. WR99-2-85-143.

33 Norris, Tennessee.

September 2011 2-99 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2001. Tennessee Valley Authority Resource Stewardship.

2 Aquatic Ecological Health Determinations for TVA Reservoirs -2000. Nashville, Tennessee.

3 Accession Nos. ML042790465, ML042790470.

4 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2003a. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit I and 2 - Annual

5 Environmental Radiological Operating Report - 2002. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession

6 No. ML031400811.

7 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2003b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 - 2002 Annual

8 Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML031250152.

9 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2004a. Reservoir Operations Study Final Programmatic

10 Environmental Impact Statement. Tennessee Valley Authority In cooperation with U.S. Army

11 Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accession Nos. ML041100586,

12 ML041100585, ML041100590, ML041100588.

13 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2004b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and 2 - Annual

14 Radiological Environmental Operating Report -2003. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession

15 No. ML041390218.

16 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2004c. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Unit I - 2003 Annual

17 Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML041310349.

18 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2005a. Letter from Betsy M. Eiford (Tennessee Valley

19 Authority, Environmental Support Manager) to Ed Polk (Tennessee Department of

20 Environmental Conservation, Manager) dated July 22, 2005, "Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

21 - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - NPDES Permit No. TN0020168 - Phase 11 316(b) Rule for

22 Existing Facilities - Proposal for Information Collection for Supplemental Condenser Cooling

23 Water (SCCW) System." Accession No. ML052150033.

24 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2005b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units I and 2 - Annual

25 Radiological Environmental Operating Report - 2004. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession

26 No. ML051380366.

27 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2005c. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Unit I - Annual

28 Radioactive Effluent Release Report - 2004. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession

29 No. ML051250623.

30 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2006a. Letter J.D. Smith (Manager, Site Licensing and

31 Industry Affairs (Acting), Tennessee Valley Authority) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

32 dated December 19, 2006. "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 1 - Notification of National

33 Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Permit Renewal. Accession No. ML063560378.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-100 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2006b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit I - Annual

2 Radiological Environmental Operating Report - 2005. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession

3 No. ML061290369.

4 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2006c. Letter from Thomas Maher (Tennessee Valley

5 Authority) to Richard Tune (Tennessee Historical Commission) dated December 28, 2006.

6 "TVA, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Completion, Cultural Resources Assessment, Rhea

7 County". Accession No. ML101180044.

8 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2006d. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 - 2005 Annual

9 Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML061220258.

10 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2007a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

11 Statement; Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Rhea County,

12 Tennessee. Project Number 2006-124, Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML080510469.

13 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2007b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit I - Annual

14 Environmental Radiological Operating Report - 2006. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession

15 No. ML071280378.

16 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2007c. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 - 2006 Annual

17 Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML071230082.

18 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

19 Statement; Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Rhea County,

20 Tennessee submitted to NRC as the TVA Environmental Report for an Operating License,

21 Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML080510469.

22 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit I - Annual

23 Radiological Environmental Operating Report - 2007. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession

24 No. ML081430029

25 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008c. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Unit I - 2007 Annual

26 Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML081300025.

27 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008d. Fleet Ground Water Protection Program. NPG

28 Standard Program and Processes, SPP-5.15. Rev 0000. Nashville, Tennessee. Accession

29 No. ML073510313.

30

31 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009a. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Watts Barr

32 Reservoir Land Management Plan for Loudon, Meigs, Rhea, and Roane Counties, Tennessee.

33 Includes 2010 errata. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accessed July 8, 2011 at

34 http:/lwww.tva.gov/environment/reports/wattsbarlsummary.pdf.

September 2011 2-101 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - Unit 2 - Final

2 Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Amendment 94. Spring City, Tennessee.

3 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009c. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

4 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated December 23, 2009 in response

5 to NRC letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, July 2, 2008,

6 and January 27, 2009, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information

7 Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession No. ML100210350.

8 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009d. Cultural Resources. Accessed December 18, 2009,

9 at http://www.tva.gov/river/landandshore/culturalresources/index.htm.

10 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009e. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 - 2008 Annual

11 Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML091260371.

12 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009f. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

13 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 22, 2009 in response to

14 TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, July 2, 2008, and January 27, 2009, "Additional

15 Information in Support of TVA Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS)

16 (TAC MD8303)." Accession No. ML093510802.

17 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 201 Oa. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

18 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated February 25, 2010 in response to

19 NRC letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated July 2, 2008, January 27, 2009, and

20 December 23, 2009, 'Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information Regarding

21 Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession No. ML100630115.

22 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010b. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

23 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated April 9, 2010 in response to NRC

24 letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, July 2, 2008,

25 January 27, 2009, December 23, 2009, and February 25, 2010, 'Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

26 (WBN) Unit 2 - Response to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Request for

27 Additional Information Regarding Environmental Review." Accession No. ML1 01130393.

28 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 201 Oc. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

29 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated July 2, 2010. Watts Bar, Unit 2

30 - Submittal of Additional Information Requested during May 12, 2010, Request for Additional

31 Information (RAI) Clarification Teleconference Regarding Environmental Review. Accession No.

32 ML101930470.

33 Tennessee Valley Authority (WVA). 201 Od. Annual Environmental Radiological Operating

34 Report Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2009. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML1 01380296.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-102 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010e. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,2009 Annual Radioactive

2 Effluent Release Report. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML102080384.

3 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 a. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant- 2010 Annual Radioactive

4 Effluent Release Report. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML111126A180.

5 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit I - Annual

6 Radiological Environmental Operating Report - 2010. Accession No. ML1 137A122.

7 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 c. Letter from Edwin E. Freeman (Watts Bar Unit 2,

8 Engineering) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated January 4, 2011, "Watts Bar

9 Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information Related to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

10 Commission (NRC) Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Environmental Review."

11 Accession No. ML110060510.

12 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 d. Letter from David Stinson (Watts Bar Unit 2, Vice

13 President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated March 24, 2011, "Watts Bar Nuclear

14 Plant (WBN) Unit 2 -Additional Information Related to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

15 (NRC) Regarding Environmental Review." Accession No. ML110871475.

16 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 e. Letter from Marie Gillman (Watts Bar Unit 2, Vice

17 President, Acting) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated February 7, 2011, "Submittal

18 of 'Hydrothermal Effects on the Ichthyoplankton from the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental

19 Condenser Cooling Water outfall in Upper Chickamauga Reservoir' Report." Accession Nos.

20 ML110400383, ML110400384.

21 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2006. Hiwasse Wildlife Refuge, Chickamauga

22 Wildlife Management Area, Yuchi Refuge at Smith Bend & Environs. Accessed December 18,

23 2009 at http://www.tnbirds.org/IBA/SitePages/Hiwasee.htm.

24 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2007. Yuchi Refuge at Smith Ben (map).

25 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2008. Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species

26 Management Plan. Developed by the Tennessee Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

27 Nashville, Tennessee.

28 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). 2009. Wildlife Management Areas. Nashville,

29 Tennessee.

30 Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency (TWRA). 2010. Contaminants in Fish. Accessed

31 May 17, 2010 at http://www.state.tn.us/twra/fish/contaminants.html.

32 Tipler, P.A. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, New York.

September 2011 2-103 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (USBEA). 2007. "Local Area Personal Income. Tables

2 CA25N (Using NAICS): Total Employment by Industry." Accessed August 29, 2011 at

3 http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm#step3.

4 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS). 2008. "Local Area Unemployment Statistics."

5 Accessed at http://www.bls.gov/lau/.

6 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. "Total Population [1] - Universe: Total Population

7 Dataset. Census 2000 Summary File (SF1) 100-Percent Data." Available at

8 http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.

9 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2008a. "Meigs County, Tennessee. Fact Sheet." American Fact

10 Finder, 2000 U.S. Census. Available at

11 http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.

12 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2008b. "McMinn County, Tennessee. Fact Sheet." American

13 Fact Finder, 2000 U.S. Census. Available at

14 http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.

15 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2008c. "Rhea County, Tennessee. Fact Sheet." American Fact

16 Finder, 2000 U.S. Census.

17 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2008d. "Roane County, Tennessee. Fact Sheet." American Fact

18 Finder, 2000 U.S. Census. Available at

19 http://facffinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.

20 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009. "Poverty Thresholds." Available at

21 http://www.census.,ov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html.

22 U.S. Department of Education (NCES). 2009. National Center for Educational Statistics,

23 Search for Public School Districts. Accessed February 1, 2009 at

24 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/. .

25 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the

26 Production of Tritium in a Commercial Light Water Reactor. DOE/EIS-0288, Washington, D.C.

27 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2009. Letter from Mary E. Jennings (Field Supervisor,

28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to Joel Wiebe (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated October 9, 2009, "FWS #2009-SL-0885. Watts

30 Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 - Request for list of Protected Species, Rhea County, Tennessee."

31 Accession No. ML0929301820.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-104 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Economic Analysis of the Final Regulations

2 Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. EPA-821-R-01-035,

3 Washington, D.C.

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. "Appendix G, Aquatic Resources." in EPA

5 and Hardrock Mining: A Source Book for Industry in the Northwest and Alaska. Seattle,

6 Washington. Accessed at

7 http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER. NSF/Sole+Source+Aquifers/hardrockmining.

8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Detroit River- Western Lake Erie Basin

9 Indicator Project. Accessed May 27, 2010 at

10 http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile-site/indicators/plankton.html

11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Large-flowered Skullcap (Scutellaria montana) Species

12 Account. Accessed April 1, 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/cookeville/docs/endspec/sklcapsa.html.

13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1992. "Species Accounts, Snail Darter (Percina

14 (Imostoma) tanasi)." In Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern

15 United States: The Red Book. Accessed December 22, 2009 at

16 http://www.fws.gov/cookeville/docs/endspec/snldtrsa.html.

17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. 2007 Candidate Notice of Review- Southeast

18 Region Summary Information. December 6, 2007. Available at

19 http://www.fws.gov/southeastlnews/2007/r07-119.html.

20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Letter from Mary E. Jennings (Field Supervisor,

21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to Joel Wiebe (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated October 9, 2009, "FWS #2009-SO-0085. Watts

23 Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 -Request for list of Protected Species, Rhea County, Tennessee."

24 Accession No. ML092930182.

25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a. "Dromedary Pearlymussel - Dromus dromas."

26 Accessed May 17, 2010 at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/lifehistories/FOOK.html.

27 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. "Species Profile for Spotfin Chub (Erimonax

28 monachus). " Accessed December 22, 2009 at

29 http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=EO12.

30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2011. "Sheepnose (a freshwater mussel) - Plethobasus

31 cyphyus." Accessed March 28, 2011 at

32 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/sheepnose/pdf/SheepnoseFactSheetJan2 11 .p

33 df.

September 2011 2-105 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Affected Environment

1 U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. A Tapestry of Time and Terrain. Reston, Virginia. Available at

2 http://tapestry.usgs.gov/features/06valleyridge.html

3 U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the

4 United States. T.R. Karl, J. M. Mellilo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge University Press,

5 New York. Available at http://downloads.globalchange.govlusimpacts/pdfslclimate-impacts6 report.pdf.

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1974. Regulatory Guide 1.4 - Assumptions Used

8 for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for

9 Pressurized Water Reactors, Washington, D.C.

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.111 - Methods for

11 Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases

12 from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors, Washington, D.C.

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978. Final Environmental Statement Related to

14 Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Washington, D.C.

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for

16 Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory

17 Guide 1.145, Rev. 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML003740205.

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995. Final Environmental Statement Related to

19 the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit I and 2. NUREG-0498, Supplement No. 1.

20 Washington, D.C.

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

22 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

24 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. NUREG-1 437,

25 Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan27 Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555,

28 Washington, D.C.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 2-106 September 2011
Affected Environment

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Letter from Joel Wiebe (U.S. Nuclear

2 Regulatory Commission) to Richard Allen (Cherokee Nation) dated September 10, 2009,

3 "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Operating License Application Review - Environmental

4 Scoping," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession

5 No. ML092110475

6 Wastrack, K.G., D.E. Pittman, and J.M. Call. 2008. Impact of Weather Changes on TVA

7 Nuclear Plant ChilQ (x/Q). Tennessee Valley Authority.

8 Watters, G.T. 1999. "Freshwater Mussels and Water Quality: A Review of the Effects of

9 Hydrologic and Instream Habitat Alterations." In Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk

10 Conservation Society Symposium. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.

11 World Health Organization (WHO). 2007a. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health.

12 Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Fact Sheet No. 322, Geneva, Switzerland.

13 Available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs322/en.

14 World Health Organization (WHO). 2007b. Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Environmental

15 Health Criteria Monograph No. 238, Geneva, Switzerland.

16 Yoder, J.S., B.A. Eddy, G.S. Visvesvara, L. Capewell and M.J. Beach. 2009. "The

17 epidemiology or primary amoebic meningoencephalitis in the USA, 1962-2008." Epidemiology

18 and Infection (first view). DOI: 10.1017/S0950268809991014

September 2011 2-107 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2

1 3.0 Plant Description

2 This chapter describes the key physical plant characteristics the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

3 Commission (NRC) considered in assessing the environmental impacts of the proposed action.

4 The NRC drew on the following documents for the majority of this information: the Tennessee

5 Valley Authority (TVA) Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2008), the 1995 Supplement No. 1 to

6 the Final Environmental Statement related to the operating license (1995 SFES-OL-1)

7 (NRC 1995), the 1978 Final Environmental Statement related to the operating license for Watts

8 Bar Nuclear (WBN) Units 1 and 2 (1978 FES-OL) (NRC 1978), the 1972 Final Environmental

9 Statement related to the construction permit for WBN Units 1 and 2 (1972 FES-CP) (TVA 1972),

10 and the TVA Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (TVA 2009a).

11 While Chapter 2 of this draft Supplemental Final Environmental Statement (SFES) describes the

12 affected environment of the WBN site and its vicinity, this chapter describes the physical

13 aspects of operation of WBN Unit 2. Chapter 4 discusses the environmental impacts of plant

14 operation.

15 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout

16 TVA originally designed the WBN site as a two-unit pressurized-water reactor (PWR) nuclear

17 plant with a total electrical generating capacity of 2,540 MW(e). Unit 1 began operating in 1996.

18 In addition to the reactors, the WBN site consists of two reactor containment buildings, a diesel

19 generator building, a training facility, a turbine building, a service building, an intake pumping

20 station, a water-treatment plant, two cooling towers, 500-kV and 161-kV switchyards, and

21 associated parking facilities (NRC 1995). Figure 3-1 shows the reactor buildings and

22 associated facility layout (TVA 2008).

23 TVA terminated construction of Unit 2 in 1985 when the unit was 80 percent complete

24 (TVA 2008). Since that time, TVA has used many Unit 2 components to replace portions of

25 Unit 1 and other TVA facilities. As a result, at the time of the operating license application,

26 Unit 2 was approximately 60 percent complete. With the exception of Unit 2 completion and the

27 addition of training facilities, the remainder of the WBN facilities were developed as planned.

28 WBN Unit 2 would use structures that already exist and most of the work required to complete

29 Unit 2 would be inside of those buildings. Completing Unit 2 would result in some additional

30 ground-disturbing activities, but these would be largely restricted to the existing disturbed

31 portion of the property (TVA 2008).

32

September 2011 3-1 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
z 0 z 

CDW

0 m

G)0

CD ___.-____ .,.___ .__ .:

"OSurface Body.Water-F-.i:lBuldingw "" -_- • .+ :

Plant Boundar Watts ar Nucear Bildin

Chemicaluioldin

/D . ..... ta

Site Location Map INBN Un lt';

LegendT / :n ... mpo• PumpCooling ..Training Service

0 Surface Monitoring Body Point Watere".ldi L u t 

'.c Tu"rbine"•... : : • "" • - • " • ": -W a t Ba. .r N uclear I : " .. i l - : I • B uilding , ( l •... •

W O N Plant = W a BoundaryPo tts B a r N ucle a r P la nt J .. '.7' . .. 1 ' . .' : .. " I . :• • , sr • . .!

'• "< ~~~Un lin e d T e m p o ra ry . B a n . I• i. u Chemical Holding ...... n.. . • Sludge Ponds P'ondu...... ,.

" "" i•: f.!•:i;!'"•!':.:::i:•:7:' '• "ed :::!• ";ii!Intake

: ~ ~ <., ~ ~ :.:. ~ • .d'ng: ~ ... : ~ .i.l ~!! miondT/:.;"7: •!..: .... Station

Low VOlu e'f. ast :e :'::\ " Holding .- .. ... . . t!,#:

T re a tm e n t P o in d ," \ . • I P o n d.. " : , ..

(LVWTP) "'-" River

Flow

(n Feet

0 .- 0 230 460 920 1,380 1,840

3 (To convert feet [ft] to meters [m], multiply by 0.3048 m/ft)

CD

(D3 Figure 3-1. Site Layout (TVA 2008)

0
Plant Description

1 3.2 Plant Structures and Operations

2 This section describes each major WBN plant structure, including the reactor system and

3 structures that would interface with the environment during Unit 2 operation. Understanding

4 these structures is important in comprehending Chapter 4 of this SFES.

5 The reactor system includes the reactor, where nuclear fission takes place to generate heat that

6 converts water to steam. The steam passes through one or more turbines that spin an electrical

7 generator resulting in the flow of electricity. After leaving the generator, the steam is converted

8 back into water in the main condenser that is part of the power plant cooling system (NRC

9 2002). Additional information about the WBN Unit 2 reactor system is provided in Section 3.2.1.

10 Additional information about the cooling system at WBN Unit 2 is provided in Section 3.2.2.

11 3.2.1 Reactor System

12 For WBN Unit 2, TVA proposes to operate a four-loop PWR Nuclear Steam Supply System

13 (NSSS) using the Westinghouse Electric Corporation design. The NSSS consists of a reactor

14 and four closed-reactor coolant loops connected in parallel to the reactor vessel. Each loop

15 contains a reactor coolant pump, a steam generator, loop piping, and instrumentation. The

16 NSSS also contains an electrically heated pressurizer and certain auxiliary systems. The

17 reactor design resembles WBN Unit 1, which has operated since 1996. The NSSS for Unit 2 is

18 rated at 3,411 MW(t) and, at this core power, the NSSS would operate at 3,425 MW(t). The

19 additional 14 MW(t) results from contribution of heat to the primary coolant system from

20 nonreactor sources, primarily reactor coolant pump heat. The net electrical output is

21 1,160 MW(e), and the gross electrical output is 1,218 MW(e) (TVA 2009a).

22 3.2.2 Cooling System

23 To condense the steam into water, the cooling system removes heat from the steam and

24 transfers that heat to the environment. To do this, the cooling system pumps water through

25 thousands of metal tubes in the plant's condenser. Steam exiting the plant's turbine is cooled

26 and condensed into water when it comes in contact with the cooler tubes. The tubes provide a

27 barrier between the steam and the environment so there is no physical contact between the

28 plant's steam and the cooling water. The condenser operates at a vacuum so any leakage in

29 this system will produce an "inflow" of water into the condenser rather than an "outflow" of water

30 to the environment (NRC 2002).

31 At WBN Unit 2 water is taken from the Tennessee River to cool plant components and to be

32 pumped through the cooling tubes in the condenser. The heated water that exits from the

33 condenser goes to a natural-draft cooling tower where heat is transferred to the atmosphere

34 through evaporation and conductive cooling. The cooled water is cycled back into the

35 condenser to cool additional steam. This type of cooling system is called a closed-cycle cooling

36 system.

September 2011 3-3 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

1 The NRC considered normal operating conditions and emergency shutdown conditions as the

2 operational modes for WBN Units 1 and 2 in its assessment of operational impacts on the

3 environment (Chapter 4 of this SFES). The NRC considers these conditions to be those under

4 which maximum water withdrawal, heat dissipation, and effluent discharges occur. Cooldown,

5 refueling, and accidents are considered alternative modes to normal plant operation. During

6 these alternative modes, water intake, cooling-tower evaporation, water discharge, and

7 radioactive releases may change from those observed during normal operating or emergency

8 shutdown conditions. However, the fluxes during normal operation at full load are maximal and

9 the following subsections consider flows and effluents during normal operations at full load.

10 WBN Unit 1 uses a unique system based on a closed-cycle system with natural-draft wet11 cooling towers and a supplemental cooling system. WBN Unit 2 would use the same system.

12 The original cooling system constructed for the WBN units was a closed-cycle system to

13 transfer heat from the main condenser of each unit to the atmosphere through a natural-draft

14 cooling tower associated with that unit. TVA identifies this system as the Condenser Circulating

15 Water (CCW) system in the 2008 ER (TVA 2008). During normal plant operation, the CCW

16 system for each unit would dissipate up to 7.8 x 109 Btu/hr of waste heat (TVA 1972; TVA

17 2009a). Additional heat is removed from plant components by the Essential Raw Cooling Water

18 (ERCW) system and the Raw Cooling Water (RCW) system. Water from both of these systems

19 discharges to the cooling-tower basins for the CCW.

20 Most excess heat in the cooling water transfers to the atmosphere by evaporative and

21 conductive cooling in the cooling tower. In addition to evaporative losses, a small percentage of

22 water is lost in the form of droplets (drift) from the cooling tower. The water that does not

23 evaporate or drift from the tower is routed back to the cooling-tower basin.

24 Evaporation of cooling-water system water from the cooling-tower increases the concentration

25 of dissolved solids in the cooling-water system. In most closed-cycle wet-cooling systems, a

26 portion of the cooling water is removed and replaced with makeup water from the source (for

27 WBN, the Tennessee River) to limit the concentration of dissolved solids in the cooling system

28 and in the discharge to the receiving water body.

29 Because the WBN cooling towers cannot remove the desired amount of heat from the

30 circulating water during certain times of the year, TVA added the Supplemental Condenser

31 Cooling Water (SCCW) system to the cooling system for the WBN reactors (TVA 1998). The

32 SCCW draws water from behind Watts Bar Dam and delivers it, by gravity flow, to the cooling33 tower basins to supplement cooling of WBN Unit 1. This cooling system would also be used for

34 Unit 2. The temperature of this water is usually lower than the temperature of the water in the

35 cooling-tower basin and, as a result, lowers the temperature of the water being used to cool the

36 steam in the condensers. Slightly less water enters the cooling-tower basins through the SCCW

37 intake than leaves the cooling-tower basins and is discharged to the Tennessee River through

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-4 September 2011
Plant Description

1 the SCCW discharge structure (TVA 2010a). Since the SCCW has been operating, elevated

2 total dissolved solids in blowdown water have not been a concern because a large volume of

3 water continually enters and leaves the cooling-tower basins (PNNL 2009). Figure 3-2 shows

4 the major components of the cooling system.

5 3.2.2.1 Intake Structures

6 Intake Pumping Station

7 TVA originally designed the intake pumping station (IPS) to supply water to both WBN Units 1

8 and 2. Since 1996, it has supplied water to WBN Unit 1. It is located about 3.1 km (1.9 mi)

9 below Watts Bar Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 528.0. The IPS is located at the end of

10 an intake channel approximately 240 m (800 ft) from the shoreline of the reservoir (TVA 2009a).

11 The IPS has two sump areas, each with two intake openings. The channel leading from the

12 intake opening to the well containing the traveling screen is 1.58 m (5.17 ft) wide at the traveling

13 screens and 5.3 m (17.5 ft) high. Each traveling screen is 1.2 m (4 ft) wide and the height of the

14 water column passing through the screens ranges from 8.8 m (29 ft) in the summer to 7.6 m

15 (25 ft) in the winter due to the fluctuations in the pool elevation for Chickamauga Reservoir. The

16 traveling screens have a fractional open area of 0.503 (50.3 percent open area) (TVA 2011).

17 The open area through the trash racks at each bay opening in the IPS is approximately 8.84 m2

18 (95.1 ft2), for a total of 35.3 m2 (380 ft2) open for the passage of water through the trash racks

19 (TVA 2010a).

20 Once water flows through the traveling screens, it enters the sump areas within the IPS. Each

21 sump contains four ERCW pumps that pump water into a common header to serve plant

22 components. Typical summertime operation for two units would have two ERCW pumps

23 operating in each sump (TVA 2011). Once the water passes through the ERCW system and

24 cools the components, it generally discharges to the cooling-tower basins to provide makeup

25 water to offset evaporative losses. The system also can discharge to the Yard Holding Pond

26 (YHP). The two sumps and their associated pumping units provide redundant systems for

27 providing cooling water to both units at the WBN site (TVA 2009a).

28 The IPS also contains seven RCW pumps. Three RCW pumps are located in one side of the

29 IPS and four are located in the other side. Six of these are sufficient to meet the non-safety30 related cooling needs of WBN Units 1 and 2; however, at times four pumps in one side of the

31 IPS may be used (TVA 2011). Water from the RCW system discharges to the outlet flume of

32 the cooling-tower basin for the unit being served. This water also serves as makeup water for

33 the condenser cooling system (TVA 2009a). The IPS also houses high-pressure pumps for the

34 fire protection system.

September 2011 3-5 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

(ClNavWtomhne

t#tfll 102.ý

2 (To convert feet [ft] to meters [m], multiply by 0.3048 m/ft)

3 Figure 3-2. Major Components of the Cooling System for WBN Units 1 and 2 (TVA 2008)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-6 September 2011
Plant Description

1 Currently, Unit 1 withdraws approximately 2.5 m3

/s (88 cfs) of water from the Chickamauga

2 Reservoir for normal operations (TVA 2010a). TVA estimates normal maximum operations for

3 WBN Units 1 and 2 would require withdrawal of 4.93 m3

/s (174 cfs) of water from the

4 Chickamauga Reservoir (TVA 2010a). Normal operations would require the withdrawal of

5 between 3.20 m3/s (113 cfs) of water in winter and 3.79 m3/s (134 cfs) of water in summer from

6 the reservoir (TVA 2011). Under normal conditions, while drawing water through all four bays in

7 the IPS and operating four RCW pumps located together in one side of the IPS, the water

8 velocity through the openings in the traveling screens would be 0.21 m/s (0.67 ft/s) in winter and

9 0.19 m/s (0.62 ft/s) in summer for the portion of the intake structure with four RCW pumps

10 operating (TVA 2011).

11 The withdrawal of 4.93 m3

/s (174 cfs) through the IPS would represent 0.6 percent of the mean

12 annual flow of the Tennessee River as measured at Watts Bar Dam (778 m3/s [27,500 cfs]; see

13 Table 2-2). Withdrawal of 3.79 m3

/s (134 cfs) would represent 0.4 percent of the mean annual

14 flow of the Tennessee River as measured at Watts Bar Dam.

15 Supplemental Condenser Cooling-Water Intake

16 The intake facility for the SCCW is located above Watts Bar Dam at TRM 529.9. The SCCW

17 has six intake bays, and three are currently used for the operation of WBN Unit 1. No additional

18 bays would be used during the operation of both units. Each intake bay is 2.17 m (7.13 ft) wide

19 at the traveling screens and 9.37 m (30.75 ft) high. This results in an opening of 20.3 m2

20 (219.1 ft2). The traveling screens and their support structures occupy a portion of the opening

21 leaving 9.16 m2 (98.6 ft2) open to the passage of water in each bay or a total of 27.48 m2

22 (295.8 ft2) for the passage of water through the screens into the SCCW intake. The open area

23 through the trash racks at each bay opening in the SCCW intake structure is approximately

24 11.5 m2 (124 ft2), for a total of 34.6 m 2 (372 ft2) (TVA 2010a). Figure 3-2 shows the locations of

25 the IPS and SCCW intakes.

26 The SCCW system operates by gravity flow, and as such, the flow through the intake structure

27 fluctuates in response to changes in the elevation of the water level in Watts Bar Reservoir.

28 TVA estimates the average monthly flow through the SCCW intake is approximately 7.31 m3

/s

29 (258 cfs) of water from the Watts Bar Reservoir to Unit 1 when a single unit is in operation

30 (TVA 2010a). TVA estimates the average monthly flow through the SCCW intake for the

31 operation of WBN Units 1 and 2 will be 7.1 m3/s (250 cfs) of water from the Watts Bar Reservoir

32 (TVA 201 Oa). The lower flow rate for two units in operation is anticipated because water moves

33 through the system under gravity flow, and the water level in the cooling-tower basin for Unit 2

34 would be 0.6 m (2 ft) higher when the unit is operating (TVA 201 Oa). This reduces the water

35 level elevation difference between Watts Bar Reservoir and the cooling-tower basin resulting in

36 a reduction of flow rate.

September 2011 3-7 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

1 The normal intake flow rates are higher in the summer months when Watts Bar Reservoir levels

2 are maintained at 225.7 m (740.5 ft). Normal flow rates during summer months with both units

3 operating are expected to be approximately 7.6 m3/s (270 cfs). This would result in a water

4 velocity through the open areas in the trash racks in the SCCW of 0.22 m/s (0.73 ft/s). The

5 water velocity through the openings in the traveling screens at the SCCW would be 0.28 m/s

6 (0.91 ft/s) under these conditions (TVA 2010a).

7 TVA provided the following water fluxes for the combined cooling-water system for both units

8 during normal operations (TVA 201 Oa):

9 9 The normal maximum makeup water-flow rate from the IPS would be 4.93 m3/s (174 cfs).

10 e The maximum consumptive water-use rate (evaporation and drift) would be 1.7 m3/s

11 (61 cfs).

12 ° The normal blowdown rate would be 1.8 m3

/s (64 cfs).

13 * The normal intake rate for SCCW would be 7.1 m3/s (250 cfs).

14 ° The normal discharge rate for SCCW would be 8.46 m3/s (299 cfs).

15 Table 3-1 lists flow rates for operating two units or a single unit at the WBN site.

16 3.2.2.2 Cooling Towers

17 The WBN cooling-water system uses natural-draft cooling towers to dissipate waste heat from

18 the plant. Two cooling towers, one for each unit, would serve the WBN site. Each tower is 108

19 m (354 ft) in diameter and 146 m (478 ft) high (TVA 1972).

20 3.2.2.3 Temporary Blowdown Storage

21 TVA uses the unlined YHP (Figure 3-1), which is approximately 8.9 ha (22 ac) in size (TVA

22 2005a) for temporary storage of cooling-tower blowdown when the flow from the hydroturbines

23 at Watts Bar Dam drops below 99 m3/s (3,500 cfs). When hydroturbine operation resumes with

24 releases of at least 99 m3/s (3,500 cfs), valves on the discharge line allow the YHP to discharge

25 into Chickamauga Reservoir through the diffusers (TVA 2008).

26 3.2.2.4 Discharge Structures

27 Outfall 101 - Discharge Diffusers

28 TVA plans to discharge cooling water from the main cooling-water system for WBN Units 1 and

29 2 to Chickamauga Reservoir through a diffuser system located approximately 3.2 km (2 mi)

30 below Watts Bar Dam at TRM 527.9 (TVA 2008). The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

31 System (NPDES) permit for the WBN site identifies the diffuser discharge as Outfall 101

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-8 September 2011
Plant Description

1 Table 3-1. Anticipated Water Use

Service Normal Two Unit Operation Single Unit Operation

Heat discharged 1.5 x 1010 Btu/hr 7.8 x 109 Btu/hr

CCW

Evaporation rate 1.7 m3

/s (61 cfs) 0.82 m3/s (29 cfs)

Drift rate 2.8 L/s (0.1 cfs)la2 2.8 L/s (0.1 cfs)(a)

Blowdown rate 1.81 m3

/s (64 cfs) 1.5 m3

/s (53 cfs)

Blowdown rate when diffusers are 4.81 m3

/s (170 cfs)(b) 3.82 m3

/s (135 cfs)(b)

discharging from cooling towers and YHP

IPS makeup flow 4.93 m3

/s (174 cfs)(c) 2.5 m3

/s (88 cfs)

SCCW

Intake flow rate 7.1 m3

/s (250 cfs) 7.31 m3

/s (258 cfs)

Discharge flow rate 8.46 m3

/s (299 cfs) 7.48 m3

/s (264 cfs)

YHP overflow weir~b) 0 0

(a) 1972 FES-CP (TVA 1972).

(b) TVA (2008).

(c) Normal withdrawal is 3.20 m3

Is (113 cfs) of water in winter and 3.79 m3/s (134 cfs) of water in summer (TVA

2011); maximum normal withdrawal is 4.9 m3

/s (174 cfs) (TVA 2010a).

All other values are from RAI response dated February 25, 2010 (TVA 201 Oa).

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

(TDEC 2011). TVA (1997) describes this diffuser system as consisting of two pipes branching

from a central conduit at the right bank of Chickamauga Reservoir and extending perpendicular

to the river flow of the Tennessee River. Each pipe is controlled by a butterfly valve located a

short distance from the junction with the central conduit.

The downstream leg of the diffuser consists of 49 m (160 ft) of unpaved 1.37-m (4.5-ft)-diameter

corrugated steel diffuser pipe at the end of approximately 91 m (297 ft) of paved corrugated

steel approach pipe of the same diameter. The diffuser pipe is half buried in the river bottom

and has two 2.54-cm (1-in.)-diameter ports per corrugation. The centroid of the ports is angled

up at 45 degrees from horizontal in a downstream direction (TVA 1997).

The upstream leg of the diffuser system consists of 24 m (80 ft) of unpaved 1.07-m (3.5-ft)-

diameter corrugated steel diffuser pipe at the end of approximately 136 m (447 ft) of paved

corrugated steel approach pipe of the same diameter. The upstream diffuser pipe section is half

buried in the river bottom and extends its entire length beyond the dead end of the downstream

diffuser pipe section. The port diameter, spacing, and orientation of the upstream leg are the

same as those of the downstream leg (TVA 1997). Figure 3 from TVA's analysis of the SCCW

thermal plume (TVA 1977) illustrates the diffuser configuration. TVA does not plan to make any

upgrades or changes to the diffusers in preparation for operating Unit 2 (TVA 2010b).

September 2011 3-9 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

1 TVA maintains operational procedures for this system to ensure the plant effluent is adequately

2 diluted. The 2008 TVA ER explains the process as follows:

3 To provide adequate dilution of the plant effluent, discharge from the diffusers is

4 permitted only when the release from Watts Bar Dam is at least 3,500 cubic feet

5 per second (cfs). To ensure this happens, an interlock is provided between the

6 dam and WBN that automatically closes the diffusers when the flow from the

7 hydroturbines at Watts Bar Dam drops below 3,500 cfs. To provide temporary

8 storage of water during these events, the blowdown discharge conduit also is

9 connected to a yard holding pond. When the flow from Watts Bar Dam drops

10 below 3,500 cfs, thereby closing the diffuser valves, the blowdown is

11 automatically routed to the yard holding pond. When hydro operations resume

12 with releases of at least 3,500 cfs, the interlock is 'released' and the diffuser

13 valves can be opened. When this occurs, the discharge from the diffusers would

14 contain blowdown from the cooling towers and blowdown from the yard holding

15 pond. To protect the site from the consequences of exceeding the capacity of

16 the yard holding pond, an emergency overflow weir is provided for the pond,

17 which delivers the water to a local stream channel that empties into the

18 Tennessee River at TRM 527.2. The operation of Watts Bar Dam and the WBN

19 blowdown system are very carefully coordinated to avoid unexpected overflows

20 from the yard holding pond (TVA 2008).

21 Flow of 3,500 cfs is approximately 99 m3

/s.

22 Outfall 113 SCCW Discharge

23 The SCCW system discharges water through a discharge structure originally constructed for the

24 Watts Bar Fossil Plant (also called the Watts Bar Steam Plant). The NPDES permit for the

25 WBN site identifies the SCCW discharge as Outfall 113 (TDEC 2011). Water leaving the

26 cooling-tower basins is piped to the discharge structure approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi) upstream

27 of the IPS. TVA describes the discharge structure as an "open discharge canal, an overflow

28 weir drop structure, and a below water discharge tunnel" (TVA 1998). The discharge tunnel is

29 described as "a rectangular culvert 7 feet wide by 10 feet high at the discharge point"

30 (TVA 1998). The elevation of the culvert outlet is 205.7 m (675 ft). To reduce the impact of the

31 discharge on the river bottom, TVA installed a concrete incline to direct flow toward the river

32 surface as it leaves the outfall (TVA 1998; PNNL 2009).

33 TVA designed and constructed the SCCW system so it could operate the cooling system for

34 WBN Units 1 and 2 with or without the SCCW. If the temperature of the discharge water

35 exceeds allowable release limits, TVA can shut down the SCCW system. TVA also included a

36 crosstie and control valve in the system that allows part of the flow from the SCCW intake to

37 bypass the cooling-tower basins and mix with the effluent in the discharge pipeline. When there

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-10 September 2011
Plant Description

1 is a possibility of exceeding the NPDES river temperature limit, TVA opens a bypass valve to

2 allow cooler water in the intake pipeline to mix with water in the discharge line, cooling the

3 effluent before it discharges to the reservoir (TVA 2008). The bypass is generally needed

4 during winter months when the water temperature in the Tennessee River is cooler, and a

5 possibility exists of exceeding the instream temperature rate of change limit in the NPDES

6 permit. TVA opens the crosstie around November 1, and it remains open until the end of April

7 (PNNL 2009).

8 Outfall 102 YHP Emergency Overflow

9 The YHP has an emergency overflow weir at 215.3 m (706.5 ft) of elevation designed to prevent

10 the capacity of the pond from being exceeded. If water goes above the height of the weir, it

11 flows into a local stream channel that empties into Chickamauga Reservoir at TRM 527.2

12 (TVA 2008). The NPDES permit for the WBN site identifies this discharge as Outfall 102

13 (TDEC 2011).

14 3.2.3 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage

15 Landscaping and the stormwater drainage system affect both the recharge to the subsurface

16 and the rate and location that precipitation drains into adjacent creeks and streams. Impervious

17 areas eliminate recharge to aquifers beneath the site, while pervious areas maintained free of

18 vegetation experience considerably higher recharge rates than adjacent areas with local

19 vegetation. The stormwater drainage system, including site grading, ditches, and swales

20 provides a safety function by ensuring a locally intense precipitation event would not flood

21 safety-related structures.

22 Figure 3-3 shows drainage for the WBN site. The surface-water drainage system directs water

23 away from safety structures and into ditches that drain away from the site into drainage ditches

24 and creeks.

25 3.2.4 Other Plant Systems

26 Diesel Generators

27 TVA installed five diesel generators on the WBN site. Missile and fire barrier-type walls

28 separate four diesel generators and their associated support equipment from each other.

29 A separate building houses the fifth diesel generator (TVA 2009a).

30 Roads

31 The workforce and a portion of the materials needed for plant operations will enter and exit the

32 site via roads. TVA expects to transport solid waste and radwaste from the WBN site via

33 roadways. The nearest land transportation route, Tennessee State Route 68, is located about

34 1.6 km (1 mi) north of the site (TVA 2009a).

September 2011 3-11 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Z Site Location Map Legend: t . Watts Bar Fossil Plant ... W'- Cl)

0( rn a Surface Body Water ' '113,

*~' 0 Monitoring Point -.O

o 0 • Oufall r %n,•'*P ... 3S

CI- Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Boundary

0/) -. General Yard Flow

"0 -- A- Drainway Water

SCCW = Supplemental Condensor

CD WON = Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 7. .- o , -A V

I• ~~~~~~~~~~Feet . ' . •.Bli ...... ," L:

Trinn " _.ý "nit. ....... Facility : lid.•! v" . /frwrs • ''•;- •

2ftlmuituilynby 0 3048.mlft)

•"- '" ": '":i Building .... .. . .foft ...-. • .7

F 3 uPond 

112d- ,.tal Alu3i'"era n Temporary Holdng thein Pond W

L _~um . a ý.-,'14o, Pon.... . .. . ,t k .... • "• ' ...- ....: ..7 . 7.-i .

lTreatment Pond ." \--/.,. od "

" . • ;.

Ms"' 0/.

• i= 1,! iiT~ :L~ "0

" .. [,:;. .- . . .~~ ~~~~Outfal1 102 :.. . '•". - .; "

3 2 (To convert feet [ft] to meters [m], multiply by 0.3048 m/ft) C-

" 3Figure 3-3. Site Drainage for the WBN Site (TVA 2005a)

C?
Plant Description

1 Wells

2 No water supply wells are located on the WBN site. The 1995 SFES-OL-1 notes that the Watts

3 Bar Utility District supplies groundwater to the WBN site potable water system. The Watts Bar

4 Utility District uses groundwater wells located about 6.4 km (4 mi) (TVA 2009b) northwest of the

5 site to provide potable water to its customers and the WBN site. The utility currently has the

6 capacity to deliver approximately 6.8 million Lid (1.8 million gal/d) of water to customers

7 (TVA 2010c). TVA expects the site will use 91,000 L/d (24,000 gal/d) during normal operations

8 of both units and that peak demand during the completion of Unit 2 and an outage at Unit 1 will

9 be 300,000 Lid (80,000 gal/d) (TVA 2010c).

10 Railroad

11 A main line of the Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Texas Pacific Railway (Norfolk Southern

12 Corporation) is located approximately 11 km (7 mi) west of the site. A TVA railroad spur track

13 connects with this main line and extends to the Watts Bar Fossil Plant and WBN Unit 1. The

14 spur is not currently in use and would need to be repaired prior to use (TVA 2009a).

15 Barge Facility

16 Barges delivered replacement steam generators for WBN Unit 1 to the WBN site (TVA 2005b).

17 TVA unloaded these units at a docking area north of the coal-unloading facility for the fossil

18 plant located north of WBN. This is an example of the kind of delivery that could be made to the

19 site in the future to support operation of WBN Unit 2.

20 Tennessee River Navigation Channel

21 The WBN site is located on a 2.7-m (9-ft)-wide navigable channel on the Chickamauga

22 Reservoir, a major barge route regularly maintained to allow commercial traffic. TVA biennially

23 inspects the river channel for silt formation in the forebay of the Intake IPS channel. The results

24 of this inspection are used to determine if dredging is required and if there should be an

25 increase in monitoring. Based on the results of a review WVA completed in October 2008, no

26 dredging is required or planned (TVA 201 Oc).

27 Onsite Ponds

28 The WBN site currently maintains five onsite ponds. The YHP is described in Section 3.2.2.3.

29 The Low Volume Waste Treatment Pond (LVWTP) provides storage for discharge from the

30 Turbine Building Station Sump (TVA 2008). WVA uses two temporary chemical holding ponds to

31 contain and treat chemicals from the turbine building. The smaller pond is lined and holds

32 3,800 m3 (1 million gal). The larger pond is unlined and holds almost 19,000 m3 (5 million gal).

33 Both ponds discharge into the YHP via Outfall 107 (NRC 1995). WVA monitors this discharge in

34 accordance with the plant's NPDES permit (WVA 2008). The construction runoff holding pond

September 2011 3-13 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

1 has remained in service and until recently was used to collect discharge water from an onsite

2 sewage-treatment plant; the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning cooling-water system at

3 the WBN Training Center; fire protection wastewater; and site stormwater runoff. With the

4 closure and demolition of the sewage-treatment plant, TVA rerouted other wastewater systems,

5 and the construction runoff holding pond now receives only surface-water runoff (TVA 2008).

6 TVA historically monitored the discharge of the construction runoff holding pond at Outfall 112.

7 Monitoring this outfall is no longer required (TDEC 2011).

8 TVA no longer uses a 9,500-m3 (2.5-milllion gal) evaporation/percolation pond used for treating

9 and disposing spent preoperational cleaning wastes from WBN Units 1 and 2. The State of

10 Tennessee closed the pond in 1999 (TVA 2009c).

11 Power Transmission Structures

12 In its WBN Unit 2 application, TVA proposes to operate WBN Unit 2 with a rated net electrical

13 output capacity of 1,160 MW(e). The WBN site connects to the regional power grid via existing

14 500-kV transmission lines as illustrated in Figure 3-4. In addition to the four 500-kV lines, WVA

15 uses two 161-kV lines at WBN. TVA originally constructed the existing transmission corridors

16 and lines to support operating Units 1 and 2 on the WBN site. TVA does not plan to change or

17 add transmission lines to complete and operate WBN Unit 2.

18 The WBN site connects to an existing network that supplies large load centers. WBN Units 1

19 and 2 tie into the 500-kV transmission system via a 500-kV switchyard and 500-kV transmission

20 lines.

21 The WBN site also ties into the grid with a temporary site power system originally set up to

22 support WBN Unit 1 and 2 construction. WBN Unit 1 currently uses this system to supply power

23 for non-safety-related functions, including the wastewater-treatment plant, offices and storage

24 buildings, and as the power supply during outages. The distribution system consists of the

25 substation in the old Watts Bar Fossil Plant switchyard and a 13-kV line that goes to the

26 Corridor Substation (commonly known as the "Corridor Sub"), located on the north side of the

27 WBN site. The Corridor Substation includes two substations: the Corridor Substation and a

28 Construction Power Substation (TVA 2008).

29 TVA does not need new transmission lines for the proposed WBN Unit 2. The WBN site is the

30 only TVA nuclear power station that did not convert the temporary site power distribution system

31 to a permanent system when it began operating. This 13-kV system is old, and many parts

32 need upgrading or replacement. If this system is upgraded, it could require additional land

33 disturbance and could affect terrestrial resources of the site. However, TVA has not made a

34 decision regarding upgrading of the 13-kV system and does not consider the potential upgrades

35 essential or required to support WBN Unit 2 operation (TVA 2008).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-14 September 2011
Plant Description

Bull Run - Sequoyah 500kV

t.mmgnli Watts Bar Volunteer 500kV

'rn-us, Watts Bar Roane 500kV

S- -- = Sequoyah - Watts Bar 500kV

Kilometers

o 10 20 30 I .. .1 . . . '

0 10 20

Miles

S9410038.4

1

2 Figure 3-4. WBN Transmission Line Connections (NRC 1995)

September 2011 3-15 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

1 3.3 Waste Management and Effluents

2 The following sections describe the radioactive and nonradioactive waste management systems

3 (Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2). Section 3.4 summarizes the values of resource parameters likely to

4 be experienced during operations.

5 3.3.1 Radioactive Waste-Management System

6 Based on the regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.95, this SFES

7 only addresses matters that differ from the 1978 FES-OL and 1995 SFES-OL-1 or reflect

8 significant new information. The TVA ER (TVA 2008) describes only minor changes in waste

9 management systems for WBN Unit 2 from what was outlined in the 1995 SFES-OL-1.

10 The NRC staff reviewed the information in the 1978 FES-OL and the 1995 SFES-OL-1

11 (NRC 1978, 1995) for WBN Units 1 and 2 and Chapter 11 of the Watts Bar FSAR (TVA 2009a)

12 to understand operations of the WBN radioactive waste management systems.

13 WBN Units 1 and 2 share radioactive waste management systems. TVA stated that changes in

14 the radioactive waste management systems for WBN Unit 2 are based on operating experience

15 both from WBN Unit 1 and the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (TVA 2008). The following paragraphs

16 describe these changes in the liquid waste, gaseous waste, and solid waste management

17 systems.

18 Since NRC published information on WBN's liquid waste management system in its 1995

19 SFES-OL-1, TVA provided no new information about the liquid waste management system.

20 In the 1995 SFES-OL-1, the staff determined that radioactive releases from the liquid waste

21 management systems would be within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50,

22 Appendix I. Therefore, this SFES will not further address liquid waste management.

23 TVA does not plan to change the gaseous waste processing system. As with liquid waste,

24 WBN Unit 2 shares a gaseous waste system with Unit 1. Because TVA did not identify any new

25 information on gaseous waste systems since the 1995 SFES-OL-1, this SFES will not address

26 this subject further.

27 WBN Units 1 and 2 share solid radioactive waste management processing. TVA has changed

28 the process since publication of the 1995 SFES-OL-1. TVA deactivated the condensate

29 demineralizers waste evaporator, concentrates are no longer generated and do not need to be

30 disposed. TVA ships all dry active waste to a processor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for

31 compaction. The waste processor then sends the compacted waste and the wet active waste to

32 Clive" Utah, for disposal.

33 Until a licensed facility is available to replace the Barnwell, South Carolina, radwaste facility,

34 TVA will send Class B and C waste to its Sequoyah Nuclear Plant for temporary storage

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-16 September 2011
Plant Description

1

1

1

1

1 (TVA 2008). All radioactive waste shipments are made in compliance with the transportation

2 requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, 10 CFR Part 71, and U.S. Department of Transportation

3 regulations.

4 3.3.2 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

5 3.3.2.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides

6 TVA will control water chemistry for various plant water uses by adding biocides, algaecides,

7 corrosion inhibitors, pH buffering chemicals, scale inhibitors, and dispersants. The NPDES

8 permit requires that TVA follow the TDEC-approved Biocide/Corrosion Treatment Plan (B/CTP)

9 (TDEC 2011). WBN's current B/CTP was approved in 2009 (TDEC 2011) based on the list of

0 chemicals included in the NPDES permit modification request submitted by TVA in April 2009

1 (TVA 201 Od). Chemicals and the quantities identified in the 2009 permit modification request

12 are shown in Table 3-2 (TVA 2009d).

13 Table 3-2. Raw Water Chemical Additives at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

Frequency of Active Discharge Concentration(al

Product Purpose Discharge Ingredients (ppm active ingredients)

Depositrol Dispersant to Continuous copolymer < 0.2

PY5200

(replaces Nalco

73200)(c)

Inhibitor

AZ8100

(replaces Nalco

1336)(c)

Sprectrus

BD 1500

(replaces Nalco

73551 )(c)

Towerbrom

60m (replaces

Towerbrom

960)(c)

Spectrus

OX 1200

(replaces Nalco

901 G)(c)

Spectrus

DT 1404

(replaces Nalco

CA-35)(c)

Spectrus

CT1 300(e)

(replaces

H150M)(c) or

facilitate iron

corrosion

inhibition

Copper corrosion

inhibition

Surfactant to

facilitate

oxidizing

biocides

Oxidizing biocide

(chlorination)

Oxidizing biocide

(chlorination)

Periodic

Periodic

Periodic

Continuous

sodium tolyltriazole

nonionic surfactant

sodium bromide and

sodium

dichloroisocyanurate

bromo-chloro,

cimethyl hydantoin

sodium bisulfite

alkyl dimethyl

benzyl ammonium

chloride

< 0.25

< 2.0

0.10 chlorine

(total residual)

0.10 chlorine

(total residual)

<10

< 0.001 active ingredient in

stream after mixing

< 0.05 measured in effluent

De-chlorination Periodic(d)

Nonoxidizing

biocide (mollusk

control)

Periodic

14

September 2011 3-17 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

Table 3-2. (contd)

Frequency of Active Discharge Concentration

Product Purpose Discharge Ingredients (ppm active ingredients)

Spectrus Nonoxidizing Periodic dimethylbenzylam- < 0.001 total active ingredient

NX1104 4 biocide (mollusk monium chloride and in stream after mixing

(replaces control) dodecylguanidine < 0.031 quaternary ammonium

Spectrus hydrochloride compound measured in

NX 104)(c) effluent

Bentonite clay(c) Detoxification of Periodic(d) sodium silicate <10

nonoxidizing (bentonite clay)

biocides

Liquid bleach~c) Oxidizing biocide Continuous sodium hypochlorite 0.10 chlorine (total residual)

(chlorination)

H150M"t) Nonoxidizing Minimum of 4 times 25 percent dimethyl < 0.05 ppm

biocide per year benzyl ammonium

chloride and 25 percent

dimethyl ethylbenzyl

ammonium chloride.

Flogard Iron corrosion Continuous when zinc chloride, < 0.2 total zinc

MS6209 inhibitor river temperature is orthophosphate < 0.2 total phosphorus

(replaces MSW- above 15.6°C 109,(6°)

2 010 )(b) (60-F).

Source: From Table in TVA (2009d)

(a) The maximum discharge concentration is indicated except where noted. Concentrations are achieved through

a combination of dilution and dechlorination with sodium bisulfite or detoxification with bentonite clay.

(b) SCCW and river flow conditions have a significant impact on these discharge concentrations.

(c) Denotes chemicals previously approved by the division (Tennessee Department of Environment and

Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control).

(d) Dechlorination and detoxification chemicals are applied as needed to ensure the discharge limitations identified

in this table are met.

(e) Nonoxidizing biocide treatments are not applied at the same time as oxidizing biocide treatments.

(f) Active ingredient information from TVA 2008

TVA discharges water containing chemical and biocidal additives for the condenser cooling

system and the SCCW system to the Chickamauga Reservoir through Outfalls 101 and 113,

respectively. Chemical and biocidal additives and waste streams from various other watertreatment processes and drains are returned to the YHP where they are subjected to dilution,

aeration, vaporization, and chemical reactions. The plant then discharges the YHP water to

Chickamauga Reservoir through Outfall 101 or 102, subject to the limitations of the WBN site's

existing NPDES permit (TDEC 2011).

The NPDES permit (TDEC 2011) provides additional detail about the chemicals that may be in

water discharged through the outfalls. In addition to the chemicals added as biocide and for

corrosion-treatment, other chemical additives are used in a variety of plant processes. These

chemicals may occur in trace quantities at Outfall 101 or Outfall 102. The potential discharge of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-18 September 2011
Plant Description

1

2

3

4

these chemicals is through the cooling-tower blowdown line to outfalls 101 and 102 so

Outfall 113 would not receive these discharges. The summary of potential chemicals

discharged by NPDES outfall number is shown in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Potential Chemical Discharge to NPDES Outfalls at WBN

No. Outfall Description Chemical

101 Diffuser Discharge ammonium hydroxide, ammonium chloride, alpha cellulose,

asbestos after 5-micron filter, boric acid, sodium tetraborate,

bromine, chlorine, copolymer dispersant, ethylene oxide, propylene

oxide copolymer, ethylene glycol, hydrazine, laboratory chemical

wastes, lithium, molybdate, monoethanolamine, molluscicide, oil

and grease, phosphates, phosphate cleaning agents, paint

compounds, sodium bisulfite, sodium hypochlorite, sodium

hydroxide, surfactant, tolyltriazole, x-ray film processing rinse water,

zinc chloride orthophosphate, zinc sulfate, phosphino-carboxylic

acid copolymer, diethylenetriaminepenta-methylene phosphonic

acid, sodium salt, sodium chloride, ethylenediamine tetracetic acid.

102 YHP Overflow Weir alternate discharge path for Outfall 101

103 Low-Volume Waste ammonium hydroxide, ammonium chloride, boric acid, sodium

Treatment Pond tetraborate, bromine, chlorine copolymer dispersant, ethylene

glycol, hydrazine, laboratory chemical wastes, lithium, molybdate,

monoethanolamine, molluscicide, oil and grease, phosphates,

phosphate cleaning agents, paint compounds, sodium hydroxide,

surfactant, tolyltriazole, x-ray film processing rinse water, zinc

sulfate

107 Lined Pond and metals - mainly iron and copper, acids and caustics, ammonium

Unlined Pond hydroxide, ammonium chloride, asbestos after 5-micron filter, boric

acid, sodium tetraborate, bromine, chlorine, copolymer dispersant,

hydrazine, laboratory chemical wastes, molybdate, molluscicide, oil

and grease, phosphates, phosphate cleaning agents, sodium,

sodium hydroxide, surfactant, tolyltriazole, zinc sulfate

113 SCCW Discharge some contact with chemicals listed for outfall 101, alpha cellulose,

bromine, chlorine, copolymer, molluscicide, zinc chloride

orthophosphate

Source: TDEC 2011

September 2011 3-19 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

1 3.3.2.2 Sanitary System Effluents

2 For WBN Unit 2, TVA plans to discharge wastewater from the potable water supply system to

3 the sanitary drainage system, which discharges offsite to the Spring City Wastewater Treatment

4 Facility (PNNL 2009). TVA's discharges to the treatment plant averaged 128,700 Lid

5 (34,000 gal/d) between November 2008 and November 2009. TVA has an agreement with the

6 Spring City Wastewater Treatment Plant to treat up to 380,000 Lid (100,000 gal/d) of water

7 (TVA 2009d).

8 3.3.2.3 Other Effluents

9 The WBN site's nonradioactive gaseous emissions result primarily from its diesel generators

10 and the combustion turbine generator. The emissions are subject to air quality permits that the

11 Council on Environmental Quality issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees

12 the site's nonradioactive, hazardous waste management through its Resource Conversation

13 and Recovery Act.

14 3.4 Summary of Resource Parameters During Operation

15 Table 3-4 lists the significant resource commitments TVA needs to operate WBN Units 1 and 2.

16 The values in this table and the affected environment described in Chapter 2 provide the basis

17 for the NRC's operational impact assessment in Chapter 4. The 2008 TVA ER and subsequent

18 RAI responses present these values, and the NRC staff confirms the values are not

19 unreasonable.

20 Table 3-4. Resource Parameters Associated with Operation of WBN Units 1 and 2

WBN Unit I Current Anticipated WBN WBN Unit 2 Added

Item Operations Units I and 2 Increment

Workforce

Maximum Workforce -- 4,000 --

Average Workforce 700 900 200

Circulating Water System

Heat Discharged 7.8 x 109 Btu/hr 1.5 x 1010 Btu/hr 7.7 x 109 Btu/hr

Waste Heat to Atmosphere 6.9 x 109 Btu/hr 1.4 x 1010 Btu/hr 7.1 x 109 Btu/hr

Waste Heat via Liquid 1.5 x 108 Btu/hr 1.7 x 108 Btu/hr 2 x 107 Btu/hr

Discharges to Outfall 101

Cooling-Tower Height 146 m (478 ft)

21 IPS Makeup Flow Rate 2.5 m3

/s (88 cfs) 4.93 m3/s (174 cfs)(a) 2.4 m3/s (86 cfs)

Consumptive Use

22 Evaporation Rate 0.82 m3

/s (29 cfs) 1.7 m3/s (61 cfs) 0.87 m3

/s (31 cfs)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-20 September 2011
Plant Description

Table 3-4. (contd)

WBN Unit I Current Anticipated WBN WBN Unit 2 Added

Item Operations Units I and 2 Increment

Drift Rate

Blowdown Flow Rate

Normal

Maximum When

Discharging from YHP and

Cooling-Tower Basins

Maximum Allowable Blowdown

Temperature

SCCW System

Waste Heat via Liquid

Discharges

Intake Flow Rate

2.8 L/s (45 gpm)

1.5 m3/s (53 cfs)

3.82 m3/s (135 cfs)

35°C (95°F)

7.5 x 108 Btu/hr

7.31 m3/s (258 cfs)

7.48 m3/s (264 cfs)

5.7 L/s (90 gpm)

1.8 m3/s (64 cfs)

4.81 m3/s (170 cfs)

35°C (95°F)

8.6 x 108 Btu/hr

7.1 m3/s (250 cfs)

8.46 m3/s (299 cfs)

2.8 L/s (45 gpm)

0.3 m3/s (11 cfs)

0.99 m3/s (35 cfs)

No change

1.1 x 10" Btu/hr

Intake flow rate will

decline because

elevation of water

surface in Unit 2

cooling tower will be

higher when plant is

in operation.

A portion of the water

entering the system

through the IPS will

be discharged

through the SCCW

discharge

No change

Discharge Flow Rate

Maximum Allowable

Temperature of Discharge

Sanitary Waste Discharge

Average

35°C (95°F) also

33.50C (92.30F) in

receiving stream

bottom

49,000 L/d

(13,000 gpd) Unit 1

staff 130,000 L/d

(34,000 gpd) Unit 1

staff plus Unit 2

construction

380,000 L/d

(100,000 gpd)

779 m3/s (27,500 cfs)

35°C (95 0F) also

33.50C (92.3°F) in

receiving stream

bottom

68,000 L/d

(18,000 gpd)

380,000 L/d

(100,000 gpd)

779 m3/s (27,500 cfs)

19,000 L/d

(5,000 gpd)

No change

No change

Maximum

Mean Annual Flow Past

Watts Bar Dam

(a) Normal withdrawal 3.20 m3/s (113 cfs) of water in winter and 3.79 m3/s (134 cfs) of water in summer (TVA 2011)

maximum normal withdrawal 4.9 m3/s (174 cfs) (TVA 2010a).

September 2011 3-21 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

1 3.5 References

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

3 Protection Against Radiation."

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

5 Production and Utilization Facilities."

6 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and

7 Transportation of Radioactive Material."

8 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2009. Letter from J.A. Stegen (Pacific Northwest

9 National Laboratory) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 12, 2009. "Final

10 Watts Bar Site Audit Trip Report for JCN J-4261, 'Technical Assistance for Operating License

11 Environmental Review - Watts Bar Unit 2 Reactivation."' Accession No. ML1 00220022.

12 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2011. State of Tennessee

13 NPDES Permit No. TN0020168. Nashville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML1 1215A099.

14 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1972. Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear

15 Plant Units 1, and 2. TVA-OHES-EIS-72-9, Office of Health and Environmental Science,

16 Chattanooga, Tennessee. Accession No. ML073470580.

17 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1977. Effects of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant and Watts Bar

18 Steam Plant Discharges on Chickamauga Lake Water Temperatures. WM28-1-85-100, Division

19 of Water Management, Water Systems Branch, Norris, Tennessee.

20 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1997. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser

21 Cooling Water Project, Thermal Plume Modeling. Norris, Tennessee.

22 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1998. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser

23 Cooling Water Project, Environmental Assessment. Knoxville, Tennessee. Available at

24 http://tva.gov/environment/reports/wattsbar2/related/aug_1998.pdf.

25 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2005a. Letter from Betsy M. Eiford (Tennessee Valley

26 Authority, Environmental Support Manager) to Ed Polk (Tennessee Department of

27 Environmental Conservation, Manager) dated July 22, 2005, "Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

28 - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - NPDES Permit No. TN0020168 - Phase 11 316(b) Rule for

29 Existing Facilities - Proposal for Information Collection for Supplemental Condenser Cooling

30 Water (SCCW) System." Accession No. ML052150033.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-22 September 2011
Plant Description

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2005b. Final Environmental Assessment, Watts Bar

2 Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Replacement of Steam Generators, Rhea County, Tennessee.

3 Chattanooga, Tennessee. Available at www.tva.gov/environment/reports/wattsbarnuc/ea.pdf.

4 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

5 Statement; Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Rhea County,

6 Tennessee submitted to NRC as the TVA Environmental Report for an Operating License,

7 Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML080510469.

8 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009a. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - Unit 2 - Final

9 Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Amendment 94. Spring City, Tennessee. Accession

10 No. ML092460757.

11 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009b. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

12 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated December 23, 2009 in response

13 to NRC letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, July 2, 2008,

14 and January 27, 2009, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information

15 Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession No. ML100210350.

16 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009c. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

17 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 22, 2009 in response to

18 TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, July 2, 2008, and January 27, 2009, "Additional

19 Information in Support of TVA Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS)

20 (TAC MD8303)." Accession No. ML093510802.

21 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009d. Letter from Darrin Hutchison (Tennessee Valley

22 Authority, Environmental Technical Support Manager) to Vijin Janjic (Tennessee Department of

23 Environment & Conservation, Permit Writer) dated April 15, 2009, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

24 (WBN) - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. TN0020168 -

25 Request for Raw Water Treatment Modification." Accession No. ML091190175.

26 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010a. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

27 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated February 25, 2010 in response to

28 NRC letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated July 2, 2008, January 27, 2009, and

29 December 23, 2009, 'W\atts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information Regarding

30 Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession No. ML100630115.

31 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010b. Letter from Lindy Johnson (Tennessee Valley

32 Authority, Water Permits and Compliance) to Richard Urban (Tennessee Department of

33 Environment & Conservation) dated August 17, 2010, "Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) -

34 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - NPDES Permit No. TN0020168 - Permit Modification

35 Request -Addition of Unit 2 Operation."

September 2011 3-23 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Plant Description

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 201 Oc. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

2 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated April 9, 2010 in response to NRC

3 letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, July 2, 2008, January

4 27, 2009, December 23, 2009, and February 25, 2010, 'Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 -

5 Response to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Request for Additional Information

6 Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession No. ML101130393.

7 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 201 Od. 2009 Annual Non-Radiological Environmental

8 Operating Report. Chattanooga, Tennessee. Accession No. ML101310204.

9 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011. Letter from David Stinson (Watts Bar Unit 2) to U.S.

10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 19, 2011, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 -

11 Intake Pumping Station Water Velocity - Response to Request for Additional Information."

12 Accession No. ML11143A083.

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978. Final Environmental Statement Related to

14 Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Washington, D.C.

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995. Final Environmental Statement Related to

16 the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2. NUREG-0498, Supplement No. 1,

17 Washington, D.C.

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. USNRC Nuclear Reactor Concepts

19 Course. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML023020519

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 3-24 September 2011
1 4.0 Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

2 This chapter addresses the environmental consequences associated with operating Watts Bar

3 Nuclear (WBN) Unit 2. Sections 4.1 through 4.8 address potential operational impacts on land

4 use, water use, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources,

5 radiological environment, nonradiological human health, and meteorology and air quality.

6 Sections 4.9 through 4.12 discuss potential impacts related to nonradioactive and radioactive

7 waste, uranium fuel cycle, decommissioning, and transportation of radioactive materials.

8 Section 4.13 addresses measures and controls to limit adverse impacts during operation.

9 Potential cumulative impacts from operation of WBN Unit 2 are discussed in Section 4.14.

10 Section 4.15 provides references.

11 4.1 Land-Use Impacts

12 Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 provide information regarding land-use impacts associated with

13 operating WBN Unit 2. Section 4.1.1 discusses land-use impacts at, and within the vicinity of,

14 the WBN site. Section.4.1.2 discusses land-use impacts with respect to offsite transmission-line

15 corridors.

16 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

17 The 1972 Final Environmental Statement related to the construction permit for WBN Units 1 and

18 2 (1972 FES-CP), the 1978 Final Environmental Statement related to the operating license for

19 WBN Units 1 and 2 (1978 FES-OL), and the 1995 Supplement No. 1 to the Final Environmental

20 Statement related to the operating license (1995 SFES-OL-1) noted that anticipated land use

21 during operation of WBN Units 1 and Unit 2 would not differ from prior land use, either at the

22 plant or along transmission lines. Because TVA built the plant and the transmission lines as

23 planned, NRC staff identified no additional impacts on land use that were not identified in the

24 previous analyses (TVA 1972; NRC 1978, 1995).

25 Because land has already been disturbed onsite and no additional land would be required, NRC

26 staff identified no additional onsite land-use impacts from operating WBN Unit 2 beyond those

27 experienced with the operation of WBN Unit 1 and identified in the 1972 FES (TVA 1972).

28 4.1.2 Transmission Corridors and Offsite Areas

29 The WBN site uses approximately 813 ha (2,008 ac) of offsite land for transmission lines.

30 These lines were built as planned. The 1972 FES-CP, 1978 FES-OL, and 1995 SFES-OL-1

31 (TVA 1972; NRC 1978, 1995) evaluated the impacts of transmission lines.

September 2011 4-1 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 The 1978 FES-OL and 1995 SFES-OL-1 noted that anticipated land use during operation of

2 WBN plant (Units 1 and 2) would not differ from prior land use at the plant or along transmission

3 lines. TVA built the plant and the transmission lines as planned, and NRC staff expects no land4 use impacts beyond those identified in previous analyses. Some offsite land-use impacts could

5 occur due to development of land for housing and retail to serve the 200 additional operations

6 workers moving into the region. However, as discussed in Section 2.1.2, the counties

7 surrounding the WBN site have no restrictive zoning or growth measures. Because TVA had

8 previously disturbed the land for the transmission lines and would disturb no additional land,

9 NRC staff expects no additional offsite land-use impacts from operating WBN Unit 2 beyond

10 those experienced with the operation of WBN Unit 2 and identified in the 1978 FES-OL and the

11 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1978, 1995).

12 4.2 Water-Related Impacts

13 Managing water resources requires understanding and balancing various, often conflicting,

14 objectives. At the WBN site, these objectives include navigation, recreation, visual aesthetics,

15 reservoir ecology, and a variety of beneficial consumptive uses of water.

16 Water-use and water-quality impacts involved with operating a nuclear plant are similar to the

17 impacts associated with any large thermoelectric power generation facility. Accordingly, the

18 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) maintains the same water-related permits and certifications

19 as any other large industrial facility. These include:

20 * Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Certification. The Tennessee Department of

21 Environment and Conservation (TDEC) issues this certification to ensure operating the plant

22 does not conflict with State water-quality management programs.

23 o National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Discharge Permit. TDEC issues

24 this permit to limit liquid pollutants the plant discharges to surface water. This permit covers

25 the requirements of the CWA Sections 316(a), 316(b) and 402(p). Tennessee issued

26 NPDES Permit TN002168 on June 30, 2011, effective August 1, 2011 to June 29, 2016

27 (TDEC 2011). This permit modification includes discharges associated with WBN Unit 2.

28 4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations and Plant Water Supply

29 The Watts Bar Utility District would provide WBN plant with potable water from groundwater

30 wells located offsite. TVA would meet all other water needs using Tennessee River water, most

31 of which the plant would use directly for cooling. TVA's hydrological impacts related to

32 operating WBN Unit 2 are limited to intake of Tennessee River water from Chickamauga

33 Reservoir through the intake pumping station (IPS); intake from Watts Bar Reservoir through the

34 Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water (SCCW) system; discharge of blowdown water to

35

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-2 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

I Chickamauga Reservoir, SCCW system water, and associated waste streams; altered surface

2 hydrology (from buildings, paved surfaces, stormwater collection trenches, and basins); and

3 associated groundwater impacts.

4 4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts

5 The following sections describe water-use impacts on surface water and groundwater.

6 4.2.2.1 Surface-Water Use Impacts

7 Consumptive surface-water use through evaporation would increase from 0.8 m3/s (29 cfs)

8 during the operation of Unit 1 alone to 1.7 m3/s (61 cfs) during the operation of both units, for an

9 increase of 0.9 m3/s (32 cfs) associated with the operation of WBN Unit 2. As noted in Section

10 2.2.1.1, the mean annual flow TVA releases from Watts Bar Dam is 778 m3/s, or approximately

11 27,500 cfs. The maximum annual consumption rate for WBN Unit 2 represents just 0.1 percent

12 of the mean annual flow rate of the Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam. Based on the NRC

13 staffs independent analysis, the staff concludes that because of the small volume of water

14 consumed relative to the Tennessee River flow, the impact on surface-water use of operating

15 WBN Unit 2 is SMALL.

16 4.2.2.2 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts

17 The water discharged from WBN Unit 2 primarily would include blowdown from the condenser

18 cooling system cooling-tower basins (through Outfall 101) and discharge from the SCCW

19 system (through Outfall 113). Operating WBN Unit 2 would also increase discharges of heating,

20 ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) cooling water, stormwater, fire-protection wastewater

21 and discharges from the Yard Holding Pond (YHP) (through Outfalls 101 and 102). Discharges

22 to the Tennessee River from WBN Units 1 and 2 are permitted under NPDES Permit TN002168.

23 The State of Tennessee issued the permit on June 30, 2011, effective August 1, 2011 to June

24 29, 2016 (TDEC 2011).

25 The condenser cooling system discharge includes chemicals in the intake waters the reactor

26 unit concentrates as a result of evaporation, metals from plant component corrosion, and

27 biocides and chemicals TVA uses to prevent plant fouling and corrosion. Constituents

28 discharged through the SCCW are virtually the same as those from the condenser cooling

29 system because both systems discharge water from the cooling-tower basins.

30 The YHP currently receives waste streams from a variety of sources onsite from operating WBN

31 Unit 1, including stormwater runoff, turbine building sump water, alum sludge supernate, reverse

32 osmosis reject water, and water purification plant water. Operating WBN Unit 2 would increase

33 the volume of water the plant discharges to the YHP, but the waste stream constituents would

34 not change. Constituents that end up in the YHP before discharge include biocides, chemicals,

September 2011 4-3 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 organics, radionuclides, and dissolved solids. In the pond, they are subject to dilution, aeration,

2 vaporization, and chemical reactions before being discharged to Chickamauga Reservoir

3 through the diffusers (Outfall 101) and/or Outfall 102.

4 TVA must meet the requirements of the current NPDES permit with respect to discharging

5 constituents. TVA (2008a) confirms its compliance with State water-quality criteria by routine

6 semi-annual Whole Effluent Toxicity testing at Outfall 101, Outfall 112, and Outfall 113. Based

7 on TVA's conformance to NPDES permit requirements and the outcome of its routine outfall

8 water-quality monitoring, the staff concludes that the impact of chemical discharges to surface

9 water due to operating Unit 2 would be minimal.

10 Thermal Impacts of Discharge

11 The temperature standards in TVA's existing NPDES permit for the WBN site are based on TVA

12 studies of the temperature impacts of operating WBN Unit I and resources to be protected in

13 the Chickamauga Reservoir near the diffuser outfall (Outfall 101) (TVA 2008a). TVA conducted

14 these studies in response to a requirement included in the 1993 NPDES permit for the site.

15 TVA's report, Discharge Temperature Limit Evaluation for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant summarizes

16 the studies. TVA performed the studies to evaluate the thermal effects of operating hydro,

17 fossil, and nuclear plants on and near the WBN site under a range of operating scenarios (TVA

18 1993). The study assessed the temperature variations in the Tennessee River resulting from

19 releases of cooling water to the river under a range of thermal discharge and river flow

20 conditions. The goal of the assessment was to identify operating limits for these facilities that

21 would not violate the State of Tennessee water-quality standards. The State of Tennessee

22 established those standards to protect aquatic biota (TDEC 2011).

23 The report recommended a daily average discharge temperature limit of 35°C (95°F) for Outfall

24 101 and that the mixing zone dimensions for the discharge diffusers provide sufficient space for

25 fish movement past the outfall (TVA 1993).

26 WVA (2008a) states that:

27 The studies and recommendations included the operation of one or both nuclear

28 units at WBN. The recommendations were adopted by the permitting authority,

29 as specified in the current NPDES permit, effective November 2004. The

30 temperature for outfall 101 is measured by a continuous monitor in the blowdown

31 conduit before the water enters the river. The current NPDES permit also

32 specifies a discharge temperature limit of 35 0C (950F) for Outfall 102. Since

33 discharge by the emergency overflow is infrequent, the temperature limit for

34 Outfall 102 applies as a daily grab sample rather than a daily average value of

35 continuous measurements. The TVA modeling studies demonstrated that

36 outside of the recommended mixing zone, these discharge limits will ensure

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-4 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 compliance with the State of Tennessee water quality standards for the

2 protection of aquatic wildlife. These standards are as follows:

3 The receiving water shall not exceed (1) a maximum water temperature change

4 of 3°C (5.4 OF) relative to an upstream control point, (2) a maximum temperature

5 of 30.5°C (86.9°F), except when upstream (ambient) temperatures approach or

6 exceed this value, and (3) a maximum rate of change of 2°C (3. 6°F) per hour

7 outside of a mixing zone."

8 The current NPDES permit (TDEC 2011) specifies these thermal limits for the operation of both

9 WBN units. The mixing zone for Outfall 101 extends 70 m (240 ft) downstream of the diffuser

10 (TVA 201Oa).

11 These temperature standards also apply to Outfall 113 for two different mixing zones depending

12 on flow conditions in the Tennessee River. The NPDES permit for Outfall 113 establishes an

13 active mixing zone and applies the temperature standards when Watts Bar Dam turbines are

14 operating and water is flowing past the SCCW outfall. This mixing zone extends 609 m

15 (2,000 ft) downstream of the SCCW outfall, and TVA verifies temperature standards by

16 monitoring temperature at the downstream edge of the mixing zone. The NPDES permit for

17 Outfall 113 also establishes a passive mixing zone for conditions when no water is flowing past

18 the outfall. This zone extends to the full width of the river and 300 m (1,000 ft) downstream of

19 the outfall (TDEC 2011). The dimensions of the mixing zones have not changed with the

20 addition of WBN Unit 2 to the permit (TDEC 2011). Figure 4-1 illustrates the two mixing zones.

21 TVA (2009a) describes its monitoring at Outfall 113 as follows: "Outfall 113 also contains a

22 temperature limit of 33.5°C (92.30 F) in the receiving stream bottom at the SCCW outlet... In

23 contrast to Outfall 101 and Outfall 102, the standards for Outfall 113 are enforced by a

24 combination of continuous in-stream temperature measurements, field tests, and routine model

25 predictions" (See Table 4-1). Additional information on thermal monitoring of the WBN outfalls

26 is presented in Section 5.1.

27 The NPDES permit conditions that have been in effect for the operation of WBN Unit 1 will

28 continue to apply for WBN outfalls when operating WBN Unit 2 (TDEC 2011). As discussed in

29 Section 3.2.2, the plant can release water from Outfall 101 only when the river flow from Watts

30 Bar Hydro (the turbines installed in Watts Bar Dam) is at or above 99 m3

/s (3,500 cfs). Outfall

31 113 releases do not require a minimum flow in the river, except in events where a planned,

32 sudden change in thermal loading from the SCCW system occurs.

September 2011 4-5 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

Mixing Zones for

Outfall 101 and 113 13

* = Outfall -

3 = Temperature Monitoring Station

-- = Site Boundary

= Passive Mixing Zone

= Active Mixing Zone

SCCW Supplemental Condenser

Cooling Water System

WBN Watts Bar Nuclear _

SCCW Discharge

System Outfall 1I

Watts Bar

Fossil Plant

m m Feet

0 230460 920 1,380 1,840

U -

Diesel

Generator.

Building

WBN Unit

.i"-T•urbine . u". ildjn8

Building

500ýkV

SwItchyard wit

I

Intake

- Pumping

, Station

Submerged Multlport

Diffusers Outfall 101

2 (To convert feet [ft] to meters [m], multiply by 0.3048 m/ft)

3 Figure 4-1. Mixing Zones for Outfall 101 and Outfall 113 (TVA 2008a)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-6 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Table 4-1. NPDES Temperature Limits for WBN Outfalls to the Tennessee River from TVA

Outfall Effluent Parameter Daily Report Limit

101 Effluent Temperature Daily Avg 35.0°C (95°F)

102 Effluent Temperature Grab 35.0°C (95°F)

113 In-Stream Temperature(b) Max Hourly Avg 30.5°C (86.9°F)

In-Stream Temperature Rise(b) Max Hourly Avg 3.0°C (5.4°F)

In-Stream Temperature Rate-of-Change(a) Max Hourly Avg ±2°C/hr (±3.60F/hour)

In-Stream Temperature Receiving Stream Max Hourly Avg 33.5-C (92.3°F)

Bottom(c)

Source: TVA 2010a

(a) Downstream edge of mixing zone.

(b) Upstream ambient to downstream edge of mixing zone.

(c) Mussel relocation zone at SCCW outlet.

2 NRC staff reviewed the procedures TVA follows to manage the operation of the cooling system

3 to stay within the temperature limits of the NPDES permit. Plant operations stay within the

4 NPDES limits by

5 9 calling on TVA to increase the volume of water released through Watts Bar Dam

6 * diverting blowdown to the YHP

7 ° using the SCCW to supplement cooling

8 • cooling the discharge from the SCCW by opening the crosstie between the inflow pipe and

9 the discharge pipe

10 o taking the SCCW out of service.

11 TVA continuously monitors the Outfall 101 temperature. If it reaches 35°C (95°F), a signal in

12 the control room alerts operators of the condition, and they divert discharge to the YHP. These

13 conditions have been reached in the late afternoon on hot summer days. However, given that

14 the NPDES limit is a daily average limit, implementing this procedure has resulted in the daily

15 average temperature for Outfall 101 never reaching 35°C (95 0F) (TVA 2010b). TVA has

16 indicated the average monthly discharge from the diffuser would increase by approximately

17 0.3 m3

/s (10 cfs) (for example from 1.25 m3/s to 1.53 m3

/s [44 cfs to 54 cfs] for January). TVA

18 has also predicted the temperature rise at the end the mixing zone would be virtually unchanged

19 at between 0.06 and 0.11 0 C (0.1 and 0.20 F) (TVA 2010b).

20 The NRC staff independently conducted a thermal plume analysis to estimate the thermal

21 plume's extent across the reservoir. Flow in the Tennessee River must exceed 99 m3/s

22 (3,500 cfs) before the diffuser is operated. NRC staff used this flow to estimate the blowdown

23 thermal plume dimensions for winter and summer conditions. TVA provided the temperature

24 information used as input for the analysis (TVA 201 Ob). The month with the lowest river

25 temperature (February) and the month with the highest river and blowdown temperature

September 2011 4-7 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 (August) were selected for the analysis. The month with the lowest river temperature will likely

2 have the largest plume size because the difference between river temperature and blowdown

3 temperature would be the greatest. The month with the highest river temperature and highest

4 blowdown temperature will likely have the highest temperature for the mixed water plume. For

5 this analysis, NRC staff used a river temperature of 7.5°C (45.5°F) for February and a river

6 temperature of 26.2°C (79.1 °F) for August. To make the estimates conservative, the analysis

7 used the maximum effluent discharge flow rate (blowdown plus other liquid effluents) reported

8 by TVA and maximum blowdown discharge temperature allowed by the NPDES permit (35 0C

9 [95 0 F]), minimum flow under which releases from the diffuser are allowed, low ambient water

10 temperatures in February, and high ambient water temperatures in August.

11 The staff based its thermal plume analysis on the estimation of the completely mixed water

12 temperature within a prescribed fraction of the cross section of the Tennessee River at the

13 diffuser location. The assumption that the water in the plume is well-mixed results in a larger

14 estimated plume within the 3°C (5.4 0 F) isotherm because this simple model does not account

15 for the higher temperature at the core of the plume. The higher temperatures that occur near

16 the discharge point and in the center of the plume result in more heat being stored in the core of

17 the plume and a plume of smaller areal extent. The calculations are not designed to distinguish

18 these plume features; estimated plume temperatures in the context of this discussion refer

19 solely to the well-mixed, or average temperature within the plume. The analysis assumes that

20 the blowdown significantly affects a portion of the cross section of the Tennessee River. That

21 is, a portion of the ambient flow (based on specification of the fraction of affected width and

22 depth) completely mixes with the blowdown discharge. The analysis also assumes the plume is

23 mixed over one-half of the river depth, meaning that the upper half of the water column would

24 contain the thermal plume because of the buoyancy of the warmer water. A range of plume

25 widths was examined (10 percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent of the channel width). A fraction

26 of the ambient flow is assumed to be entrained into the blowdown discharge flow, which, when

27 mixed, adjusts to the combined water temperature above the ambient water temperature and

28 below the blowdown discharge temperature. NRC staff computed the difference between the

29 estimated plume water temperature and the ambient water temperature as well as the overall

30 plume temperature for these conditions. The results are summarized in Table 4-2 and

31 Table 4-3.

32 Table 4-2. Estimated Spring and Summer Blowdown Plume Temperatures with Assumed

33 Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth

Plume Temperature °C (*F)

Plume Width February, 99 m3

/s (3,500 cfs) August, 99 m3

/s (3,500 cfs)

10% of Channel Width 16 (60) 28.9 (84)

25% of Channel Width 11.1 (52) 27.2 (81)

50% of Channel Width 9.4 (49) 26.7 (80)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-8 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Table 4-3. Estimated Blowdown Plume Temperature Rise Above Ambient Water for Spring

2 and Summer with Assumed Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth

Plume Temperature Above Ambient °C (OF)

February 7.5 0C Ambient August 26.2 0C Ambient

(45.50F) (79.1 °F)

Plume Width Normal Operation Normal Operation

10% of Channel Width 7.8 (14) 2.5 (4.5)

25% of Channel Width 3.9 (7) 1.1(2)

50% of Channel Width 2.2 (4) 0.6 (1)

3 During February conditions, the difference between the plume water temperature and ambient

4 water temperature exceeds 3°C (5.4°F) only if the plume width is restricted to less than

5 25 percent of the river width. Under more plausible conditions for February (blowdown

6 temperature of 18.4 0C [65.2 0 F]), the plume width would have to be restricted to approximately

7 10 percent of the river width to exceed 30C (5.4 0 F). During August conditions, the difference

8 between the plume water temperature and ambient water temperature does not exceed 30C

9 (5.4°F) even if the plume width is restricted to less than 10 percent of the river width.

10 Using the Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX) modeling software (Doneker and Jirka

11 2007), TVA calculated that the thermal discharge from Outfall 113 with both plants operating

12 would meet all State of Tennessee requirements (TVA 2008a).

13 The NRC staff examined the applicant's CORMIX plume model analysis and the model setup

14 files provided by the applicant. The applicant made model runs using CORMIX version 3.1. for a

15 number of cases covering a range of conditions to interpolate the results for the hydrothermal

16 discharge conditions (TVA 2010b). The NRC staff selected representative conservative cases

17 covering winter and summer conditions to run as confirmatory analysis using CORMIX

18 version 6.0. The selected cases fall into four categories:

19 9 winter condition with low river flow (28.01 m3/s [989 cfs])

20 * winter condition with approximate minimum operational flow (113.0 m3

/s [3,990 cfs])

21 e summer extreme condition with low river flow (28.01 m3

/s [989 cfs])

22 e summer extreme condition with approximate minimum operational flow (113.0 m3/s

23 [3,990 cfs]).

24 NRC staff simulated multiple scenarios for each category, constructing each scenario with a

25 combination of different river depths and discharge temperate conditions. Simulations

26 performed by the staff using CORMIX 6.0 tended to produce smaller plume sizes for winter

27 conditions than the model runs performed by TVA using the older version of CORMIX

28 (version 3.1). For most cases, the 3.0°C (5.4 0 F) isothermal line plume size did not exceed the

29 allowable mixing zone size. However, for some extreme winter cases, the temperature increase

September 2011 4-9 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 at the downstream boundary of the mixing zone exceeded the NPDES permit limits. These

2 cases represent conditions where the TVA procedure for operating the cooling system calls for

3 diverting water from the inlet side of the SCCW system to the outlet pipe through the crosstie to

4 cool the discharge to meet the NPDES limits for the mixing zone, or, if temperature limits cannot

5 be met in this way, shutting down the SCCW system (TVA 2010b). TVA indicates that its

6 normal operating procedure is to open the crosstie from late November through March to

7 prevent these conditions from occurring (PNNL 2009). A review of summer and winter thermal

8 monitoring data indicates that TVA has historically adjusted the operation of the SCCW system

9 to stay within the temperature limits set in the NPDES permit (e.g., TVA 2007a, b).

10 Implementation of the TVA procedures (TVA 2010 b) would result in compliance with

11 temperature limits in the future and impacts on surface-water quality would be negligible.

12 Physical Impacts of Discharge

13 As described in Section 3.2.2.4, a diffuser system located approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) below

14 Watts Bar Dam would discharge cooling water from the WBN Unit 2 main cooling water system

15 to Chickamauga Reservoir. The diffuser system consists of two pipes extending into

16 Chickamauga Reservoir perpendicular to the flow through the reservoir. The diffuser ports

17 direct the discharge upward away from the reservoir bottom at 45 degrees and in a downstream

18 direction. As a result, the NRC staff concludes that discharge of cooling-tower blowdown

19 through the diffuser would not result in significant scour of the reservoir bottom.

20 To reduce the impact of the discharge from the SCCW system on the river bottom, IVA

21 installed a concrete incline to direct flow toward the river surface as it leaves the outfall

22 (PNNL 2009; TVA 1998a). Temperature monitoring data (TVA 2004a) indicate the concrete

23 incline is successful in directing the flow upward, and as a result, the NRC staff concludes that

24 the discharge through the SCCW outfall would not result in significant disturbance of reservoir

25 bottom sediments.

26 TVA has used Outfall 102, which discharges emergency overflow from the YHP, very

27 infrequently. Outfall 102 discharges into a local stream channel that empties into Chickamauga

28 Reservoir. Because of the infrequency of the use of this outfall, the NRC staff concludes that

29 the discharge would not result in a significant impact on bottom sediments.

30 Surface-Water Quality Summary

31 Based on the independent analysis of additional information since the 1978 FES-OL, including

32 the temperature of, physical effects of, and chemical constituents in plant discharges to

33 Chickamauga Reservoir, the NRC staff concludes the impacts of WBN Unit 2 discharges on

34 surface-water quality would be SMALL.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-10 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.2.2.3 Groundwater-Use Impacts

2 TVA does not plan to use groundwater from the WBN site to operate Unit 2. However, the

3 modifications TVA made to the land surface while constructing WBN Units 1 and 2 have altered

4 the local hydrology. WVA removes groundwater through a French drain surrounding the power

5 blocks for both units on the site. A sump collects groundwater entering the French drain and the

6 water is pumped to the YHP (see Section 2.2.1.2). This process removes approximately

7 9.8 x 108 L (2.6 x 108 gal) of groundwater per year (32 Us [500 gpm]) (TVA 2010b). Because of

8 this removal, the water table is depressed near the power block (TVA 2010c) (see Figure 2-3).

9 The French drain and sump have been used while operating WBN Unit 1 and their use while

10 operating WBN Unit 2 would likely not create any additional impact on site groundwater.

11 WVA routes surface water away from the plant through ditches shown in the site drainage plan

12 (Figure 4-3). This routing, the plant's large number of impervious surfaces, and TVA's use of

13 surface-water retention basins have affected groundwater infiltration areas on the WBN site.

14 Most of these changes in surface water routing and infiltration characteristics occurred during

15 site construction (before 1988). WVA has used the surface-water retention basins to operate

16 WBN Unit 1 since 1996. Additional impact on site groundwater from the operation of WBN

17 Unit 2 would be unlikely. The deeper aquifers are isolated from the surficial aquifer and,

18 therefore, would not be affected.

19 The Watts Bar Utility District provides potable water for the WBN site. The utility withdraws

20 water from wells approximately 4.0 km (2.5 mi) from the site. TVA expects the site would use

21 91,000 Lid (24,000 gpd) during normal operations of both units and that peak demand during

22 the completion of Unit 2 and an outage at Unit 1 would be 303,000 Lid (80,000 gpd) (TVA

23 201 Od). Watts Bar Utility District currently withdraws 2,730 m3 (720,000 gal) of groundwater per

24 day to meet customer needs. The groundwater withdrawn to support WBN during normal

25 operation would be less than 3 percent of current withdrawals by the utility and approximately

26 10 percent of current withdrawals during peak staffing. The volume of water the Watts Bar

27 Utility District would withdraw to support operating WBN is small relative to current withdrawals

28 and groundwater withdrawal and surface alterations affecting groundwater onsite have existed

29 for some time. Based on the independent analysis of additional information since the 1978

30 FES-OL, the NRC staff concludes that the impact on groundwater from operating WBN Unit 2

31 would be SMALL.

32 4.2.2.4 Groundwater-Quality Impacts

33 The 1978 FES-OL did not address groundwater-quality impacts, and TVA would not use

34 groundwater for the operation of WBN Unit 2. No changes to the removal of groundwater

35 through the French drain and sump surrounding the power block and turbine building are

36 planned by TVA, so this continued dewatering would not change groundwater quality.

September 2011 4-11 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 In support of the Nuclear Energy Institute Ground Water Protection Initiative, TVA developed a

2 Ground Water Protection Program (GWPP) to monitor the onsite plant environment for

3 indication of leaks from plant systems and buried piping carrying radioactive liquids. This

4 program includes a groundwater monitoring program to detect and track tritium in groundwater.

5 TVA would respond and attend to any spills through its ongoing radiological environmental

6 monitoring program (REMP).

7 TVA also performs monitoring and notification for routine and accidental nonradioactive liquid

8 releases to groundwater required by the NPDES permit and the Spill Prevention, Control, and

9 Countermeasure Plan (SPCC plan) (TVA 2009a). These programs to monitor and respond to

10 radioactive and nonradioactive spills reduce the likelihood spilled materials would reach

11 groundwater. The monitoring programs would detect any spilled material reaching groundwater

12 and TVA would take appropriate cleanup actions.

13 Factors limiting the impacts of operations on groundwater quality in the area are TVA's GWPP,

14 REMP, and SPCC plan mentioned above and the relative isolation of the WBN site from local

15 groundwater supply wells. Based on these factors, the staff concludes that groundwater-quality

16 impacts of WBN Unit 2 operations would be SMALL.

17 4.3 Ecology

18 4.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts

19 This section describes potential impacts on ecological resources from operating WBN Unit 2.

20 One activity that may affect terrestrial and wetland resources is operation of the WBN Unit 2

21 cooling system. The cooling system includes a 146-m (478-ft) high natural-draft cooling tower.

22 Heat would transfer to the atmosphere in the forms of water vapor and drift. Vapor plumes and

23 drift may affect crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants by depositing minerals on the

24 plants. The WBN site uses the Tennessee River as the source of its cooling water. River water

25 contains dissolved solids, and, through the process of evaporation, the concentration of

26 dissolved solids in the Circulating Water System (CWS) increases. The CWS releases a small

27 percentage of its water into the atmosphere as fine droplets containing elevated levels of total

28 dissolved solids (TDS).

29 Operation and maintenance of the transmission system may also affect terrestrial and wetland

30 resources. TVA performs periodic vegetation removal within transmission-line corridors for

31 safety and operational reasons. Vegetation may be cleared chemically (e.g., herbicides),

32 mechanically (e.g., mowing, sawing), or by pulling by hand (TVA 2008b). Tall structures,

33 including the cooling tower and transmission lines crossing over waterways, may contribute to

34 bird collision mortality.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-12 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Communities of the Site, Including Important Species and Habitat

2 Flora

3 During operation of the cooling system, cooling-tower drift deposits TDS on nearby vegetation.

4 Depending on the source of makeup water, the TDS concentration in the drift may contain high

5 levels of salts that can cause damage under certain conditions and for certain species. Drift

6 containing high levels of TDS can stress or damage vegetation directly (by depositing the

7 concentrated solids onto foliage) or indirectly (by accumulating in soils). General guidelines for

8 predicting the effects of drift deposition on plants suggest many species have thresholds for

9 visible leaf damage in the range of 120 to 240 kg/ha/yr (9 to 18 lb/ac/mo) during the growing

10 season (NRC 1996). To limit the concentration of TDS within drift below two cycles of

11 concentration, TVA would remove a portion of the blowdown water from the Tennessee River

12 and replace it with makeup water, also from the Tennessee River. TVA estimates the maximum

13 deposition rate for the WBN Units 1 and 2 cooling-tower plumes to be 10 kg/ha/yr (0.75

14 lb/ac/mo) (TVA 1972). Because this maximum deposition for WBN Units 1 and 2 would be far

15 below the level that could cause leaf damage in many common species, the impacts would be

16 negligible. Although most of the important plant species listed in Table 2-6 may occur close

17 enough to the WBN Unit 2 cooling tower for TDS deposition to affect them, the TVA and NRC

18 do not expect deposition rates of 10 kg/ha/yr (1 lb/ac/mo) to noticeably affect these plant

19 species. TVA's internal modifications to the Unit 1 cooling tower, which also would be made to

20 the Unit 2 tower (TVA 2008a), would not change the NRC's original calculations of TDS

21 deposition effects discussed in the1972 FES-CP. The modifications would not noticeably affect

22 any vegetation, including important species, in the area.

23 Increased localized fog, precipitation, and icing may affect local flora. TVA stated that naturally

24 heavy fog occurs in the Watts Bar area about 35 days per year, most frequently in late fall and

25 winter (TVA 1972). TVA expects the average visible plume height of 150 to 300 m (500 to

26 1,000 ft) above the 146-m (478-ft) tall tower will rarely intercept the ground. The visible portions

27 of the plume may occasionally intercept the ground on Walden Ridge 8 to 11 km (5 to 7 mi)

28 northwest of the site, and some local fogging may occur there (TVA 1972). During naturally

29 foggy periods, stable air near the ground would prevent mixing of the plume and cooling-tower

30 moisture from increasing fog density, frequency, or aerial extent (TVA 1972). The potential for

31 icing near the WBN site exists for about 60 to 70 days from November through March and would

32 likely occur within 8 km (5 mi) of the plant in a southerly direction, although it could also occur at

33 Walden Ridge. Consistent with the 1972 FES-CP findings, the NRC does not expect localized

34 fogging or icing to occur often enough or over a large enough area to noticeably affect terrestrial

35 resources on the WBN site or in the vicinity, including Walden Ridge. Although most important

36 plant species listed in Table 2-6 may occur close enough to the Unit 2 cooling tower for

37 increased fogging or icing to affect them, the staff expects that the limited temporal and spatial

38 extent of fogging or icing from the WBN Unit 2 cooling tower would not noticeably affect

39 important plant species, including those that may occur on Walden Ridge. TVA's proposed

September 2011 4-13 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 modifications to the WBN Unit 2 cooling tower, which are the same as those made to the Unit 1

2 cooling tower, would not change this conclusion. Therefore, the NRC concludes environmental

3 impacts associated with fogging and icing would be minimal.

4 Species of Ecological Concern

5 This section discusses potential impacts on plants species identified as being of ecological

6 concern at the State and/or Federal level. During the NRC staff's site audit, TVA confirmed it

7 conducts a sensitive area review (TVA 2008b) to identify habitats for rare flora and fauna.

8 Although the NRC found none of the important plant species listed in Chapter 2 that are known

9 to occur within WBN Unit 2 transmission corridors, it found many in the vicinity of the

10 transmission corridors. The 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1995) lists earleaf false-foxglove

11 (Agalinis auriculata), tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum), and prairie goldenrod

12 (Solidago ptarmicoides) as species known to occur in open habitats and that could become

13 established within transmission corridors. Regional habitat information also indicates at least

14 six additional plants may occur within open habitats similar to those found within the WBN

15 transmission corridors. University researchers describe most of these plants as herbaceous

16 and unlikely to become a safety issue if established. Although the mountain bush-honeysuckle

17 (Diervilla sessilifolia var. rivularis) is a shrub, it is low-growing (University of Wisconsin 2010), so

18 TVA would not likely need to remove it for safety reasons. The yellow jessamine

19 (Gelsemium sempervirens), another important plant that occurs in open habitats, is a climbing

20 vine. This plant, if established, could become entangled on transmission structures and require

21 removal, thereby limiting any benefit. Routine vegetation removal results in early-successional

22 habitats within transmission corridors. Open habitats maintained as such may benefit from

23 these plant species because maintenance may provide potential habitat that would otherwise be

24 unavailable in a forested landscape. However, the potential benefit of early-successional

25 habitat plants is counterbalanced with the fact that plants that occur within mid- to late26 successional habitats, including various forest types, could not benefit from transmission

27 corridors reverting back naturally without routine vegetation removal. These plants include the

28 spreading rockcress (Arabis patens), spreading false-foxglove (Aureolaria patula), northern

29 bush-honeysuckle (Diervilla lonicera), goldenseal (Hytrastis canadensis), and the Alabama

30 snow-wreath (Neviusia alabamensis). Transmission-line maintenance would affect ecologically

31 sensitive areas such as rock outcrops and wetlands the least, because the sensitive area review

32 process identifies ecologically sensitive areas, and TVA then uses best management practices

33 (BMPs) to limit effects to the extent possible. Maintenance would minimally affect important

34 wetland plants and those that occur in rocky habitats.

35 Fauna

36 The potential exists for wildlife to collide with tall structures, including the WBN Unit 2 cooling

37 tower. The cooling tower reaches 146 m (478 ft) high, and is 108 m (354 ft) in diameter. TVA

38 has not noted any unusual occurrences of bird collision mortality during WBN Unit 1 operations

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-14 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 (NRC 1995). The NRC estimates the threat of avian collision as a biologically significant source

2 of mortality to be very low, because only a small fraction of birds die from colliding with nuclear

3 power plant structures (NRC 1996). Most collisions occur at night (FCC 2004). Adequate

4 lighting and noise created during plant operation would preclude most collision events from

5 happening. Researchers note that thriving bird populations, including important wildlife such as

6 the wild turkey (Meleagris gallapavo), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), least bittern

7 (Ixobrychus exilis), barn owl (Tyto alba), and various waterfowl can withstand small losses

8 without threatening their existence (EPRI 1993).

9 Also, most waterfowl TVA has observed in the WBN site vicinity would be associated with the

10 Tennessee River, and their flight paths would likely remain near enough to the river to avoid

11 collision. Wild turkeys primarily move among habitats while on the ground, and even during

12 flight, the staff does not expect them to collide with the cooling tower. Bald eagles would likely

13 forage near the Tennessee River and may perch or roost on the WBN site. Even with a

14 substantial plume, TVA does not expect eagles to collide with the Unit 2 cooling tower. The

15 plant has not recorded any such collision with the WBN Unit 1 cooling tower. Least bitterns

16 reside exclusively along the river, and the staff does not expect them to collide with the Unit 2

17 cooling tower. Barn owls forage on the wing at night, but adequate lighting should preclude the

18 possibility that they will collide with the cooling tower. Researchers know little about the eastern

19 small-footed bat (Myotis leibil). It appears the species prefers foraging within forest or over

20 open water (Johnson et al. 2009) and may use buildings to roost (Best and Jennings 1997). As

21 with the other wildlife species, noise from cooling-tower operation and adequate lighting would

22 likely prevent these bats from colliding with the cooling tower,

23 As with collision mortality related to operating a cooling tower, the transmission lines and towers

24 present obstacles to resident or migratory bats and birds. The Federal Communications

25 Commission (FCC) reports that utility structures can kill thousands of birds in a single event

26 (FCC 2004). The FCC has found as many as 59 bird species electrocuted by power

27 transmission infrastructure (APLIC 2006), and more than 100 individual birds under a single

28 telecommunication tower in a single night (FCC 2004).

29 The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993) notes that factors appearing to influence

30 the rate of avian impacts with structures are diverse and related to bird behavior, structure

31 attributes, and weather. Structure height, location, configuration, and lighting also appear to

32 play a role in avian mortality. Weather such as low cloud ceilings, advancing fronts, and fog

33 also contribute to this phenomenon. Larger birds such as waterfowl are more prone to collide

34 with transmission lines, especially when they cross wetland areas used by large concentrations

35 of birds (EPRI 1993). Transmission lines supporting WBN Unit 2 cross waterways in eight

36 different locations (Table 4-4): four cross the Tennessee River, two cross backwaters of the

37 Tennessee River, and two cross the Hiwassee River. These transmission lines currently

38 support WBN Unit 1. TVA would not install any new transmission towers or lines to support

39 WBN Unit 2. TVA has not recorded or reported any avian mortality for the existing transmission

40 system.

September 2011 4-15 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Table 4-4. Watts Bar Unit 2 Transmission Corridor Water Crossings

Line Water Body Approximate Water Crossing Location

Sequoyah-Watts Bar Tennessee River 0.35 TRM downstream from the WBN plant

Watts Bar-Roane Tennessee River 8.5 TRM upstream of WBN Dam

(backwater)

Watts Bar-Roane Tennessee River 9.2 TRM upstream of WBN Dam

(backwater)

Watts Bar-Roane Tennessee River 4.8 km (3 mi) SSW of Kingston, Tennessee

Bull Run-Sequoyah Tennessee River 8 km (5 mi) SSE of Kingston, Tennessee

Bull Run-Sequoyah Tennessee River At the Sequoyah Plant

Bull Run-Sequoyah Hiwassee River 5 TRM upstream of confluence with Tennessee River

Sequoyah-Watts Bar Hiwassee River 12.5 TRM upstream of confluence with Tennessee River

TRM = Tennessee River Mile

2 A study of non-hunting mortality of wild waterfowl concluded that transmission wire collision was

3 less than 0.1 percent of reported mortality (Stout and Cornwell 1976). This level of mortality

4 would not measurably reduce local bird populations. The NRC staff does not expect operating

5 transmission lines in support of WBN Unit 2 to affect measurably the waterfowl that use the

6 Tennessee or Hiwassee rivers. Neither does it expect operating the WBN Unit 2 cooling tower

7 to contribute to conditions such as low cloud ceilings or fog to increase the likelihood of collision

8 mortality with transmission lines. The eastern small-footed myotis forages over water and also

9 could suffer from collision mortality. However, the NRC staff found no evidence that bats would

10 be predisposed to transmission-line collision and mortality. For reasons stated above, the NRC

11 staff concludes that impacts from wildlife colliding with structures related to WBN Unit 2 would

12 be negligible.

13 EPRI (1993) documents electrocution of large birds, particularly eagles, as a source of mortality

14 that could be significant to listed species. Electrocutions do not normally occur on lines whose

15 voltages are greater than 69 kV because the distance between lines is too great to be spanned

16 by birds (EPRI 1993). The voltages of all lines supporting WBN Unit 2 are greater than 69 kV.

17 Therefore, transmission-line electrocution should not noticeably affect bald eagle and other

18 large bird populations.

19 Routine maintenance within transmission corridors may benefit important wildlife that thrive in

20 open habitats in the region, including the grasshopper sparrow (Ammadramus savannarum),

21 barn owl, southern bog lemming (Synaptomys coopen), and the meadow jumping mouse

22 (Zapus husonius). Vegetation removal serves to maintain transmission corridors in an early23 successional stage, providing potential habitat for these wildlife species. White-tailed deer

24 (Odocoileus virginianus), wild turkey, and rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.) thrive in fragmented

25 landscapes and would continue to benefit from TVA routinely removing vegetation. As with

26 important plants, natural succession of the transmission corridors would not benefit important

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-16 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 wildlife that prefer forested habitats. TVA uses maps, aerial photographs, and personnel

2 observations or video reconnaissance captured from low-altitude aircraft flyovers to identify

3 potential areas of concern that it then surveys on the ground or assumes to contain sensitive

4 species. TVA uses the Regional Natural Heritage Program database, National Wetland

5 Inventory maps, county soil surveys, and any other available data to identify ecologically

6 sensitive areas and determine which vegetation practices to use. If TVA finds habitat potentially

7 suitable for listed species, it assumes the species are present. Maintenance would not affect

8 wetland wildlife such as the least bittern and the Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister)

9 because these species occur in habitats identified as sensitive in the sensitive area review

10 process and would either be avoided or managed to specifically limit adverse impacts

11 (TVA 2008b).

12 Noise

13 Researchers recognize that noise affects wildlife. Effects range from disturbance to damage.

14 Disturbance includes acute effects such as that producing a flush response, while damage may

15 be a chronic effect such as a measurable decrease in survivorship or reproduction near a major

16 sound source (Kaseloo and Tyson 2004). TVA expects operating WBN Units 1 and 2 to result

17 in maximum chronic noise levels between 53 and 63 dBA, which would result in only slight noise

18 increases at the site boundary (TVA 1972). Chronic traffic noise at this level has been related to

19 a reduction in woodland bird density (Kaseloo and Tyson 2004). Although scientists have not

20 thoroughly defined how chronic noise affects wildlife, the NRC staff does not expect noise from

21 operating the WBN Unit 2 cooling tower to noticeably affect common or important wildlife

22 species at a population level. The staff expects intermittent noise from 84 to 103 dBA at

23 distances between 900 and 1,800 m (3,000 and 5,900 ft) from the cooling tower (NRC 1995),

24 and intermittent noise at this level may produce a startle response and displace individual

25 wildlife of some species (NRC 1995). Displacement of individuals into adjacent habitats usually

26 results in increased competition for resources with individuals already occupying these habitats

27 and ultimately results in a decreased population. However, like chronic noise, the staff does not

28 expect startling or displacement from intermittent operational noises and ultimate population

29 reduction to destabilize local wildlife populations. The NRC concludes that operational noise30 related impacts to wildlife would be negligible.

31 Electromaqnetic Fields

32 The NRC reports that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are unlike other agents that adversely

33 affect the environment. Neither dramatic acute effects nor long-term effects have been

34 demonstrated, and, if they exist, they are subtle (NRC 1996). In the Generic Environmental

35 Impact Statement forLicense Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the staff

36 reviewed biological and physical studies of EMFs, but did not find any consistent evidence

37 linking harmful effects with field exposures. Since 1997, researchers have published more than

38 a dozen studies looking at cancer in animals exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives

September 2011 4-17 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 (Moulder 2005). These studies found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of

2 cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2005). Therefore, the staff concludes that the incremental EMF

3 impact posed by operating transmission lines to support WBN Unit 2 would be minimal.

4 Species of Ecological Concern

5 This section discusses potential impacts on animal species identified as being of ecological

6 concern at the State and/or Federal level. Although healthy wildlife populations are able to

7 sustain collision mortality and remain viable, loss of individuals may be significant enough to

8 jeopardize threatened and endangered species or unlisted species in decline. The endangered

9 gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is the only Federally listed animal species that is known to occur on

10 or in the immediate vicinity of the WBN site. Because bats forage while flying, gray bats have

11 the potential to die from colliding with WBN Unit 2 structures; however, the NRC staff believes

12 the potential is very limited because the gray bat forages almost exclusively over open water

13 (Brady et al.1982). In addition, this bat forages within a few meters of the water's surface, which

14 also limits the potential for collision with transmission lines that cross water bodies in the region.

15 Both lighting and noise on the WBN site would further reduce any collision potential. A

16 biological assessment of potential adverse effects on the gray bat is located in Appendix F.

17 Wetlands

18 The Chickamauga Reservoir of the Tennessee River acts as the source of cooling water for

19 WBN Unit 2. Chapter 2 lists many important species associated with the Tennessee River and

20 habitats of importance, including wetlands/floodplains and set-aside parcels located on the

21 immediate river shoreline. Current river management dictates the surface elevation of Watts

22 Bar Reservoir be maintained in summer at a level 1.2 m (4 ft) higher than the winter pool level.

23 Similarly, TVA maintains summer levels of the Chickamauga Reservoir 1.8 m (6 ft) higher than

24 winter levels (TVA 2004b).

25 Section 4.2.2.1 says that the annual consumption rate for WBN Unit 2 represents just

26 0.1 percent of the mean annual flow of the Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam. Operation of

27 both Units 1 and 2 would consume 0.2 percent of the mean annual flow of the river due to

28 evaporation through the cooling towers. The NRC determined this level of surface-water usage

29 would not measurably affect surface-water elevation, especially considering the magnitude of

30 change within the current water management regime. The NRC staff does not expect additional

31 shoreline exposure to be measurable, wetland function to be altered, or wetland flora and fauna

32 along the Tennessee River shoreline to be affected. Consequently, the staff concludes that the

33 potential effects on terrestrial ecology, including all important species and habitats, from using

34 Tennessee River water to operate a natural-draft cooling tower for WBN Unit 2 would be

35 negligible. Shoreline impacts were not addressed in the 1978 SFES-OL or 1995 SFES-OL-1.

36 TVA notes that conditioning roads within transmission corridors could pollute local streams with

37 eroded soil, organic debris, heat, and chemicals (TVA 1992). Chemical pollutants and herbicide

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-18 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 runoff could directly affect important wetland species, and indirectly degrade habitat through

2 erosion and increased organic matter. Increased temperatures in streams intersected by

3 transmission corridors could also affect the hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), which

4 thrives in streams and rivers with temperatures less than 200C (680F). TVA uses BMPs to limit

5 negative impacts from road maintenance on wildlife and habitats with both short- and long-term

6 strategies. Short-term strategies include using silt fences and traps, barriers, and annual

7 vegetation growth to limit erosion potential during work activities. TVA's long-term strategies

8 consist of checking dam construction; planting and retaining perennial vegetative cover

9 alongside streams, wetlands, and bare soil areas; retaining trees and shrubs that do not

10 interfere with safety; and limiting erosion into nearby wetlands and streams (TVA 1992). TVA

11 uses good housekeeping practices on the WBN site to limit deposition of organic matter and

12 petroleum products in streams and wetlands. Retaining vegetation along streams and wetlands

13 increases shade and limits excessive heat load (TVA 1992). If TVA continues to use these

14 BMPs, impacts on wetlands, important wetland plants, and important wetland wildlife would be

15 minimal.

16 During transmission-line maintenance planning, the sensitive area review process accounts for

17 wetlands within and adjacent to transmission corridors. TVA maps and applies a 1.6-km (1-mi)

18 buffer around known wetlands that occur within a transmission corridor and maps potential

19 wetlands by their boundaries. TVA then applies BMPs, such as restricting herbicide application

20 methods or eliminating herbicides altogether, limiting use of heavy machinery, and designating

21 sensitive areas as "hand-clearing only," depending on the sensitivity of the area (TVA 2008b).

22 Therefore, transmission-line maintenance would minimally affect important wetland plants,

23 animals, and function.

24 4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resource Summary

25 Using the natural-draft cooling tower would result in the deposition of TDS on vegetation from

26 cooling-tower drift. However, TVA estimates the amount of TDS deposited would be far below

27 levels known to affect vegetation. TVA expects localized fogging and icing to occur infrequently

28 and at a small scale, and it does not expect any noticeable effect on terrestrial resources.

29 Cooling-tower collision mortality would not normally affect healthy wildlife populations. TVA has

30 not recorded any notable collision mortality events from operating the WBN Unit 1 tower, and it

31 does not expect any for the WBN Unit 2 tower. Four 500-kV transmission corridors would

32 support WBN Unit 2, and the eight waterway crossings of these lines pose a risk to waterfowl.

33 Transmission-line mortality is not normally a significant factor for waterfowl. Healthy bird

34 populations can sustain minor losses without a noticeable effect. Transmission-line engineering

35 virtually eliminates electrocution of wildlife with transmission lines whose voltages are greater

36 than 69 kV because of line spacing. Routine maintenance could benefit wildlife that prefer open

37 habitats, but would also deter those that prefer forested habitats. Operational noise likely would

38

September 2011 4-19 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 displace individual wildlife and may slightly reduce populations, but not enough to noticeably

2 affect or destabilize wildlife populations. Researchers have not consistently linked EMFs to

3 harmful effects in terrestrial biota.

4 The staff does not expect that operating WBN Unit 2 would affect wetland resources along the

5 Chickamauga Reservoir. Consumptive water use during operation would equate to less than

6 1 percent of the water flowing past the WBN site. NRC staff determined that the surface-water

7 fluctuation resulting from operating Unit 2 would be to be too small to measure, and current

8 management of the Chickamauga Reservoir results in seasonal water fluctuations that far

9 exceed what would result from operating WBN Unit 2. Road and transmission-line maintenance

10 could affect resources through deposition of sediment, organic debris, chemicals, and increased

11 heat loads into streams and wetlands. TVA uses BMPs, including temporary and permanent

12 erosion barriers, retention of favorable vegetation retention, and good housekeeping to minimize

13 impacts of road maintenance to on the environment.

14 TVA's use of the sensitive area review process would also limit adverse impacts on threatened

15 or endangered plants and animals. It identifies habitats for this biota before performing work.

16 TVA uses BMPs such as'limits on timing and equipment in sensitive habitats, including where

17 listed species are known or believed to occur. Foraging habits of the gray bat would preclude

18 collision mortality with WBN Unit 2 structures and transmission system components.

19 Based on information TVA provided and NRC's own independent review of additional

20 information since the 1978 FES-OL, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of operating the

21 WBN plant transmission system on terrestrial resources, including Federally and State-listed

22 species, would be SMALL.

23 4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts

24 This section describes potential impacts on aquatic ecosystems and threatened and

25 endangered species from the operation of intake and discharge systems of WBN Unit 2. The

26 previous section (4.3.1) addresses impacts from transmission-line maintenance on aquatic

27 ecosystems.

28 The information in this section updates the information provided in the 1978 FES-OL by

29 considering changes in the design of WBN Unit 2 (specifically the use of the SCCW system)

30 and including information from more recent surveys and studies of aquatic biota as presented in

31 Chapter 2. The potential impacts on the aquatic biota of the Tennessee River from operating

32 WBN Unit 2 include consumption of river water, the impingement and entrainment of aquatic

33 organisms in the cooling water systems (SCCW and Condenser Circulating Water [CCW]), as

34 well as thermal, chemical, and physical discharges from both the SCCW and the CCW systems.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-20 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.3.2.1 Water Consumption

2 As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the normal makeup water flow rate through the IPS from

3 Chickamauga Reservoir for two units would be 3.2 m3/s (113 cfs) in the winter and 3.79 m3/s

4 (134 cfs) in the summer. The summer flow rate would represent 0.4 percent of the mean flow of

5 the Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam, which is 778 m3/s (27,500 cfs). The normal intake flow

6 rate through the SCCW intake from above the Watts Bar Dam in the Watts Bar Reservoir would

7 be 7.1 m3/s (250 cfs), which is slightly below that currently for WBN Unit 1 (see Section 3.2.2.1)

8 and 0.91 percent of the mean flow of the Tennessee River at the dam. Combined, this is

9 1.3 percent of the mean flow of the Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam, although much of this

10 water returns to the river in the discharge. As discussed in Section 4.2.2.1, the maximum

11 annual plant consumption rate for WBN Unit 2 represents 0.1 percent of the mean flow of the

12 Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam. The NRC staff concludes that the total withdrawal and the

13 consumptive withdrawal would have a very minor impact, if any, on the aquatic biota in Watts

14 Bar Reservoir, Chickamauga Reservoir, and downstream.

15 4.3.2.2 Entrainment and Impingement

16 Entrainment, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (66 FR 65256)

17 occurs when

18 "...organisms are drawn through the cooling water intake structure into the cooling system.

19 Organisms that become entrained are normally relatively small benthic, planktonic, and

20 nektonic organisms, including early life stages of fish and shellfish. Many of these small

21 organisms serve as prey for larger organisms that are found higher on the food chain. As

22 entrained organisms pass through a plant's cooling system they are subject to mechanical,

23 thermal, and/or toxic stress. Sources of such stress include physical impacts in the pumps

24 and condenser tubing, pressure changes caused by diversion of the cooling water into the

25 plant or by the hydraulic effects of the condensers, sheer stress, thermal shock in the

26 condenser and discharge tunnel, and chemical toxemia induced by antifouling agents such

27 as chlorine. The mortality rate of entrained organisms varies by species and can be high

28 under normal operating conditions." (footnotes omitted)

29 EPA indicated that "entrainment is related to flow" and that "[L]larger withdrawals of water may

30 result in commensurately greater levels of entrainment" (69 FR 41576).

31 Impingement, according to EPA (66 FR 65256),

32 "... takes place when organisms are trapped against intake screens by the force of the water

33 passing through the cooling water intake structure. Impingement can result in starvation

34 and exhaustion (organisms are trapped against an intake screen or other barrier at the

35 entrance to the cooling water intake structure), asphyxiation (organisms are pressed against

36 an intake screen or other barrier at the entrance to the cooling water intake structure by

September 2011 4-21 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 velocity forces that prevent proper gill movement, or organisms are removed from the water

2 for prolonged periods of time), and descaling (fish lose scales when removed from an intake

3 screen by a wash system) and other physical harms."

4 The impingement rate depends on flow, intake velocity, and swimming speed, among other

5 things. Death from impingement ("impingement mortality") can occur immediately or

6 subsequently as an individual succumbs to physical damage upon its return to the waterbody.

7 As discussed in Section 3.2.2.1, WBN Unit 2 would use two different intakes. The intake for the

8 SCCW system, which TVA originally used for its Watts Bar Fossil Plant, is located above Watts

9 Bar Dam. WBN Unit 2 would also use the IPS, which pulls water into the CCW system. The

10 IPS and associated cooling intake canal are located at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 528.0,

11 about 3.1 km (1.9 mi) below the dam.

12 Sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the CWA require "that the location, design, construction, and

13 capacity of the cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for

14 minimizing adverse environmental impacts" (33 USC 1326). EPA has published section 316(b)

15 implementing regulations for new facilities (Phase I) in 2001 (66 FR 65256) and for existing

16 facilities (Phase II) in 2004 (69 FR 41576). TDEC has issued a revised NPDES permit that

17 incorporates the operations of Unit 2 (TDEC 2011). The NRC does not regulate NPDES

18 permits, and the NRC does not determine whether Phase I or Phase II regulations apply to a

19 specific cooling water intake structure. Regardless, the NRC staff believes that compliance with

20 EPA's regulations will afford protection of aquatic organisms at individual, population,

21 community, or ecosystem levels of ecological structure.

22 SCCW Intake

23 TVA currently holds an NPDES permit for discharge from the SCCW system and operates the

24 SCCW intake for Unit 1. TVA currently uses the SCCW to operate WBN Unit 1 and plans to

25 continue to use the system for WBN Unit 2. The NRC (1978, 1995) did not previously consider

26 the SCCW system because the system did not begin operating until 1999.

27 The normal SCCW intake flow rate during operation of both units (Section 3.2.2.1) would be

28 7.1 m3/s (250 cfs). This is slightly lower than the intake flow rate that occurs with single-unit

29 operation, 7.31 m3

/s (258 cfs). As discussed previously, the lower flow rate for two units in

30 operation is anticipated because water moves through the system under gravity flow, and the

31 water level in the cooling-tower basin for Unit 2 would be 0.6 m (2 ft) higher when the unit is

32 operating (TVA 2010b). This reduces the difference in water level elevation between Watts Bar

33 Reservoir and the cooling-tower basin, resulting in a reduction of flow rate.

34 During the summer months when the Watts Bar Reservoir levels are maintained at 225.7 m

35 (740.5 ft), the water velocity through the openings in the traveling screens at the SCCW would

36 be 0.28 m/s (0.91 ft/s) (TVA 2010b), as discussed in Section 3.2.2.1. For the purpose of

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-22 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 comparison, this is above the EPA guideline of 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s). Through-screen velocities at

2 the SCCW system are variable because this is a gravity-fed system, and the through-screen

3 velocities depend on the depth of the water at the intake.

4 Entrainment at the SCCW

5 The SCCW removes less than 1 percent of the average annual flow past the dam. The

6 withdrawal rate is not being increased for operation of the second unit, rather it would decrease

7 slightly for the operations of both WBN Unit 1 and 2 from the flow for Unit 1 as described in

8 Section 3.2.2.1 of this document. Based on this alone, the staff could conclude that the

9 entrainment of aquatic biota from Watts Bar Reservoir would not change as a result of the

10 additional operation of Unit 2. However, because the SCCW system was not operated until

11 1999, as discussed previously, the staff did not evaluate entrainment at the SCCW intake in

12 either the 1978 FES-OL (NRC 1978) or the 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1995). The staff has

13 determined that it is appropriate to evaluate the potential for entrainment in this document.

14 Three studies related to entrainment or ichthyoplankton density on the Watts Bar Reservoir exist

15 for the SCCW system. The first, an entrainment study (TVA 1976), was conducted in 1975

16 when the SCCW system was used as the intake for the Watts Bar Fossil Plant. The second

17 study looked at ichthyoplankton densities during the spring of 2000 following the start of

18 operation of the SCCW system for WBN Unit 1 (Baxter et al. 2001). TVA conducted the third

19 study during May and August of 2010 also to look at ichthyoplankton densities (TVA 201 la).

20 The following paragraphs discuss the results of the studies in chronological order. Section 5.5.2

21 contains a more detailed description of the studies.

22 When the SCCW system was used as the intake for the Watts Bar Fossil Plant, the flow of

23 water into the intake ranged from 0.45 x 106 m3

/d or 5.23 m3/s (185 ft3/s) to 1.11 X 106 m3/d or

24 12.8 m3/s (452 ft3/s) (TVA 1976), which is almost twice the flow that will be used for both Units 1

25 and 2. TVA conducted entrainment sampling for the Watts Bar Fossil Plant during 10 sampling

26 periods between March 24 and July 28, 1975 at 5 transects in the reservoir. In addition, TVA

27 obtained pumped samples in three of the six intake screen wells. TVA personnel conducted

28 sampling biweekly. Egg collections consisted mostly of unidentified fish eggs in the intake

29 samples and freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) eggs in the reservoir samples. TVA

30 researchers did not calculate total egg entrainment because eggs occurred erratically in

31 samples. Eggs did not appear in both reservoir and intake samples during any sample period.

32 As discussed in Chapter 2, TVA identified fish larvae of 19 taxa from 10 families, but

33 "unspecified clupeids" (such as threadfin shad or gizzard shad) dominated larvae collections (95

34 percent for intake samples, 97 percent for reservoir samples) throughout the sampling season.

35 Of the non-clupeid larvae, only Lepomis species (for example, bluegill) had more than 1 percent

36 of the abundance (1.2 percent).

September 2011 4-23 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 TVA (1976) also estimated water entrained (hydraulic entrainment) during 24-hour periods

2 sampled once every 2 weeks and reported that the 10 biweekly samples ranged from 0 to

3 1.53 percent of the reservoir flow. TVA's estimates of entrainment of total fish larvae ranged

4 from 0.11 to 0.86 percent of the total population transported through the Watts Bar Dam

5 generators during the 10 sampling periods. TVA estimated total larval fish entrainment for the

6 entire study period (127 days) to be 0.24 percent of the transported population. Because of the

7 low estimate of percent entrainment of fish eggs and larvae, TVA concluded that the Watts Bar

8 Fossil Plant did not adversely affect the fisheries resource of Watts Bar Reservoir.

9 In its SCCW Environmental Assessment, TVA (1998b) stated that the larval fish entrainment for

10 the WBN Unit 1 would be only 0.12 percent of the transported population because the SCCW

11 system would use only half the water volume originally used for the Watts Bar Fossil Plant. Two

12 ichthyoplankton studies (previously discussed in Chapter 2) indicate changes in the composition

13 of ichthyoplankton in the vicinity of the SCCW system since 1975. Clupeid larvae (includes

14 threadfin and gizzard shad) were still the dominant specie, followed by centrarchid larvae (such

15 as Lepomis), although the percentage of the Lepomis larvae was higher than in 1975, which is

16 in line with the with the adult population surveys reported in Chapter 2 for the Watts Bar

17 Reservoir.

18 The NRC staff believes that no additional impacts on the aquatic biota of Watts Bar Reservoir

19 would result from the additional operation of WBN Unit 2. The levels of entrainment observed in

20 the 1970s were low. The estimated larval entrainment for WBN Unit 1 was estimated to be half

21 of the level of entrainment from operation of the Watts Bar Fossil Plant in the 1970s. As

22 discussed previously a slightly lower flow rate is anticipated during the operation of both units,

23 most likely resulting in even lower rates of entrainment. The composition of the ichthyoplankton

24 entrained in the SCCW system, primarily clupeid larvae and Lepomis sp., has remained

25 constant since the studies in the 1970s, although the relative percentages may have changed.

26 Based on the staffs review, entrainment from the SCCW system would likely not destabilize or

27 noticeably alter the aquatic biota of the Watts Bar Reservoir even though the SCCW system

28 operates as a once-through system.

29 Impingement at the SCCW System

30 The operation of Unit 2 would not modify or change the SCCW system intake, except for the

31 previously discussed flow rate decrease for operation of both units compared to when only

32 Unit 1 was operating. Based on this information alone, the staff can conclude that the additional

33 operation of Unit 2 would not further affect the aquatic biota of Watts Bar Reservoir. However,

34 because the SCCW system was not operated until 1999, as discussed previously, the staff did

35 not evaluate impingement at the SCCW intake in either the 1978 FES-OL (NRC 1978) or the

36 1995 FES-OL-1 (NRC 1995). The staff has determined that it is appropriate to assess the

37 potential for impingement in this document.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-24 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 TVA conducted three different impingement studies at the location of the SCCW system. TVA

2 conducted the first impingement study in 1974 and 1975 during operations of the Watts Bar

3 Fossil Plant (TVA 1976). The second impingement study occurred after the SCCW system

4 began operating in support of WBN Unit 1 between August 31 and September 28, 1999 and

5 again between March 7 and April 26, 2000 (Baxter et al. 2001). TVA conducted a third fish

6 impingement demonstration of the SCCW intake as part of the 316(b) monitoring program from

7 August 16, 2005 to August 7, 2007 (TVA 2008c). The following paragraphs discuss the results

8 of the studies in chronological order. Section 5.5.2 contains a more detailed description of the

9 impingement studies.

10 TVA (1976) collected 33 weekly samples between August 8, 1974 and May 29, 1975 during the

11 operation of the Watts Bar Fossil Plant. A total of 2,130 individuals from 19 species were

12 collected during the weekly 24-hour sampling period. Cluepids (shad) constituted 73 percent of

13 the fish collected. Bluegill was the next most abundant followed by freshwater drum and

14 skipjack herring. The estimated annual number of fish impinged during operation of the Watts

15 Bar Fossil Plant was 16,421.

16 TVA conducted the second impingement study (Baxter et al. 2001) to verify that impingement

17 losses from the SCCW system "remained minimal." Monitoring occurred in two periods, August

18 31, 1999 through September 29, 1999 and March 7, 2000 through April 26, 2000. Further

19 details on the sampling are provided in Section 5.2. TVA collected 11 impingement samples

20 containing 146 fish from 9 species. Again the majority of fish impinged were gizzard shad and

21 threadfin shad (75 percent) followed by bluegill (17.6 percent). It was estimated that 9,125 fish

22 would be impinged annually by the SCCW system as it was operating for WBN Unit 1.

23 TVA (2008c) conducted the third and most recent impingement demonstration as part of the

24 316(b) monitoring program. The study was conducted in two periods, the first from August 16,

25 2005 through August 9, 2006 (referred to as 2005-2006) and the second from August 16, 2006

26 through August 7, 2007 (referred to as 2006-2007). TVA researchers conducted weekly

27 impingement monitoring by rotating the intake screens and washing them on prearranged

28 schedules. See Section 5.5.2 for additional details on the impingement study. Researchers

29 extrapolated impingement data from the weekly 24-hour samples to estimate the total fish

30 impinged by week and fish impingement for the year. Table 4-5 provides the number of fish

31 impinged for each species during the 2005-2007 impingement study. Table 4-6 specifies the

32 average estimated annual number of fish and biomass impinged over the 2-year period. As in

33 the previous impingement studies, threadfin and gizzard shad had the highest impingement

34 rates, followed by bluegill. For the most part, impingement affected only small numbers of fish,

35 with the exception of threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense), of which 5,381,439 (annual

36 estimate) were impinged during 2005-2006.

September 2011 4-25 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Table 4-5. List of Fish Species by Family, Scientific, and Common Name and Numbers

2 Collected in Impingement Samples During 2005-2007 at the SCCW During

3 Operation of WBN Unit 1

Family

Atherinidae

Centrarchidae

Clupeidae

Cyprinidae

Ictaluridae

Moronidae

Percidae

Sciaenidae

Scientific Name

Labidesthes sicculus

Lepomis macrochirus

Lepomis gulosus

Lepomis megalotis

Lepomis auritus

Lepomis microlophus

Micropterus punctulatus

Micropterus salmoides

Pomoxis annularis

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Dorosoma cepedianum

Alosa chrysochloris

Dorosoma petenense

Pimephales notatus

Pimephales vigilax

Cyprinella spiloptera

Ictalurus furcatus

Ictalurus punctatus

Pylodictis ofivaris

Morone saxatilis

Morone chrysops

Morone mississippiensis

Percina aurantiaca

Percina caprodes

Perca flavescens

Aplodinotus grunniens

Common Name

Brook silverside

Bluegill

Warmouth

Longear sunfish

Redbreast sunfish

Redear sunfish

Spotted bass

Largemouth bass

White crappie

Black crappie

Gizzard shad

Skipjack herring

Threadfin shad

Bluntnose minnow

Bullhead minnow

Spotfin shiner

Blue catfish

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

Striped bass

White bass

Yellow bass

Tangerine darter

Logperch

Yellow perch

Freshwater drum

Total Number of Fish

Impinged

Year-One Year-Two

2 1

229 48

1 0

5 0

5 0

6 0

2 0

17 1

3 2

11 0

1,086 2,957

1 1

768,777 27,164

0 2

1 7

0 1

4 0

12 3

0 1

1 0

2 1

18 10

1 0

14 1

2 0

18 2

Total number of fish

Total number of species

Source: TVA 2008c

770,218

23

30,202

16

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-26 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1

2

Table 4-6. Estimated Annual Numbers, Biomass and Percent Composition of Fish Species

Impinged at the SCCW Intake of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant During 2005-2007

Species

Threadfin shad

Gizzard shad

Bluegill

Yellow bass

Freshwater drum

Largemouth bass

Channel catfish

Logperch

Black crappie

Bullhead minnow

Redear sunfish

Longear sunfish

Redbreast sunfish

White crappie

Blue catfish

Brook silverside

White bass

Bluntnose minnow

Skipjack herring

Spotted bass

Yellow perch

Flathead catfish

Spoffin shiner

Striped bass

Tangerine darter

Warmouth

Total

Source: TVA 2008c

Estimated Number

Year-One Year-Two

5,381,439 190,148 2

7,602 20,699

1603 336

126 70

126 14

119 7

84 21

98 7

77 0

7 49

42 0

35 0

35 0

21 14

28 0

14 7

14 7

0 14

7 7

14 0

14 0

0 7

0 7

7 0

7 0

7 0

5,391,526 211,414 2

Average

,785,794

14,151

970

98

70

63

53

53

39

28

21

18

18

18

14

11

11

7

7

7

7

4

4

4

4

4

2,801,470

Year-One

9,810,374

359,296

40138

4445

10381

43302

987

1491

23352

04

8512

4858

2555

1295

3472

56

3654

0

1281

81

1183

0

0

35

98

1127

10,321,990

Estimated Biomass (g)

Year-Two

266,280

70,245

8953

1064

483

35

266

84

0

70

0

0

0

35

0

21

1393

21

2590

0

0

1344

21

0

0

0

352,905

Average

5,038,327

214,771

24546

2755

5432

21669

627

788

11676

42

4256

2429

1278

665

1736

39

2524

11

1936

42

592

672

11

18

49

564

5,337,448

3 To determine whether the number of threadfin shad impinged would have an effect on the

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

aquatic ecosystem in Watts Bar Reservoir, the staff used a modified weight-of-evidence

approach. The term "weight of evidence" has many meanings. NRC (2010) has defined it as

"an organized process for evaluating information or data from multiple sources to determine

whether there is evidence to suggest that an existing or future environmental action has the

potential to result in an adverse impact." The staff used such an approach for the Cooper

Nuclear Station license renewal supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) (NRC

2010) and other license renewal applications.

September 2011 4-27 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 The first line of evidence relates to comparison of data across additional years of impingement

2 studies and additional locations. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, historically threadfin

3 shad were consistently impinged at higher rates than other fish in the previous impingement

4 studies of the SCCW system intake (TVA 1976; Baxter et al. 2001). Furthermore, a comparison

5 with other power facilities in the region also shows that threadfin shad are consistently impinged

6 at rates higher than other fish. Table 4-7 shows the total estimated annual number of fish

7 impinged by species during impingement studies at TVA's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (2005-

8 2007; TVA 2007c) and TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant (2004-2006; TVA 2007d). The Kingston

9 Fossil Plant, near Kingston, Tennessee, is located on a peninsula at the junction of the Emory

10 and Clinch rivers, approximately 68 river km (42 river mi) upstream from Watts Bar Dam. The

11 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant is located at TRM 484.5 on Chickamauga Reservoir, approximately 71

12 river km (44 river mi) downstream of the WBN site. This comparison provides an indication that

13 the differences in impingement rates between the three plants are in many cases largely related

14 to the impingement of threadfin shad.

15 Table 4-7. Comparison of Total Estimated Number of Fish Impinged at WBN (SCCW intake),

16 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, and Kingston Fossil Plant

Extrapolated Annual Number of Fish

Extrapolated Annual Number of Fish (not including threadfin shad)

Impinged Impinged

Facility 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007

Watts Bar Nuclear ---- 5,391,526 211,414 10,087 21,266

Plant

Sequoyah Nuclear ---- 20,223 40,362 2520 2751

Plant

Kingston Fossil 185,577 225,197 ---- 8,337 11,746

Plant

Sources: TVA 2007d, 2007c, and 2008c. Dashes indicate no sampling.

17 The second line of evidence is that impingement of threadfin shad in large numbers occurs

18 frequently. A study of 32 southeastern United States power plants found threadfin shad

19 accounted for more than 90 percent of all fish impinged (Loar et al. 1978). EPA (2001) reported

20 similar data in its compilation of impingement data; however, the study was not limited to

21 facilities in the southeast, and the percentage of threadfin shad impinged was not as high,

22 although it was the most frequently impinged species. The EPA found the typical annual

23 impingement rate per facility for all reservoirs and lakes (excluding the Great Lakes) to be

24 678,000 fish/yr with a range from 203,000 to 1,370,000 depending on the facility. McLean et al.

25 (1985) reported on a reservoir-wide mortality and impingement of threadfin shad that occurred

26 previously during the period October 1976 to April 1977 in Watts Bar Reservoir. In addition, the

27 data show threadfin shad accounted for 95 percent of the fish impinged at the Kingston Fossil

28 Plant in 2004 to 2006 (TVA 2007d), and 91 percent for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant during 2005

29 and 2006 (TVA 2007c).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-28 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 The third line of evidence deals with the biological response shad have to cold-water

2 temperatures. Shad are intolerant of cold-water temperatures, which often results in high winter

3 mortality, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.1. According to the 2008 TVA ER (TVA 2008b), the

4 peak impingement at WBN occurred January through March (over 99 percent of the fish were

5 impinged during these months), which are the colder months of the year. In colder

6 temperatures, shad may become impaired (decreased swimming ability that might have

7 improved if temperature conditions had improved) or moribund (and may have died regardless

8 of whether they were impinged). However, TVA did not have water temperature data available

9 to determine the temperature conditions in the Watts Bar Reservoir.

10 The fourth line of evidence relates to the location of the SCCW system intake. The SCCW

11 intake location is unique among thermal power plants in the vicinity of Watts Bar, in that it is

12 located above the Watts Bar Dam and the thermal discharge for the WBN plant is below the

13 dam. Thus, the shad are not able to take refuge in the thermal discharge from the plant, as they

14 may be doing during cold weather in the vicinity of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant and the

15 Kingston Fossil Plant. McLean et al. (1985) discussed the ability of threadfin shad to survive

16 rapid drops in temperatures "if thermal refuges 3 to 4°C warmer than ambient were available."

17 Second, the location of the SCCW intake at the dam would mean that any threadfin shad that

18 are unable to swim because of low water temperatures would drift to the face of the dam and

19 then possibly either through the dam or into the SCCW intake. Loar et al. (1978) made similar

20 observations.

21 The fifth line of evidence relates to estimates of the standing stock of threadfin shad in the Watts

22 Bar Reservoir. The staff requested information from TVA related to an estimate of the standing

23 stock of threadfin shad in the Watts Bar Reservoir in order to compare with the number of fish

24 estimated impinged in the 2005-2006 period. TVA based its estimate of standing stock on

25 8 years of data from sampling coves in the Watts Bar Reservoir from 1960 to 1980 using

26 rotenone (a chemical previously used for sampling, which kills all the fish in a given cove when

27 given in large enough amounts). TVA (201 Oc) estimated the threadfin shad population to be

28 greater than 20 million when the total area of Watts Bar Reservoir that is composed of coves

29 and embayments is considered. However, the population is likely much greater assuming the

30 threadfin shad also inhabit the open water areas of the reservoir. Thus, the estimated fraction

31 of the shad population impinged in 2005-2006 is less than 20 percent of the threadfin shad

32 likely present in Watts Bar Reservoir.

33 The final line of evidence is the population size and biomass of fish that prey on shad for the

34 years before and after 2005-2006. Table 4-8 shows the catch rates for black bass (Micropterus

35 spp.) using electrofishing for Watts Bar Reservoir in 2006 and 2007 were comparable to those

36 from previous years. In addition, the mean weight of black bass in 2006 was equivalent to the

37 mean weight the previous year, and the mean weight of black bass increased in 2007, indicating

38 the loss of threadfin shad in Watts Bar Reservoir did not noticeably affect species that prey on

September 2011 4-29 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 threadfin shad (Simmons and Baxter 2009). McLean et al. (1985) reported that prior to the

2 relatively large impingement of threadfin shad in Watts Bar Reservoir during 1976 and 1977,

3 threadfin shad made up 99 percent of the combined diet of sauger (Sander canadensis) and

4 skipjack herring (Alosa chrysochloris) from November until the shad disappeared in January.

5 By the next autumn 25 to 100 percent of the diet of the predators was an alternative prey.

6 Table 4-8. Electrofishing Catch Rates and Population Characteristics of Black Bass Collected

7 During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Watts Bar Reservoir, 1995-2007

Electrofishing

Catch Rate Mean % Bass Bass Largest

Year (no/hr) Weight (Ib) Harvestable > 4 Ib > 5 Ib Bass (Ib)

2007 61.1 1.5 63.2 20 8 6.7

2006 39.4 1.3 71.7 14 7 7.1

2005 72.6 1.3 36.9 15 9 6.2

2004 40.9 1.3 60.2 13 6 6.6

2003 62.0 1.3 65.8 23 8 6.1

2002 57.4 1.1 59.4 9 4 6.6

2001 34.5 0.8 45.2 0 0 2.8

Source: Simmons and Baxter 2009

8 The NRC staff believes that the aquatic biota of Watts Bar Reservoir would not be affected

9 further by impingement from the additional operation of WBN Unit 2 because the intake flow and

10 intake velocity for both units would be either the same as, or less than, that for the current

11 operation of WBN Unit 1, as explained in Section 3.2.2.1. The levels of impingement observed

12 during past studies were minor, except for the threadfin shad, and based on the weight of

13 evidence approach even the large number of shad impinged during the 2005-2007 study did not

14 destabilize or noticeably alter the aquatic biota of the Watts Bar Reservoir in the following year.

15 CCW System - Intake Pumping Station

16 As discussed in Section 4.2.2, WBN Unit 2 would withdraw water from the Chickamauga

17 Reservoir through the CCW system intake located at the IPS. WBN Unit 1 has used this intake

18 since it started operation in 1996. TVA holds a valid NPDES permit for discharge from the CCW

19 system that pulls water from the river through the IPS. NRC (1978) previously considered the

20 use of the IPS for operation of two units.

21 The flow through the IPS is currently 0.32 percent of the mean annual flow of the Tennessee

22 River as measured at Watts Bar Dam for a single unit. Operation of WBN Unit 2 would increase

23 the flow rate through the IPS, under normal conditions, to approximately 0.4 percent of the

24 mean annual flow of the Tennessee River for normal operation after WBN Unit 2 begins

25 operation as discussed in Section 3.2.2.1.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-30 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 TVA (1998a,201 lb) reports the average velocities in the IPS canal are 0.015 m/s (0.05 ft/s) for

2 the winter pool level and 0.009 m/s (0.03 ft/s) for the summer pool level. The IPS has a flow

3 rate through the openings of the traveling screens of 0.21 m/s (0.67 ft/s) in winter and 0.19 m/s

4 (0.62 ft/s) in the summer with four Raw Cooling Water pumps operating (TVA 2011 a). For the

5 purpose of comparison, this is above the EPA guideline for the design through-screen velocity

6 of intake screens for new plants of 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s) (40 CFR 125.84(b)(2)). The EPA

7 guidelines are based on a study of fish swimming speeds and endurance that indicated that the

8 species and life stages evaluated could endure a velocity of 1.0 ft/s. EPA indicated that

9 application of a safety factor of two was appropriate (66 FR 65256).

10 Entrainment at the IPS

11 TVA conducted two sets of entrainment studies at the IPS, as part of or in addition to the

12 ichthyoplankton studies discussed in Section 2.3.2.1. TVA conducted the first entrainment

13 study after the start of operations of WBN Unit 1 in 1996-1997 (TVA 1998a; TVA 1998 revised

14 June 7, 2010). TVA conducted the second entrainment study from April through June 2010

15 (TVA 201 1c). The entrainment estimates from these two studies will be discussed in the

16 following paragraphs. In addition, the species composition found in the intake channel during

17 the 1996-1997 entrainment study will be compared with the species composition of the intake

18 channel in the ichthyoplankton study conducted in 1984-1985 (TVA 1998a). Section 5.5.2

19 contains a more detailed description of the studies.

20 In first entrainment study (1996 and 1997) for the IPS, TVA (1998a; TVA 2010e) estimated the

21 average the densities of fish eggs and larvae (ichthyoplankton) from a transect located at TRM

22 528 (just upstream of the intake channel), and multiplied by the corresponding 24-hour flow past

23 the plant. This provided an estimate of the fraction of ichthyoplankton transported past the

24 plant. TVA also obtained intake channel samples, consisting of four, 1-minute towed samples

25 taken from the trash boom to the mouth of the IPS canal. TVA multiplied an estimate of the

26 mean density of eggs or larvae in the intake samples by the plant intake water demand to derive

27 an estimate of the number of eggs and larvae entrained for each year of the study. TVA

28 reported an annual entrainment rate of fish eggs and larvae that would otherwise have been

29 transported past the site during 1996 of 0.29 percent and 0.57 percent, respectively. TVA

30 estimated the percentage entrainment of fish eggs and larvae during 1997 that would otherwise

31 have been transported past the site to be 0.02 percent and 0.22 percent, respectively.

32 TVA conducted the second entrainment study from April through June 2010 using the same

33 procedures as in 1996 and 1997 (TVA 2011 c). TVA indicated that the purpose of this study was

34 to "update and verify historical monitoring conducted in 1996 and 1997." TVA reported that the

35 study resulted in an annual entrainment rate of fish eggs and larvae (that would otherwise have

36 been transported past the site) to be 0.14 percent and 0.38 percent respectively for the season.

37 This entrainment rate is within the range reported for 1996 and 1997. However, during one

38 sampling period on May 17, when the Watts Bar Dam had no turbine flow, the density of fish

September 2011 4-31 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 eggs in the intake sample was higher and resulted in an estimated entrainment of 3.5 percent.

2 Similarly, the densities of fish larvae during samples taken between May 24 and June 21 were

3 higher from the intake samples compared to the river samples. The highest percent entrained

4 occurred in samples taken on June 14 (2.65 percent) and June 21 (8.65 percent) (TVA 2011 c).

5 In addition to estimating the entrainment rate, TVA identified the fish larvae obtained in the

6 samples from the intake channel during the 1996 and 1997 studies and compared them to the

7 results of previous sampling from the preoperational (1984 and 1985) studies (TVA 1998a; TVA

8 2010e). During preoperational and operational studies, the clupeid (threadfin shad and gizzard

9 shad [Dorosoma cepedianum]) larvae made up 84 percent (1997) or 91 percent (1996) of the

10 larvae in the intake channel, with the sunfish the next most abundant (7.6 percent and

11 8.1 percent) (Table 4-9). TVA postulated (TVA 1998, 201 0e) that the higher composition of

12 centrarchid or sunfish (Lepomis) larvae in the intake channel compared to in the river (where it

13 ranked third or fourth in combined percent) was a result of resident populations using the intake

14 channel as habitat for spawning and nursery (as discussed in Section 2.3.2.1). TVA did not

15 report the identification of the larvae in the intake channel from the 2010 study separately from

16 the larvae that were obtained from the reservoir transect. For this reason, Table 4-9 does not

17 contain the percent composition of fish larvae collected in the intake channel during the 2010

18 study.

19 Table 4-9. Percent Composition of Dominant Larval Fish Taxa Collected in the CCW

20 Intake Channel 1984-1985 and 1996-1997

Percent Composition of Larval Fish Taxa

Preoperational Operational

Taxon Common Name 1984 1985 1996 1997

Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.3

Centrachidae Sunfish 0.9 12.5 7.6 8.1

Clupeidae Unidentified shad 97.8 86.4 90.5 83.7

Dorosoma sp. Threadfin or gizzard shad 0.09 -- 0.8 0.2

Morone (not saxatilis) Bass (not striped) 0.6 0.5 0.1 1.0

Morone sp. Bass 0.5 0.5 0.1 5.4

Source: TVA 1998a, 2010e

21 Based on the low amounts of entrainment, the staff determined that the operation of the IPS, will

22 not have a noticeable effect, and will not destabilize the population of aquatic biota near the

23 WBN site. The species that are entrained are either very prolific in the reservoir, and/or, in the

24 case of the sunfish, likely to be using the intake canal area as a spawning and nursery habitat.

25 Further, the staff does not anticipate that the additional water withdrawal and subsequent

26 entrainment from the additional operation of Unit 2 would be noticeable or destabilizing to the

27 aquatic ecology.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-32 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Impingqement at the IPS

2 TVA conducted two impingement studies at the IPS. The first occurred before WBN Unit 1

3 started producing commercial power (TVA 1998a, 2010e). TVA conducted an additional

4 impingement studies at the IPS between March 26, 2010 and March 17, 2011 (TVA 201 1b).

5 Section 5.4.2 contains a more detailed description of the impingement studies after WBN Unit 1

6 had started operating.

7 From March 15, 1996 through February 28, 1997, TVA researchers collected weekly screen

8 washing samples. A total of 36 samples were obtained after leaving the screens stationary for

9 24 hours to collect the samples, then rotating and backwashing them to remove the impinged

10 fish. An additional 21 samples were collected from March 4 through September 30, 1997. As

11 indicated in Table 4-10, 20 fish representing 9 species were collected during sampling. The

12 study found the total annual estimated number of fish impinged during 1996 and 1997 to be

13 162.2 and 40.8, respectively (TVA 1998a, 2010e). The numbers of fish impinged were so low

14 that the TDEC approved a request by TVA to discontinue sampling as a result of the extremely

15 low numbers of fish impinged (TVA 1998a, 2010e).

16 Table 4-10. Actual and Estimated Numbers of Fish Impinged at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

17 During Sample Periods from March 1996 Through October 7, 1997 and During

18 March 2010 Through March 2011

Ac

Nu

Imp Common Name

Gizzard shad

Threadfin shad

Freshwater drum

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

Bluegill

Redear sunfish

White crappie

Ac

Nu

Imp

March 1996 - October 1997

Total

ctual Annual

mber Estimated Compo.

inged Number (%]

4 40.6 20,

2 20.3 109

6 61 300,

1 10.1 59

1 10.1 50

2 20.3 100

1 10.1 59

2 20.3 109

1 10.2 50

0 0 09

0 203 1000

ilitiofl

10

10

/0

/0

to

/0

10

/0

10

/0

/0

Ac

Nun

Impi

March 2010 - March 2011

Total

tual Annual

nber Estimated Perce

nged Number Compot

172 8,204 60.4'

766 5,362 39.5

0 0 0%

0 0 0%

0 0 0%

0 0 0%

0 0 0%

0 0 0%

0 10.2 0%

1 7 0.1

939 13,573 100%

nt

sition

%I

%A

%A

Log perch

Inland silverside

Total 2

Source: TVA 1998a; TVA 2010e.; TVA 2011 b

September 2011 4-33 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 TVA conducted additional impingement studies at the IPS between March 26, 2010 and March

2 17, 2011 (TVA 2011 b). TVA researchers collected weekly screen wash samples using the

3 same procedures used in the 1996 to 1997 study. A total of 1,939 fish from 3 species were

4 collected. Gizzard shad (60.4 percent) and threadfin shad (39.5 percent) accounted for almost

5 all of the fish impinged. A single inland silverside, Menidia beryllina, was also found in the

6 intake samples. Table 4-10 contains the results of the impingement study. The majority of the

7 individuals were impinged (99.6 percent) between January and the first week of March (TVA

8 2011 b). It is likely that the increased number of gizzard and threadfin shad in the 2010 to 2011

9 impingement studies and the timing of the impingement (January through March) is the result of

10 stress and cold shock. A comparison of water temperature data shows that the daily water

11 temperatures during December 2010 and January, February, and March 2011 averaged 0.780C

12 (1.4°F), 1.30C (2.3°F), 0.83°C (1.5°F), and 1.8°C (3.2°F) lower, respectively, than the

13 temperatures for the corresponding months in 1996 and 1997. In addition, the average daily

14 water temperatures decreased 9.70C (17.5°F) from November 2010 to January 2011 and 6.6°C

15 (11.8 0 F) from November 1996 to January 1997. As discussed previously, shad are known to

16 become moribund and lethargic when cold-stressed, however, the thermal discharges from

17 WBN Unit 1 would have provided a thermal refugia. However, it is also possible that some of

18 the shad that were impinged originated in Watts Bar Reservoir and passed through the dam

19 before becoming impinged on the IPS screens. As discussed previously for entrainment at the

20 SCCW system, shad occur in large numbers in both Watts Bar and Chickamauga reservoirs

21 and the number of shad impinged in the 2010-2011 study is small compared to the entire

22 population.

23 The NRC staff believes that impingement at the IPS, even with the operation of both units,

24 would be too low to be readily detected in the populations and would not destabilize, or

25 noticeably alter, the aquatic biota of the Chickamauga Reservoir. The staff bases this decision

26 on the impingement data obtained from two different time periods during the operation of WBN

27 Unit 1 and on the very low numbers of fish impinged, with the exception of shad, which were

28 likely cold-stressed at the time of impingement.

29 4.3.2.3 Thermal Discharges

30 Thermal discharges raise the temperature of the heat source (in this case the Tennessee River)

31 and can also cause cold shock when aquatic organisms that are acclimated to warm water are

32 exposed to a sudden decrease in temperature. The effects of the raised temperatures for each

33 of the three thermal outfalls are discussed, followed by a discussion of the potential for cold

34 shock.

35 As discussed in Section 3.2.2, river water is pumped through the SCCW intake and the IPS to

36 cool the steam that enters the condenser. Although most of the excess heat in the cooling

37 water transfers to the atmosphere in the cooling tower by evaporation and conductive cooling,

38 the water that does not evaporate or drift from the tower ends up in the cooling-tower basin. A

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-34 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 portion of the water in the cooling-tower basin is returned to the river at a higher temperature

2 than when it was originally removed. The water from the SCCW system continually enters and

3 leaves the cooling-tower basins as discussed in Section 3.2.2. A portion is also removed,

4 usually through the discharge diffusers.

5 Discharge of the excess heat is occurring during operation of WBN Unit 1. It will continue with

6 the addition of WBN Unit 2. Thermal discharges will continue to occur via the same three

7 outfalls as described in Section 4.2.2.1 for WBN Unit 1. Table 3-4 provides the additional

8 increment added for waste heat discharges to the river for both Outfall 113 (SCCW system

9 shoreline discharge) and Outfall 101 (diffuser discharge) as a result of the additional operation

10 of WBN Unit 2.

11 TVA has indicated that the thermal discharges during the combined operation of both units

12 would remain within the existing NPDES permit limits (TVA 2008a). The NPDES permit issued

13 by the State of Tennessee for Unit 1 specifies limits on the amount of thermal effluents the plant

14 may discharge into the Tennessee River. Table 4-1 shows the current NPDES temperature

15 limits for the three outfalls used during operation for Unit 1. As Section 4.2.2.1 indicates, the

16 permit also establishes an active mixing zone and defines in-stream monitoring and reporting

17 requirements necessary to comply with effluent limitations.

18 SCCW System - Outfall 113

19 A description of Outfall 113 for the SCCW system discharges is given in Section 3.2.2.4. The

20 SCCW system discharges water through a discharge structure originally constructed for the

21 Watts Bar Fossil Plant. TVA used a physical hydrothermal model test of the discharge to

22 determine the mixing zone dimensions for the outfall to the SCCW (Outfall 113) as discussed in

23 Section 4.2.2.2. It has confirmed the model output with actual measurements (TVA 2005,

24 2006b, 2007e, 2007f). The model and measurements indicate that the plume rises after hitting

25 the concrete pad located at the end of the discharge. The model results also predict the

26 preservation of a zone of passage for fish along the bottom of the river, especially in the area of

27 the navigation channel (TVA 2004a). Further, the model predicts the location of the plume from

28 the SCCW discharge does not prohibit fish from swimming past the plant and that the plume

29 would likely not reach the river's mussel beds.

30 As discussed in Section 4.2.2.2, the NPDES permit specifies thermal limits for two different

31 mixing zones for Outfall 113, which depends on the flow conditions in the Tennessee River.

32 The active mixing zone applies when the turbines are operating at the Watts Bar Dam. The

33 passive mixing zone occurs when no water is flowing past the outfall. This zone extends to the

34 full width of the river and 300 m (1,000 ft) downstream of the outfall (TDEC 2011). TVA (2011 d)

35 has characterized the attributes of the SCCW thermal plume with studies during May and

36 August 2010 when there were no releases from the dam. During these studies, WVA measured

37 ichthyoplankton to describe the temporal and spatial distribution of fish eggs and larvae and

September 2011 4-35 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 their exposure rates to the thermal plume during the time that there are no releases from the

2 dam. The survey in May was designed to coincide with the peak abundance of ichthyoplankton

3 in the vicinity of the site. The August survey was designed to coincide with near maximum

4 ambient water temperatures, even though at this time most of the fish eggs have hatched and

5 the larvae no longer drift in the water column. Details of the study design are given in Section

6 5.5. Results of the ichthyoplankton studies are discussed in Section 2.3.2. The study showed

7 that the plume remained near the surface and spread across the river. During periods of normal

8 release from Watts Bar Dam, the plume remains near the right descending bank. The

9 maximum temperatures that were recorded during the May and August surveys (with no flow

10 from the dam) were between 23.7 and 28.2°C (74.8 and 82.7°F), respectively, which is below

11 the maximum seasonal temperatures that were established by the Tennessee State Water

12 Quality Criteria (30.5°C (86.9°F) for the protection of aquatic resources. However, no

13 ichthyoplankton were collected below the SCCW discharge during August, suggesting that

14 ichthyoplankton are not exposed to the thermal effluent during the peak seasonal temperatures.

15 Based on the ichthyoplankton taxa collected, thermal tolerance data, river temperatures, and

16 exposure times, TVA concluded "there is essentially no risk of thermal damage to

17 ichthyoplankton during no-flow conditions" from the dam (TVA 201 1d).

18 As discussed in Section 2.3.2.1, TVA moved freshwater mussels from an area measuring 46 m

19 by 46 m (150 ft by 150 ft) at Outfall 113 to the mussel bed directly across the river, with the goal

20 of preventing any potential adverse impacts on the mussels from operation of the SCCW

21 system. In addition, TVA placed a ramp on the invert of the SCCW outfall to deflect the

22 discharge upward, and away from the bottom of the river (TVA 2004a). The analysis of in23 stream data collected by TVA for Outfall 113 showed that heat from the SCCW effluent does not

24 reach the bottom in significant amounts (TVA 2004a).

25 Discharge Diffusers - OuffaHl 101

26 WVA will continue to discharge cooling water from the main cooling water system for WBN Units

27 1 and 2 to Chickamauga Reservoir through a diffuser system located approximately 3.2 km

28 (2 mi) below Watts Bar Dam at TRM 527.9 (WVA 2008a). The additional increment (1.1 x 108

29 Btu/hr for Outfall 113 and 2 x 107 Btu/hr for Outfall 101) is approximately 14 percent of the

30 current amount of heat discharged.

31 To provide adequate dilution of the plant effluent, WVA permits the diffusers to discharge water

32 only when Watts Bar Dam releases at least 99 m3/s (3,500 cfs), as discussed in Section 3.2.2.3.

33 This policy will remain the same when both units are operating. Furthermore, TVA continuously

34 monitors the Outfall 101 temperature. If it reaches 35°C (95°F), a signal in the control room

35 alerts operators of the condition, and they divert discharge to the YHP. As discussed previously

36 in Section 4.2.2.2, these conditions have been reached in the late afternoon on hot summer

37 days, and other actions such as increasing the flow of water from the dam can be used to

38 prevent the diversion of the discharge.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-36 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 The staffs modeling of the plume, as discussed in Section 4.2.2.2, indicates that the location

2 and design of the diffuser discharge would not impede fish passage up and down the river. Fish

3 and other organisms likely would avoid the warmer water, but mussels and benthic organisms

4 would not be able to avoid the elevated temperatures. However, as indicated, the diffuser's

5 plume angles upward at 45 degrees above horizontal in the downstream direction, the plume is

6 buoyant because the water is warmer, and as a result, the plume would not have much of an

7 effect on the mussels and other benthic organisms in the area of or immediately downstream of

8 the diffuser.

9 Outflow 102 - Emergency Yard Holding Pond

10 As indicated in Section 4.2.2.2, discharge from the emergency overflow (Outfall 102) is

11 infrequent. The current NPDES permit also specifies a discharge temperature limit of 350C

12 (95°F) for Ouffall 102.

13 Cold Shock

14 Thermal discharges also may affect aquatic biota by cold shock. Cold shock occurs when

15 aquatic organisms that are acclimated to warm water (e.g., fish in a power plant's discharge

16 canal), are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease. This sometimes occurs when single17 unit power plants shut down suddenly in winter. An NRC (1996) review found cold shock

18 mortalities at nuclear power plants in the United States are relatively rare and typically involve

19 small numbers of fish. Cold shock impacts occur less frequently at multiple-unit plants, because

20 the temperature decrease from one unit shutting down moderates the heated discharge from

21 the unit that continues to operate; thus, cold shock would occur less frequently if WBN Unit 2

22 starts operation. Cold shock is also less of a factor at plants like WBN because the water

23 discharges to a river or reservoir where the volume of discharge in comparison to the flow of the

24 river is very small.

25 Summary

26 The staff believes that any impact from additional thermal discharges from the operation of

27 Unit 2 would be undetectable and would not destabilize or noticeably alter aquatic biota in the

28 vicinity of the WBN site. This determination results from the incremental rise in thermal

29 discharge anticipated from Outfalls 101,102, and 113 from operation of both WBN Units 1 and

30 2, the modeling of the thermal plume, requirements in the current NPDES permit limits for

31 thermal discharge during operation of both units, and data obtained from TVA's hydrothermal

32 studies of ichthyoplankton and their exposure to the SCCW thermal plume. It is also based on

33 the lack of an observed impact on the aquatic biota from current operations of WBN Unit 1.

September 2011 4-37 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.3.2.4 Physical Changes Resulting from the Discharge

2 No impacts from scouring the bottom of the reservoir are anticipated on benthic organisms in

3 the vicinity of, or immediately downstream of, the outfalls with the addition of WBN Unit 2. TVA

4 indicates that water flow from the SCCW discharge would not increase, and the concrete

5 structure at the discharge of the SCCW system (Outfall 113) continues to reduce the

6 discharge's impact on the river bottom and direct the flow of water toward the river surface as it

7 leaves the outfall (TVA 1998b). As discussed in Section 3.2.2.4, using a diffuser that

8 discharges at an angle of 45 degrees above horizontal in the downstream direction for Outfall

9 101 minimizes the amount of scouring discharge from this outfall. The plant has very

10 infrequently used Outfall 102, which discharges emergency outflow from the YHP. This outfall

11 discharges into a local stream channel that empties into the Chickamauga Reservoir. The NRC

12 staff believes that physical changes at the outfalls as a result of the additional operation of Unit

13 2 would not affect the aquatic biota of Watts Bar Reservoir.

14 4.3.2.5 Chemical Discharges

15 Another discharge-related stressor involves chemically treated cooling water. As discussed in

16 Section 3.2.4, the plant would control water chemistry for various plant water uses by adding

17 biocides, algaecides, corrosion inhibitors, pH buffering, scale inhibitors, and dispersants.

18 Table 3.2 lists chemicals and their discharge quantities included in the WBN site's NPDES

19 permit request submitted on April 2009 (TVA 2009c). The type and quantity of chemicals the

20 plant would discharge are the same as those specified in the current NPDES permit and in

21 TVA's request for the revised permit for WBN Unit 1.

22 According to NPDES permit requirements, TVA conducts biotoxicity tests (3-brood

23 Ceriodaphnia dubia survival and reproduction tests and 7-day fathead minnow [Pimephales

24 promelas] larval survival and growth tests) on samples of final effluent from Outfalls 101,102,

25 112, and 113. The NRC staff reviewed 12 years of toxicity testing data. The data showed that

26 percentage survival in the highest concentration tested for 96-hour survival was a mean of

27 92.8 percent for Outfall 101 and 99 percent survival for Outfall 113. Based on the results of

28 these tests and the unchanged quantity of chemicals that would be discharged, the NRC staff

29 believes that the aquatic biota of Chickamauga Reservoir would not be affected further by

30 chemical discharges resulting from the additional operation of WBN Unit 2.

31 4.3.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species

32 The NRC staff used occurrence data and habitat information on aquatic organisms as discussed

33 in Section 2.3.2.2 to determine which of the Federally threatened and endangered species

34 occurring in the vicinity of the WBN plant could be adversely affected from operations of Unit 2.

35 These species are the Eastern fanshell pearly mussel (Cyprogenia stegaria), the dromedary

36 pearly mussel (Dromus dromas), the pink mucket mussel (Lampsilis abrupta), the orangefoot

37 pimpleback (Plethobasus cooperianus), and the rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-38 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Although adult mussels are not susceptible to entrainment or impingement by the IPS, the fish

2 host onto which the glochidia implants can be entrained and impinged. The hosts for the rough

3 pigtoe and the orange pimpleback are unknown. The hosts for the pink mucket include

4 smallmouth, spotted, and largemouth bass (Micropterus spp.), as well as freshwater drum and

5 sauger. None of these species were heavily represented in either entrainment or impingement

6 studies and, as a result, the staff considers it unlikely that entrainment or impingment due to

7 operation of WBN Unit 2 would affect the population of pick mucket. A variety of darters and

8 sculpins are hosts to the Eastern fanshell pearlymussel and the dromedary pearlymussel.

9 Except for the Iogperch (Percina caprodes), which is a host for the Eastern fanshell, the other

10 host fish for these two mussel species are not known to be present (based on sampling studies

11 as far back as 1975).

12 As discussed previously, in an effort to limit detrimental effects to mussels in the vicinity of the

13 SCCW discharge, a mussel relocation zone was established that extended 46 m (150 ft) from

14 the right bank and 23 m (75 ft) upstream and downstream of the centerline of Outfall 113. The

15 temperatures in this area cannot exceed 33.50C (92.30F). In addition, TVA placed a ramp on

16 the invert of the SCCW outlet to deflect the discharge upward and away from the bottom of the

17 river (TVA 2004a). The diffuser from Outfall 101 is angled upwards at 45 degrees to keep the

18 plume from staying on the bottom of the river where the benthic organisms could be affected.

19 Based on this information the staff believes that the impact on threatened and endangered

20 species from entrainment, impingement, and thermal, physical, and chemical discharge

21 operations of WBN Unit 2 would be minimal. A biological assessment of potential adverse

22 effects on the Federally listed species is located in Appendix F.

23 4.3.2.7 Aquatic Resource Summary

24 Based on the NRC's independent review of information since the 1978 FES-OL, the staff

25 concludes that the overall impacts on aquatic biota, including Federally-listed threatened and

26 endangered species, from impingement and entrainment at the SCCW and IPS intakes and

27 from thermal, physical, and chemical discharges as a result of operating Unit 2 on the WBN site

28 are SMALL.

29 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts

30 This section describes socioeconomic impacts on nearby communities from operating WBN

31 Unit 2 and from activities and demands of the operating workforce on the surrounding region.

32 Socioeconomic impacts include potential impacts on individual communities, the surrounding

33 region, and minority and low-income populations.

September 2011 4-39 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.4.1 Physical Impacts of Station Operation

2 Potential physical impacts of WBN Unit 2 plant operations that could affect socioeconomic

3 conditions in the region include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusions.

4 The 1978 FES-OL and the 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1978, 1995) did not address physical

5 impacts. Because WBN Unit 1 is already operating at the WBN site, the incremental addition of

6 physical impacts (e.g., noise, odors, exhausts) from WBN Unit 2 plant operations would not

7 noticeably change the overall impact on the region around the site.

8 4.4.2 Social and Economic Impacts of Station Operation

9 Social and economic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and

10 economic characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs

11 created by the operation of a new nuclear power plant could affect regional employment,

12 income, and expenditures. Power plant operations jobs have a greater potential for permanent,

13 long-term socioeconomic impacts.

14 The 1978 FES-OL and the 1995 SFES-OL-1 addressed socioeconomic impacts from operating

15 both WBN Units 1 and 2 and both assessments concluded that no significant impacts would

16 occur from plant operations. Since that time, the region around WBN Units 1 and 2 has

17 experienced economic growth and increases in population and housing. The regional road

18 network and public school systems have also grown. This section assesses the social and

19 economic impact of WBN Unit 2 plant operations on the surrounding region.

20 The 1978 FES-OL projected that the onsite workforce for both operating units would be

21 200 workers (NRC 1978). The 1995 SFES-OL-1 estimated a total onsite workforce of about

22 1,300 workers, including 450 workers associated with WBN Unit 2 (NRC 1995). TVA currently

23 expects to employ 200 workers to operate WBN Unit 2. This would be in addition to the

24 700 TVA personnel and 1,360 construction workers (PNNL 2009) currently employed at the

25 WBN site (TVA 2008a, 2010c). The level of operations employment, while larger than originally

26 expected in the 1978 FES-OL, would be less than current total employment at the WBN site.

27 4.4.2.1 Demography

28 Approximately 200 workers would be required to operate WBN Unit 2 (TVA 2008a). Based on

29 the demographic history of the WBN site, the 200 additional employees could result in a

30 regional population increase of about 520 persons, assuming all 200 operations workers and

31 their families relocate into the Watts Bar area (TVA 1987, 2010c). This would be a small

32 increase in the overall regional population and would represent less than a 1 percent increase in

33 the overall population of Rhea, McMinn, Meigs, and Roane counties. Even if all of the WBN

34 Unit 2 workforce and their families were to reside in Rhea County, they would only represent a

35 1.7 percent increase in Rhea County's population. Based on this information, operating WBN

36 Unit 2 would result in no noticeable change in demographic conditions in the socioeconomic

37 region of influence (ROI).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-40 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 The 1978 FES-OL and the 1995 SFES-OL-1 described the impacts of "large-scale" employment

2 changes at the WBN site on regional population in the surrounding the WBN site. The 1978

3 FES-OL predicted significant changes on the region surrounding the WBN site because the

4 regional population was smaller at the time of analysis. The 1995 SFES-OL-1 also predicted

5 significant changes in the region, this time because the projected number of operations workers

6 was greater than the estimated 200 workers needed to support WBN Unit 2 operations today.

7 4.4.2.2 Housing

8 Once construction is complete, TVA would require approximately 200 workers to operate WBN

9 Unit 2 (TVA 2008a). Even if all WBN Unit 2 employees choose to reside in Rhea County, a

10 sufficient supply of housing exists to meet housing needs (see Table 2-24). In addition, the

11 number of available housing units has kept pace with population growth in the area. Based on

12 this information, there would be little or no noticeable effect on the availability and cost of

13 housing in the region. The 1978 FES-OL predicted significant housing impacts in the region

14 surrounding the WBN site because of the limited availability of housing at the time of analysis.

15 The 1995 SFES-OL-1 also predicted significant housing impacts, this time because the

16 projected number of operations workers was greater than the estimated 200 workers needed to

17 support WBN Unit 2 operations today.

18 4.4.2.3 Public Services

19 The impacts of WBN Unit 2 operation on regional public services, such as public water systems

20 and wastewater-treatment facilities, depend on the demand and current and projected

21 capacities of these systems as described in Section 2.4. The expected increase in demand for

22 these public services from the operation of WBN Unit 2 would be proportional to the increase in

23 operations workers at the WBN site. Because these systems are currently operating with

24 excess capacity and the size of the WBN Unit 2 operations workforce is small (approximately

25 200 workers), there would be little or no noticeable public water system services impacts from

26 operating WBN Unit 2. The 1978 FES-OL and the 1995 SFES-OL-1 did not address the

27 impacts on public services from WBN Units 1 and 2 operations.

28 4.4.2.4 Education

29 Many schools in Rhea and Meigs counties are currently operating at capacity (see

30 Section 2.4.2.3). As discussed in Section 4.4.2.1, 200 additional WBN Unit 2 operations

31 workers could result in an overall regional population increase of about 520 persons (including

32 families), approximately 220 of which could be school-aged children (TVA 201 Oc, 1987). This

33 influx of students would represent a 1 percent increase in the total number of enrolled students

34 in the four-county ROI (approximately 22,000 students in 2008) (NCES 2009c, d, e, f). The

35 increase in the number of school-aged children in the four-county socioeconomic ROI could

36 strain crowded public schools in Rhea and Meigs counties. However, the 1978 FES-OL

September 2011 4-41 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 predicted significant impacts on the regional public school systems in the region surrounding the

2 WBN site because there were fewer schools in the region at the time of analysis. In addition,

3 the 1995 SFES-OL-1 predicted significant impacts on the regional public school systems

4 because it estimated a greater number of operations workers than the estimated 200 operations

5 workers needed to support WBN Unit 2 today.

6 Any impacts (e.g., need for additional teachers and classrooms) could be mitigated in part

7 through tax equivalency payments paid by TVA to these regions as part of the WBN Unit 2

8 construction effort, which allows payment to go directly to counties designated as "impacted"

9 (see Section 4.4.2.7 for more detail). Because these tax-equivalency payments would continue

10 for 3 years after completion of the construction project, these payments could be used to

11 mitigate impacts associated with the operation of WBN Unit 2.

12 4.4.2.5 Transportation

13 Operating WBN Unit 2 would result in 200 additional operations workers commuting to the WBN

14 site. Workers access the WBN site from Tennessee State Route 68 (TN-68), which connects

15 with U.S. Highway 27 (US-27) to the west and TN-302, TN-58, and Interstate 75 to the east (see

16 Figure 2-2). Since the publication of 1978 FES-OL and 1995 SFES-OL-1, US-27 was expanded

17 from a two-lane highway to a four-lane highway. Workers enter the site from both the east

18 (Meigs County) and west (Rhea County) on TN-68. Because of the excess capacity and good

19 condition of TN-68, operating WBN Unit 2 would have little or no noticeable effect on traffic

20 volumes on the regional road network. The 1978 FES-OL and the 1995 SFES-OL-1 did not

21 address transportation impacts.

22 4.4.2.6 Aesthetics and Recreation

23 The WBN site, intake and outfall structures, cooling towers, and Units 1 and 2 containment

24 domes are visible from the Watts Bar and Chickamauga reservoirs near the site. This view

25 would remain unchanged with the operation of WBN Unit 2. However, WBN Unit 2 operations

26 would increase the size and volume of vapor plumes released from the site. Residents would

27 notice the plumes mostly in winter months. Section 3.2.2.2 of this SFES describes these

28 impacts in more detail. Because WVA built the plant and the transmission lines as planned,

29 there would be no aesthetics impacts from operating WBN Unit 2 beyond those currently

30 experienced with the operation of WBN Unit 1.

31 Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs near the WBN site provide numerous recreational

32 boating, swimming, and fishing opportunities in the area. A well-used boat ramp is located

33 directly across Chickamauga Reservoir from the WBN plant. Because these activities currently

34 are taking place, seemingly unhindered by the activities associated with WBN Unit 1 operation,

35 they would continue unhindered if Unit 2 were in operation.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-42 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.4.2.7 Economy and Tax Revenues

2 Socioeconomic impacts on the local and regional economy would depend on the number of new

3 jobs, income, and tax revenue generated by WBN Unit 2 operations. The degree of impact

4 would also depend on current socioeconomic conditions in the socioeconomic ROI around the

5 WBN site as described in Section 2.4. The impacts from additional jobs would be sustained

6 throughout the operating lifetime of the plant. The operation of WBN Unit 2 may increase the

7 size of the refueling outage workforce.

8 Due to the relatively small workforce, the overall impact on the regional economy from WBN

9 Unit 2 operations would be somewhat small. The demographic impact of workers and their

10 families relocating to the region would represent less than a 1 percent increase in the overall

11 population of the four-county socioeconomic ROL.

12 Under Section 13 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, TVA makes tax-equivalent

13 payments to the State of Tennessee. The Act determines the amount TVA pays based on

14 50 percent of the book value of its property in Tennessee and 50 percent of the value of its

15 State power sales. In turn, the State redistributes 48.5 percent of the increase in payments to

16 local governments. It bases payments to counties on relative population (30 percent of the

17 total), total acreage in the county (30 percent), and TVA-owned acreage in the county

18 (10 percent). The State pays the remaining 30 percent to cities, based on population. Based

19 on this calculation methodology, TVA estimates the annual increase in tax-equivalent revenues

20 attributable to WBN Unit 2 to be approximately $4.5 million paid to the State of Tennessee. The

21 State would redistribute this increase, in part, to local governments, resulting in a small increase

22 in payments to Rhea and Meigs counties. Because the net distribution of tax-equivalent

23 revenues to Rhea and Meigs counties are based on the total WBN site acreage, which is not

24 changing, and the county populations, which are not expected to change significantly, the

25 amounts paid to both Rhea and Meigs counties would increase in proportion with the overall

26 increase in the State-allocated tax payments throughout the license period of WBN Unit 2. In

27 addition to the TVA-generated tax-equivalent revenues, individuals employed during plant

28 operation would generate sales and property tax revenues in the area. The magnitude of

29 these increases could vary greatly, depending on the buying decisions of workers employed at

30 the site.

31 The State of Tennessee sets aside 3 percent of TVA's total annual tax-equivalent payments for

32 distribution to counties that TVA designates as "impacted" by construction of facilities used to

33 produce electric power. The State uses these impact payments to assist counties with the

34 temporary increase in local population during the construction period. The counties of Rhea,

35 Meigs, McMinn, Roane, and Monroe, as well as the cities within these counties, all receive

36 impact payments related to the construction of WBN Unit 2. The State distributes impact

37 payment allotments to county and city locations based upon expected population impacts. The

38 payments will continue, at a decreasing rate, for 3 additional years after construction is

September 2011 4-43 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 complete. In fiscal year 2009, Rhea and Meigs counties each received impact payments from

2 TVA of approximately $680,000, McMinn and Roane counties each received approximately

3 $170,000, and Monroe County received $136,000. These payments are in addition to the TVA

4 tax-equivalent funds distributed by the State to local governments (TVA 2009d).

5 The larger economic bases of Hamilton, Knox, Roane, and McMinn counties would diffuse the

6 magnitude of the economic impacts. Economic impacts could be more noticeable in the smaller

7 economic bases of Rhea and Meigs counties.

8 4.4.3 Environmental Justice Impacts

9 The NRC addressed environmental justice matters through (1) identification of minority and low10 income populations that may be affected by the proposed operation of WBN Unit 2, and

11 (2) examination of any potential human health or environmental effects on these populations to

12 determine if these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. Section 2.4.3 of this

13 SFES identifies the locations of minority and low-income block groups within the 80-km (50-mi)

14 region of the WBN site. This area of impact is consistent with the impact analysis for public and

15 occupational health and safety, which also considers the radiological effects on populations

16 located within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of WBN Unit 2.

17 4.4.3.1 Analysis of Impacts

18 Radiation doses from operations associated with WBN Unit 2 are expected to similar to those of

19 WBN Unit 1, as discussed in Section 4.6 of this SFES. Based on the analysis of environmental

20 health and safety impacts presented in Chapter 4 of this SFES for other resource areas, there

21 would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income

22 populations from the operation of WBN Unit 2 during the license period. The NRC staff also

23 analyzed the risk of radiological exposure through the consumption patterns of the special

24 pathway receptors, including subsistence consumption of fish, native vegetation, surface

25 waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the

26 skin; and inhalation of plant materials. The special pathway receptors analysis is important to

27 the environmental justice analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or

28 cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area.

29 4.4.3.2 Subsistence and Consumptive Practices

30 Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) as amended by Executive Order 12948 (60

31 FR 6381) directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and appropriate, to collect and analyze

32 information about the consumption patterns of populations who rely principally on fish and

33 wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these consumption patterns to the

34 public. The NRC considered whether any means existed for minority or low-income populations

35 to be disproportionately affected by examining impacts on American Indian, Hispanic, and other

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-44 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. Special pathways that took into account the

2 levels of contaminants in native vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and

3 game animals in the vicinity of WBN were considered.

4 The public and biota would receive radiation dose from a nuclear unit via the liquid effluent,

5 gaseous effluent, and direct radiation pathways. As discussed in Section 4.6.1, TVA updated

6 the estimated potential exposures to the public by evaluating exposure pathways typical of

7 those surrounding a nuclear unit at the WBN site. For the liquid effluent release pathway

8 (i.e., releases to the Chickamauga Reservoir and the Tennessee River), TVA considered the

9 following exposure pathways in evaluating the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEl):

10 ingestion of aquatic food (i.e., fish), ingestion of water, and direct radiation exposure from

11 shoreline activities. The analysis for population dose considered the following exposure

12 pathways: ingestion of aquatic food and water. For the gaseous effluent release pathway, TVA

13 considered the following pathways in evaluating the dose to the MEI; external exposure due to

14 noble gases, internal doses from particulates due to inhalation, and the ingestion of milk, meat,

15 and vegetables produced around the WBN site.

16 TVA used a code developed in-house to calculate the liquid effluent pathway and the NRC

17 performed an independent analysis using the LADTAP II computer program. Both found doses

18 to total body and maximum organ from liquid effluents to be well within the design objectives of

19 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50, Appendix I. TVA used a code

20 developed in-house to calculate doses at the exclusion area boundary from gaseous effluents.

21 NRC confirmed these results using the GASPAR II computer program (see Section 4.6 for more

22 information on the use of these codes). Both found doses from gaseous effluences to be well

23 within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

24 As discussed in Section 4.6.4 of this SFES, the NRC calculated doses to the biota, including

25 fish, invertebrate, algae, muskrat, raccoon, herons, and ducks. Doses to biota were calculated

26 for liquid effluents, using personal computer versions of the LADTAP II and GASPAR II that are

27 integrated into the NRCDOSE program. The results are within the guidelines discussed in

28 Section 4.6.4 for protection of biota (IAEA 1992; NCRP 1991).

29 As discussed in Section 5.2, the results of the sampling demonstrate that the operation of WBN

30 Unit 2 would have no significant or measurable radiological impact on the environment. No

31 elevated radiation levels were detected. Consequently, no disproportionately high and adverse

32 human health impacts would be expected in special pathway receptor populations in the region

33 as a result of subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife. As previously discussed for the

34 other resource areas in Chapter 4, the analyses of impacts for all environmental resource areas

35 indicated that the impact from WBN Unit 2 operations would be SMALL. The 1978 FES-OL did

36 not specifically address environmental justice impacts from station operation, because

37 Executive Orders 12898 and 12948 (59 FR 7629 and 60 FR 6381), which direct Federal

38 agencies to explicitly address impacts related to environmental justice, had not yet been written.

September 2011 4-45 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.5 Historic and Cultural Resources

2 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC has elected to use the National Environmental

3 Policy Act, as amended (NEPA), process to comply with the obligations found under Section

4 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA). The NRC has determined

5 the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this operating licensing action to be the area at the power

6 plant site and the immediate environs that may be affected by operating WBN Unit 2. TVA will

7 restrict all new construction to the existing, previously built portion of the WBN plant property

8 (TVA 2006a).

9 This section provides the NRC's assessment of effects from the proposed action for WBN Unit 2.

10 For specific historic and cultural information around the WBN site, see Section 2.5.3. In a 2006

11 letter to the Tennessee Historical Commission, TVA noted that site construction activities and

12 existing facilities had previously disturbed the majority of the APE for this undertaking (TVA

13 2006a). As explained in Section 2.5.3, previous TVA cultural resource surveys indicated the

14 presence of one archaeological site (40RH6) within the APE. Archaeologists have studied the

15 site since the 1970s construction of WBN Units 1 and 2. The University of Tennessee in

16 Knoxville partially excavated the site, a mound complex, in 1971 to mitigate construction

17 activities (Calabrese 1976).

18 TVA does not know if intact portions of 40RH6 exist at this location. TVA prefers to avoid

19 ground-disturbing activity in the buffer area established around 40RH6 (TVA 2006a). TVA will

20 restrict all new construction to the existing previously built portion of WBN Units 1 and 2.

21 TVA did not identify any historic structures in the APE for this operating licensing action for

22 WBN Unit 2. The Watts Bar Fossil Plant is located adjacent to the APE, and the State Historic

23 Preservation Office/Officer (SHPO) considers it eligible for listing in the National Register of

24 Historic Places (TVA 2006a).

25 TVA determined in a letter dated December 28, 2006, that operating WBN Unit 2 does not have

26 the potential to affect historic structures, including the adjacent Watts Bar Fossil Plant (TVA

27 2006a). On January 4, 2007, the Tennessee Historical Commission responded to TVA and

28 concurred that operating WBN Unit 2 will not affect any National Register of Historic Places

29 listed or eligible properties (THC 2007).

30 On March 5, 2010, the NRC received a letter from the Tennessee Historical Commission

31 stating, "there are no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible properties affected by

32 this undertaking, thus completing the Section 106 consultation with the Tennessee Historical

33 Commission for the WBN Unit 2 operating license action." The Eastern Band of Cherokee

34 Indians informed the NRC that the Tribe would like to act as a consulting party for this Section

35 106 undertaking as mandated under 36 CFR Part 800. The NRC is consulting with the Eastern

36 Band of Cherokee Indians regarding operating WBN Unit 2 on the WBN site.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-46 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 During operation and maintenance of WBN Unit 2, TVA will identify actions to be taken if historic

2 or cultural resources are encountered during operation or maintenance activities on the WBN

3 site. TVA has operated using BMPs in managing cultural resources since Congress created the

4 agency in 1933 (TVA 2009e).

5 Because the 1978 FES-OL did not address impacts on historic and cultural resources, the NRC

6 staff analyzed them in this document to meet NEPA and NHPA requirements, as well as the

7 requirements of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Archaeological and Historic

8 Preservation Act, the American Antiquities Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the

9 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

10 For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation, based on the (1) historic and cultural resources

11 located within the APE, (2) Tennessee Historical Commission's concurrence with TVA's and

12 NRC's determination that no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible properties

13 would be affected by this undertaking, (3) TVA's existing best practice measures related to

14 managing cultural resources, and (4) the NRC staffs cultural resource analysis and

15 consultation, the NRC staff concludes a finding of no historic properties affected

16 (36 CFR Section 800.4(d)(1)).

17 For the purposes of the NRC staff's NEPA analysis, based on the (1) historic and cultural

18 resources located within the APE, (2) Tennessee Historical Commission's concurrence with

19 TVA's and NRC's determination that no National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible

20 properties would be affected by this undertaking, (3) TVA's existing best measures related to

21 managing cultural resources, and (4) the NRC staff's cultural resource analysis and

22 consultation, the NRC staff concludes that potential impacts on historic and cultural resources

23 related to operating WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL.

24 4.6 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

25 This section discusses the radiological impacts of normal operations of Unit 2 on the WBN site,

26 including the estimated radiation dose to members of the public and to the biota inhabiting the

27 area around the WBN Unit 2. It also discusses estimated doses to workers at the proposed

28 unit. Appendix I of this SFES contains a detailed discussion of the NRC staff's calculations and

29 analysis.

30 4.6.1 Exposure Pathways

31 The public and biota would receive radiation dose from a nuclear unit via the liquid effluent,

32 gaseous effluent, and direct radiation pathways. TVA updated the potential exposures to the

33 public by evaluating exposure pathways typical of those surrounding a nuclear unit at the WBN

34 site. As a result of their review, WVA adjusted several of the pathways from the 1972 FES-CP

35 (TVA 2008a).

September 2011 4-47 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 For the radioactive liquid effluent release pathway (e.g., releases to the Chickamauga Reservoir

2 and the Tennessee River), TVA considered the following exposure pathways in evaluating the

3 dose to a member of the public considered to be the MEL: ingestion of aquatic food (e.g., fish),

4 ingestion of water, and direct radiation exposure from shoreline activities. The analysis for

5 population dose considered the following exposure pathways: ingestion of aquatic food and

6 water (Figure 4-2). TVA originally considered the swimming and boating pathway in its 1972

7 FES-CP. However, TVA no longer considers these pathways because doses from these

8 pathways are orders of magnitude lower than the dose reviewed from shoreline recreation

9 (TVA 2008a). For the radioactive gaseous effluent release pathway, TVA considered the

10 following pathways in evaluating the dose to the MEI: external exposure due to noble gases,

11 internal doses from particulates due to inhalation, and the ingestion of milk, meat, and

12 vegetables produced around the WBN site. TVA (TVA 2008a) calculated population doses

13 using the same exposure pathways as used for the individual dose assessment.

14 For the evaluation of the potential radiological impacs to aquatic biota, the NRC staff performed

15 an independent assessment using the pathways shown in Figure 4-3 and included:

16 * ingestion of aquatic foods

17 • ingestion of water

18 ° external exposure from water immersion or surface effect

19 * inhalation of airborne radionuclides

20 ° external exposure to immersion in gaseous effluent plumes

21 ° surface exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents

22 (NRC 1977).

23 For the evaluation of the potential radiological impacts to the public, the staff reviewed the

24 exposure pathways the TVA ER identified for the public and found them to be appropriate,

25 based on a documentation review, a tour of environs, and interviews with TVA staff and

26 contractors during the site visit in October 2009.

27 TVA did not discuss dose to the MEI or dose to the population from direct radiation in the TVA

28 ER. The staff reviewed the data in the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Annual Radiological

29 Environmental Operating Report and the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the

30 most recent reports available to the staff during this evaluation (TVA 2011 e and TVA 2011 f),

31 and agrees with the conclusion from the environmental operating report that "there is no

32 indication that WBN activities increased the background radiation levels normally observed in

33 the areas surrounding the plant." Based on WBN Unit 2 being similar in design to WBN Unit 1,

34 the staff determined that direct radiation from WBN Unit 2 does not warrant consideration in the

35 dose to the public.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-48 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

2 Figure 4-2. Exposure Pathways to Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974)

September 2011 4-49 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

w~imlmll.-

1

2 Figure 4-3. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-50 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.6.1.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway

2 TVA used a code developed in-house to calculate the liquid effluent pathway using the models

3 presented in NUREG-0133 (NRC 1996 and Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1 (NRC 1977)

4 rather than using the LADTAP II computer program (Strenge et al. 1986). Table 3-16 of the

5 TVA ER shows the source term for the liquid effluent releases TVA used in its dose estimates

6 (TVA 2008a). Other parameters TVA used as inputs to the program include effluent discharge

7 rate; 80-km (50-mi) populations; transit times to receptors; shoreline, swimming, and boating

8 usage; and liquid pathway consumption and usage factors (e.g., sport fish consumption). These

9 inputs come from various references, including the TVA ER, Offsite Dose Caiculation Manual,

10 responses to staff's requests for additional information (RAIs) (TVA 201 lg,h) and Final Safety

11 Analysis Report (TVA 2008a, 2009b). A number of assumptions in the TVA ER are different

12 from the 1972 FES-CP. These differences are (1) the calculation of doses to kidney and lung;

13 (2) river water use (i.e., ingestion, fish harvest, updated recreational use); (3) revised decay time

14 between the source and consumption; (4) population dose area (within an 80-km [50-mi] radius

15 of WBN); and (5) population data (updated and projected through the year 2040). Table 4-11

16 summarizes the results from the TVA assessment.

17 Table 4-11. TVA Calculated Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual for Liquid

18 Effluent Releases from WBN Unit 2

Total Body Maximum Organ Thyroid

Age Group (mrem/yr) (mremlyr) (mrem/yr)

Adult 0.72 0.96 (liver) 0.88

Teen 0.44 1 (liver) 0.8

Child 0.188 0.92 (thyroid) 0.92

Infant 0.032 0.264 (thyroid) 0.264

Source: TVA ER 2008a. Table 3.17

To convert mrem/yr to mSv/yr, multiply by 0.01 mSv/mrem

19 The code TVA used for calculating dose to the MEI for liquid effluents was not provided to the

20 staff, and therefore was not reviewed. The staff performed an independent analysis using the

21 LADTAP II computer program for calculating dose to the MEI for liquid effluent releases.

22 The staff's independent dose assessment to the MEI and the population dose were slightly

23 higher for total body and maximum organ when compared to TVA estimates; however, all doses

24 were below the dose design objective specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix i. Appendix I of this

25 SFES contains the results of the NRC staff's independent review.

26 The results from the TVA analysis in the TVA ER, the staff's analysis in the 1995 SFES-OL-1,

27 and the staffs current analysis are in general agreement.

September 2011 4-51 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.6.1.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway

2 Rather than using the GASPARII computer program (Strenge et al. 1987), TVA used a code

3 developed in-house to calculate the gaseous effluent pathway at the nearest residence and the

4 exclusion area boundary using the models presented in NUREG-0133 (NRC 1996) and

5 Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1 (NRC 1977). TVA considered the following activities in the

6 dose calculations: (1) external doses from noble gases, (2) inhalation of gases and particulates,

7 (3) ingestion of meat from animals eating contaminated grass, (4) ingestion of cow milk, and

8 (5) ingestion of garden vegetables contaminated by gases and particulates (TVA 2008a). TVA

9 (201 lg) provided a revised TVA ER Table 3-20 that shows the total gaseous effluent releases

10 used in the estimate of dose to the MEI and population.

11 The NRC recognizes the GASPAR II computer program as an appropriate tool for calculating

12 dose to the MEI and population from gaseous effluent releases and performed independent

13 analysis using this computer program. The staff reviewed the input parameters and values TVA

14 used and concluded that the assumed input parameters and values TVA used were generally

15 appropriate. The staff performed an independent evaluation of the gaseous pathway doses and

16 obtained similar results for the MEI (see Appendix I for details). The results from the TVA

17 analysis in the TVA ER, the staff's analysis in the 1995 SFES-OL-1, and the staffs current

18 analysis do not differ significantly.

19 4.6.2 Impacts to Members of the Public

20 This section describes the NRC staffs evaluation of the estimated impacts from radiological

21 releases and direct radiation from WBN Unit 2. The evaluation addresses dose from operations

22 to the MEI located at the WBN site and the population dose (collective dose) to the population

23 within 80 km (50 mi) of the WBN site.

24 4.6.2.1 Maximally Exposed Individual

25 The TVA ER states that total body and organ dose estimates to the MEI from liquid and

26 gaseous effluents for WBN Unit 2 would be within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50,

27 Appendix I. Appendix I provides the design objectives for keeping levels of radioactive material

28 in effluents to unrestricted areas (i.e., areas beyond the site boundary) as low as practicable.

29 The NRC also uses a statement "as low as is reasonable achievable" (ALARA), defined as

30 making every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the dose limits

31 as is practicable. Table 4-12 compares TVA's dose estimates for WBN Unit 2 to the Appendix I

32 design objectives. The staff completed an independent evaluation of compliance with 10 CFR

33 Part 50, Appendix I design objectives and found similar results, as shown in Appendix I of this

34 SFES.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-52 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Table 4-12. Comparisons of MEI Annual Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents to

2 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Design Objectives

Radionuclide TVA Appendix I

Releases/Dose Assessment Design Objectives

Gaseous effluents (noble gases only)

Beta air dose (mrad/yr) 2.71 20

Gamma air dose (mrad/yr) 0.8 10

Total body dose (mrem/yr) 0.571 5

Skin dose (mrem/yr) 1.54 15

Gaseous effluents (radiolodines and particulates)

Organ dose(bone) (mrem/yr) 9.15 15

Liquid effluents

Total body dose (mrem/yr) 0.72 3

Maximum organ dose (liver; mrem/yr) 0.96 10

Source: TVA 2011 g. To convert mrad/yr to mGy/yr, multiply by 0.01 mGy/mrad

To convert mrem/yr to mSv/yr, multiply by 0.01 mSv/mrem

3 The TVA ER compares the combined dose estimates from direct radiation and gaseous and

4 liquid effluents from the existing WBN Unit 1 and new WBN unit 2 with the 40 CFR Part 190

5 standards (Table 4-13). TVA expects that the actual dose from the operation of the two units

6 would be less than the estimates and well within the dose standards in 10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR

7 Part 50, Appendix I; and 40 CFR Part 190. Table 4-13 shows TVA's assessment that the total

8 doses to the MEI from liquid and gaseous effluent as well as direct radiation at the WBN site are

9 well below the 40 CFR Part 190 standards. The staff completed an independent evaluation of

10 the site total dose (cumulative dose) for comparison with 40 CFR Part 190 standards and found

11 similar results, as shown in Appendix I of this SFES.

12 Table 4-13. Comparison of Doses to 40 CFR Part 190

Unit 1 Unit 2

Combined 40 CFR Part

Liquid and 190 Dose

Gaseous Liquid Gaseous Combined Site Total Standards

(mremlyr) (mremlyr) (mremlyr) (mremlyr) (mrem/yr) (mrem/yr)

Whole body dose 1.3 0.72 0.57 1.3 2.6 25

Thyroid 3.6 0.92 (child) 2.7 3.6 7.2 75

Source: TVA 2008a for liquid information; TVA 201 lg for gaseous data.

To convert mrem/yr to mSv/yr, multiply by 0.01 mSv/mrem.

September 2011 4-53 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.6.2.2 Population Dose

2 TVA estimates the collective total body dose, called population dose, from radioactive effluents

3 released during the operation of WBN Unit 2 within an 80-km (50-mi) radius to be 0.236 person4 Sv/yr (23.6 person-rem/yr) (TVA 2008a). The staff estimated collective dose to the same

5 population from natural background radiation to be 4,738 person-Sv/yr (473,800 person-rem/yr).

6 The staff calculated the dose from natural background radiation by multiplying the 80-km (50-mi)

7 population estimate for 2040 of approximately 1,523,385 people by the annual background dose

8 rate of 311 mrem/yr.

9 The staff performed an independent evaluation of population doses for the gaseous and liquid

10 effluent pathways using the GASPAR II and LADTAP II computer codes, respectively.

11 Appendix I of this SFES shows TVA and NRC staff's population doses. There are no regulatory

12 requirements for population doses, but the comparison to population dose and dose from

13 natural background demonstrates that the annual estimated population doses from WBN Unit 2

14 are not significant when compared to the population dose from natural background

15 (0.236 person-Sv/yr [23.6 person-rem/yr] and 4,738 person-Sv/yr [473,800 person-rem/yr],

16 respectively) (see Appendix I of this SFES).

17 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of

18 causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation

19 exposures. Therefore, experts use a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship to

20 describe the relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction.

21 A report by the National Research Council (2006), the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII

22 report, uses the linear, no-threshold model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses.

23 The NRC accepts this approach as a conservative method for estimating health risks from

24 radiation exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks (56 FR 23360).

25 Based on this method, the NRC staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure

26 using the nominal probability coefficient for total detriment. This coefficient has the value of 570

27 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv

28 (1,000,000 person-rem), equal to 0.00057 effects per person-rem. The coefficient is taken from

29 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 103 (ICRP 2007).

30 Both National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and ICRP suggest

31 that when the collective effective dose is smaller than the reciprocal of the relevant risk

32 detriment (i.e., less than 1/0.00057, which is less than 1.754 person-Sv [1754 person-rem]), the

33 risk assessment should note that the most likely number of excess health effects is zero

34 (NCRP 1995; ICRP 2007). The estimated collective whole body dose to the population living

35 within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed Unit 2 site is 0.0236 person-Sv/yr (2.36 person-rem/yr)

36 (TVA 2008a), which is less than the 1.754 person-Sv (1754 person-rem) value that ICRP and

37 NCRP suggest would most likely result in zero excess health effects (NCRP 1995; ICRP 2007).

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-54 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.6.2.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the Public

2 The staff evaluated the health impacts from routine gaseous and liquid radiological effluent

3 releases from WBN Unit 2. Based on the information provided by TVA and the NRC's own

4 independent evaluation, the staff concludes there would be no observable health impacts on the

5 public from normal operation of WBN Unit 2, and the health impacts would be SMALL.

6 4.6.3 Occupational Doses to Workers

7 The licensee of a new plant is required to maintain individual doses to workers within 0.05 Sv

8 (5 rem) annually as specified in 10 CFR 20.1201 and incorporate provisions to maintain doses

9 ALARA.

10 The staff concludes that the health impacts from occupational radiation exposure would be

11 SMALL, based on individual worker doses being maintained within 10 CFR 20.1201 limits and

12 collective occupational doses being typical of doses found in current operating light water

13 reactors (LWRs). TVA implements a radiation control program to limit doses to workers ALARA.

14 This program includes personnel and workplace monitoring, the use of protective equipment

15 and clothing, radiation shielding (permanent and temporary), as well as work control procedures

16 and training of all radiation workers.

17 4.6.4 Doses to Biota

18 The NRC does not have a regulatory framework for the protection of biota from radioactive

19 discharges from nuclear power reactors. The focus of NRC regulatory framework is for the

20 protection of human beings (NRC 2009V). To evaluate the potential radiological impacts to

21 biota, the staff used guidance from national and international scientific agencies. The ICRP

22 (ICRP 1977, 1991, 2007) states that if humans are adequately protected, other living things are

23 also likely to be sufficiently protected. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992)

24 and the NCRP (1991) reported that a chronic dose rate of less than 10 mGy/d (1,000 mrad/d)

25 to the maximally exposed individual in a population of aquatic organisms would ensure

26 protection of the population. IAEA (1992) also concluded that chronic dose rates of 1 mGy/d ( 1

27 rad/d) or less do not appear to cause observable changes in terrestrial animal populations.

28 Radiological doses to non-human biota are expressed in units of absorbed dose (rad) because

29 dose equivalent (rem) only applies to human radiological doses. To calculate doses to the biota

30 from liquid effluents, the NRC staff used personal computer versions of the LADTAP II and

31 GASPAR II programs integrated into NRCDose Version 2.3.10 (Chesapeake Nuclear Services,

32 Inc. 2006). NRC staff obtained NRCDose through the Oak Ridge Radiation Safety Information

33 Computational Center.

34 Appendix I of this SFES specifies the LADTAP II input parameters to include the source term,

35 the discharge flow rate to the receiving freshwater system, the shore-width factor, and fractions

September 2011 4-55 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 of radionuclides in the liquid effluent reaching offsite bodies of water. The transit time from the

2 effluent release location to the exposure location was zero hours.

3 The NRC staff assessed dose to terrestrial biota from the gaseous effluent pathway using

4 GASPAR II by assuming doses for raccoons and ducks were equivalent to adult human doses

5 for inhalation, vegetation ingestion, plume, and twice the ground pathways at the exclusion area

6 boundary at 1.09 km (0.68 mi) east (Table 4-14). The doubling of doses from ground deposition

7 reflects the closer proximity of these organisms to the ground. Muskrats and herons do not

8 consume terrestrial vegetation, so that pathway was not included for those organisms.

9 Table 4-14. Doses to Biota (mrem/yr) Due to Liquid and Gaseous Releases from WBN Unit 2

IAEAINCRP Guidelines

Liquid Gaseous for Protection of Biota

Biota Releases Releases Total Populations (mradld)

Fish 4.30 - 4.30 1,000

Invertebrate 11.41 - 11.4 1,000

Algae 19.22 - 19.2 1,000

Muskrat 10.80 1.29 12.1 100

Raccoon 4.84 2.24 7.08 100

Heron 55.51 1.29 56.8 100

Duck 10.30 2.24 12.5 100

To convert mrem/yr to mSv/yr, multiply by 0.01 mSv/mrem.

To convert mrad/yr to mGy/yr, multiply by 0.01 mGy/mrad.

10 Table 4-14 compares estimated total body dose rates to surrogate biota species that would be

11 produced by releases from Unit 2 to the IAEA/NCRP biota dose guidelines (IAEA 1992;

12 NCRP 1991).

13 Based on the assessment performed by the staff (see the complete analysis in Appendix I),

14 the staff concludes that the radiological impact on biota from the routine operation of WBN

15 Unit 2 would be SMALL.

16 4.7 Nonradiological Human Health

17 This section describes the potential impacts on the public and occupational health from

18 operating the WBN Unit 2 cooling system. These impacts can be from onsite or offsite

19 exposure. Health impacts include exposure to etiological agents (disease-causing thermophilic

20 microorganisms), noise, and the transmission system.

21 4.7.1 Etiological Agents

22 Activities related to operating WBN Unit 2 that encourage growth of disease-causing

23 microorganisms (etiological agents) could compromise public and occupational health. Thermal

24 discharge from the blowdown of the WBN Unit 2 cooling tower into the Chickamauga Reservoir

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-56 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 on the Tennessee River could increase the growth of thermophilic microorganisms.

2 Section 2.7.1 discusses the types of etiological agents that thrive in waters around power plants

3 and affect public and occupational health.

4 Exposure to etiological agents in discharge waters is a concern if the flow rate of the receiving

5 waters is low. The NRC considers low flow in a river to be less than 2,800 m3/s (100,000 ft 3

/s)

6 (NRC 1996). As discussed in Section 2.2.1.1, the Watts Bar Dam releases water at a mean

7 annual flow of approximately 778 m3/s (27,500 ft 3/s). Therefore, the receiving waters from the

8 WBN site are similar to the low flows of a small river, and there could be a concern for effects on

9 public health from etiological agents. Section 4.2.2.2 describes the thermal discharge from the

10 cooling towers that would elevate the ambient river temperature in Chickamauga Reservoir.

11 The current NPDES permit limits the discharge temperature to 350C (95*F) for Outfalls 101 and

12 102, and 33.5°C (92.3°F) for Outfall 113. The mixing zone for Outfall 101 stays close to the

13 river shoreline on the side of the WBN site and extends for 70 m (240 ft) downstream. Outfall

14 102 is only for emergency use and would only have infrequent use. Outfall 113 would be used

15 most frequently, and two mixing zones are considered for different flow scenarios for the river.

16 Under low-flow conditions, the mixing zone encompasses the entire width of the river and 300 m

17 (1,000 ft) downstream of the outfall (TVA 2010a). The NPDES permit limits the temperature at

18 the downstream edge of the mixing zone to less than 30.5°C (86.90 F). A review of summer and

19 winter thermal monitoring data indicates that TVA has historically adjusted the operation of

20 the cooling system to stay within the temperature limits set in the NPDES permit

21 (e.g., TVA 2007a, b).

22 Exposure to etiological agents associated with WBN Unit 2 would relate to public swimming or

23 boating in the vicinity of the diffuser outfall into the Chickamauga Reservoir or to onsite workers

24 inside the cooling tower or working in the YHP (for temporary blowdown storage). The public

25 uses the area in the vicinity of this thermal plume in the river for boating and fishing, and

26 perhaps some waterskiing. No designated public swimming areas are in the area, although

27 incidental swimming probably takes place. As discussed in Section 2.7.1, the thermal discharge

28 from power production can encourage etiological agents in the river to grow. However, a review

29 of the outbreaks of human water-borne diseases in Tennessee indicates that incidences of most

30 such diseases (e.g., Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, Shigellosis, and primary amoebic

31 meningoencephalitis) are uncommon. The NPDES temperature limits for WBN outfalls to the

32 Tennessee River are at or below 95°F, which is below the optimal growth temperatures for the

33 above-mentioned organisms, and TVA has stated it would comply with those requirements (see

34 Table 4-1)(TVA 201 Oa). Although the thermal discharge will change the temperature of the

35 receiving waters in the vicinity of the discharge, any change in temperature, especially after

36 mixing, would still be within the organisms' range of tolerance. Since the organisms are

37 ubiquitous in the aquatic environment, it is unlikely the minor change in temperature would

38 increase the populations by a significant amount.

September 2011 4-57 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Cooling towers can encourage microbial growth. TVA plans to use biocides to limit microbial

2 growth in the cooling-tower basin and within the cooling tower (TVA 2008a). The types of

3 biocides, frequency of application, and dosages are within the levels approved by the TDEC and

4 specified in the NPDES permit for discharge to the Tennessee River (Section 3.2.2). TVA's

5 worker protection program has procedures that require workers to wear personal protective

6 equipment to minimize potential exposure to Legionella pneumophila while they work with the

7 cooling towers. The protective equipment meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration

8 (OSHA) requirements and OSHA recommendations for respiratory protection of workers in a

9 water aerosol area (TVA 2008d).

10 4.7.2 Noise

11 Common sources of noise from operating a nuclear plant include cooling towers and

12 transformers and intermittent contributions from loudspeakers and auxiliary equipment

13 (e.g., pumps and building ventilation fans). In addition, high-voltage transmission lines emit a

14 corona discharge noise. Sources of noise at the WBN site are those associated with operation

15 of WBN Unit 1, including transformers and other electrical equipment, circulating water pumps,

16 cooling tower, and the public address system, as well as with operation of the Watts Bar Fossil

17 Plant and Dam.

18 A document about the decommissioning of nuclear facilities (NRC 2002) based the criterion for

19 assessing the level of significance on the effect of the noise on human activities and threatened

20 and endangered species. The criterion is stated as follows:

21 "The noise impacts ... are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high to

22 disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. The noise impacts ... are considered

23 destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area is essentially

24 unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or breeding of a threatened and

25 endangered species is affected."

26 As discussed in Section 2.7.2, the WBN site noise sources are located sufficiently distant from

27 the plant boundaries that the noise the plant generates attenuates to near-ambient levels before

28 reaching critical receptors outside the plant boundary. The Tennessee Occupational Safety and

29 Health Administration (TOSHA) has a Special Emphasis Program for occupational noise

30 exposure and hearing conservation. TOSHA requires employers to provide hearing protection

31 for workers when noise exposure exceeds 85 dBA over 8 hours. Compliance with these codes

32 minimizes human health impacts from noise (TDLWD 2010).

33 4.7.3 Transmission Systems

34 This section describes potential impacts on humans from operating the transmission systems

35 supporting WBN Unit 2. The transmission systems include transmission-line operation and

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-58 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 transmission corridor maintenance. Transmission corridor maintenance, EMFs, and collisions

2 with transmission structures could affect humans and the environment.

3 As discussed in Section 3.2.4, the WBN site connects to the regional power grid via existing

4 500-kV and 161-kV corridor and transmission lines (Figure 3-4). TVA performs routine

5 maintenance on the 161-kV lines and the portions of the 500-kV lines with 161-kV underbuilds.

6 The TVA Transmission and Power Supply-Transmission Operations and Maintenance

7 organization routinely conducts maintenance activities on transmission lines in the TVA system

8 (TVA Power Service Area). These activities include, but are not restricted to, removing

9 vegetation from the corridor, replacing poles, installing lightning arrestors and balance weights,

10 and upgrading existing equipment (TVA 2008a).

11 TVA uses a helicopter to inspect the 500-kV transmission lines at 6-month intervals and

12 conducts ground observation every 1 to 2 years. The applicant conducts these investigations to

13 locate damaged conductors, insulators, structures, and to report any abnormal conditions that

14 might hamper normal operation of the transmission line or adversely affect the surrounding area

15 (TVA 2008a). During these inspections, TVA notes the condition of vegetation within and

16 immediately adjoining the transmission corridor. TVA uses these observations to plan

17 corrective maintenance or routinely manage vegetation. Overall, TVA uses an integrated

18 vegetation maintenance approach. Property owners are encouraged to plant low-growing crops

19 in farming areas. Depending on the terrain and sensitive areas, TVA uses mechanical moving,

20 hand clearing, or herbicide application. TVA conducts this periodic vegetation management

21 along the corridor to maintain adequate clearance between tall vegetation and transmission-line

22 conductors (TVA 2008a, c).

23 For 500-kV transmission lines, corona noise, when present, typically ranges from 40 to 55 dBA;

24 however, TVA has recorded corona noise levels as high as 61 dBA. During rain showers, the

25 corona noise would likely not be readily distinguishable from background noise. During very

26 moist conditions, such as heavy fog, the resulting small increase in the background noise levels

27 likely occurs for only short durations. Periodic maintenance activities, particularly vegetation

28 management, would produce noise from mowing, bush-hogging, and tree and limb trimming and

29 grinding (TVA 2008a).

30 Transmission lines generate both electric and magnetic fields, referred to collectively as EMFs.

31 Acute and chronic exposure to EMFs from power transmission systems, including switching

32 stations (or substations) onsite and transmission lines connecting the plant to the regional

33 electrical distribution grid, can compromise public and worker health.

34 A person standing on the ground can receive an electric shock by coming into contact with

35 transmission lines because of the sudden discharge of the capacitive charge through the

36 person's body to the ground. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) has design criteria

37 that limit hazards from steady-state currents to the largest anticipated object (typically a vehicle

September 2011 4-59 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 like a school bus) of less than 5 milliamperes in a short-circuit current to ground. TVA's

2 transmission lines meet these design criteria (NRC 1995).

3 As mentioned in Section 2.7.3, researchers have studied long-term or chronic exposure to

4 power transmission lines for a number of years (NIEHS 1999; AGNIR 2006; WHO 2007) and

5 have determined that the extent of scientific evidence linking disease to EMF exposure is not

6 conclusive. Therefore the staff is not able to come to conclusions on the chronic impacts of

7 EMFs on human health.

8 TVA already has constructed, maintained, and operated the 500-kV and 161-kV transmission

9 lines, which would carry power WBN Unit 2 generates, in compliance with Federal, State, and

10 local codes. Compliance with these codes minimizes human health impacts from electric shock

11 and noise. Therefore, the NRC concludes that impacts from transmission lines on human

12 health would be SMALL. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion reached in the 1978

13 FES-OL.

14 4.7.4 Summary

15 Based on the historically low incidence of diseases from thermophilic microorganisms in

16 Tennessee, the small temperature increase in Chickamauga Reservoir expected from the

17 operation of WBN Unit 2, as well as the expected compliance with the NPDES permit

18 temperature limits, and the relative absence of swimming or activities resulting in water

19 immersion in the vicinity of the discharge structures, the staff concludes that impacts on human

20 health would be SMALL.

21 Given the postulated noise levels for cooling towers, transformers, public address system,

22 auxiliary equipment, and compliance with TOSHA requirements, the staff concludes that noise

23 impacts would be SMALL.

24 TVA already has constructed, maintained, and operated the 500-kV and 161-kV transmission

25 lines, which would carry power Unit 2 generates, in compliance with Federal, State, and local

26 codes. Compliance with these codes minimizes human health impacts from electric shock and

27 noise. Therefore, the staff concludes that impacts from transmission lines on human health

28 would be SMALL.

29 4.8 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas

30 Emissions

31 In its 1978 FES-OL (NRC 1978), the NRC staff evaluated potential impacts on meteorology and

32 air quality from TVA operating two reactors at the WBN site. The staff considered the impacts

33 of cooling towers, releases other than cooling system releases, and potential air quality impacts

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-60 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 of transmission lines and did not identify any significant impacts. In its 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC

2 1995), the staff again evaluated the potential impacts of operation of WBN Units 1 and 2 on air

3 quality and determined that the conclusions in the 1978 NRC FES-OL had not changed.

4 TVA considered the extensive environmental reviews of WBN Units 1 and 2 to identify which

5 areas to address during the preparation of its ER. TVA did not identify the need to address air

6 quality (TVA 2008a). However, the TVA ER contains information about dust control, cooling

7 towers, and changes in plant systems related to air quality. The staff reviewed results of its

8 previous environmental reviews of WBN Units 1 and 2 as well as the TVA ER. In addition,

9 during its site audit, the staff explored potential impacts of operating WBN Unit 2 on air quality.

10 The NRC staff did not identify any information that would cause it to alter conclusions from

11 previous reviews. The TVA ER states that TVA made internal modifications to the WBN Unit 1

12 cooling tower in 1999 (TVA 2008a). The staff also determined that WVA was making the same

13 changes to the Unit 2 cooling tower. During its site audit, the NRC staff discussed the nature of

14 changes TVA made to the cooling tower and determined they would not adversely affect air

15 quality. The cooling tower changes do not alter the NRC staff s previous conclusions regarding

16 the environmental impacts of cooling tower operations (NRC 1978, 1995). Based on the staff's

17 independent review of information since the 1978 FES-OL, the staff concludes that the impact

18 on the atmosphere from heat dissipation resulting from operating WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL.

19 Operating Watts Bar Unit 2 will emit greenhouse gases (GHGs), primarily carbon dioxide.

20 The 1978 FES-OL and 1995 SFES-OL-1 do not address GHG emissions because they were not

21 a recognized issue at the time. Based on its analysis of the carbon dioxide footprint of a

22 1,000 MW(e) reference reactor (NRC 2011), the NRC staff estimates that the direct and indirect

23 GHG emissions from operating WBN Unit 2 are approximately 8,000 tons per year of carbon

24 dioxide equivalent (tpy CO 2e). Diesel generators are the primary source of direct GHG

25 emissions, accounting for an estimated 60 percent of the total. Workforce transportation

26 accounts for most of the rest. Because these emission sources are relatively stable from year

27 to year, the total GHG emissions over the 40-year license of WBN Unit 2 is approximately

28 320,000 tons of CO 2 e from plant operations. On June 3, 2010, EPA published a final rule which

29 set the applicability criteria that determine which stationary sources such as WBN Unit 2 will

30 become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act

31 (75 FR 31514). This rule establishes a significance level for GHGs of 50,000 tpy CO 2e.

32 Emissions less than the significance level represent a de minimis contribution to air quality

33 problems. For the forseeable future (at least through April 2016), no source with emissions

34 below 50,000 tpy CO 2e (e.g., WBN Unit 2) will be subject to permitting. The emissions are also

35 well below the 25,000 tpy presumptive threshold for direct CO 2e emissions in the Council on

36 Environmental Quality (CEQ) draft guidance on consideration of climate change and GHG

37 emissions (CEQ 2010).

38 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that air quality impacts associated with TVA operating WBN

39 Unit 2 would be SMALL.

September 2011 4-61 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.9 Environmental Impacts of Waste

2 This section describes potential impacts on the environment resulting from generating, handling,

3 and disposing of nonradioactive waste and mixed waste during the operation of WBN Unit 2.

4 4.9.1 Nonradioactive Waste System Impacts

5 The types of nonradioactive waste the plant would generate, handle, and dispose of while

6 operating WBN Unit 2 include solid wastes, liquid effluents, and air emissions. Solid wastes

7 include municipal waste, water and sewage treatment sludge, and industrial wastes. Liquid

8 waste includes NPDES-permitted discharges such as effluents containing chemicals or

9 biocides, wastewater effluents, site stormwater runoff, and other liquid wastes such as used oils,

10 paints, and solvents that require offsite disposal. The plant would generate air emissions

11 primarily from vehicles, diesel generators, and combustion generators.

12 4.9.1.1 Impacts on Land

13 WBN Unit 2 would generate solid and liquid wastes similar to those currently generated by WBN

14 Unit 1. The total volume of solid and liquid wastes would increase at the site; however, TVA

15 does not expect any new solid or liquid waste types to result from operating Unit 2 (TVA 2008a).

16 TVA currently sends process wastes, such as waste oils, solvents, paints, and hydraulic fluids,

17 offsite to a vendor for processing, storage and disposal. TVA collects and places precipitated

18 material and sludge from the water treatment system in a landfill (NRC 1995). TVA would bury

19 nonradioactive and nonhazardous solid wastes, based on the waste and type, in State20 approved sanitary landfills or in onsite approved landfills. Hazardous waste would be shipped

21 offsite to the TVA Muscle Shoals Storage Facility for subsequent disposal (NRC 1995).

22 The Atomic Energy Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (1965), the Resource, Conservation, and

23 Recovery Act of 1976, and The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 regulate the

24 generation, storage, treatment, or disposal of mixed waste (waste containing both low-level

25 radioactive waste and hazardous waste). TVA has a waste minimization program for WBN Unit

26 1 to minimize the generation rates of solid waste including mixed waste. It is expected that the

27 same waste minimization practices will be used at WBN Unit 2. However, any mixed waste

28 generated at either of the units from WBN Unit 2 would be temporarily stored onsite until it can

29 be moved offsite for disposal at an approved disposal facility.

30 4.9.1.2 Impacts on Water

31 The plant would discharge effluents containing chemical and biocides for the condenser cooling

32 system and the SCCW the Chickamauga Reservoir through Outfalls 101 and 113, respectively.

33 Various water treatment processes would use chemical and biocidal additives. The YHP

34 collects these waste streams, which would be subject to dilution, aeration, vaporization, and

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-62 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 chemical reactions. The YHP may discharge effluent to the Chickamauga Reservoir through

2 Outfalls 101 and 113. TVA monitors all of these outfalls for conformance with existing NPDES

3 permit limits for the WBN site (TVA 2008a, 2009c).

4 Other WBN Unit 2 effluents include sanitary system effluents as well as process and non5 process wastewater. As the TVA ER states (TVA 2008a):

6 WBN is authorized to discharge process and non-process wastewater, cooling water

7 and storm water runoff from Outfall 101 and Outfall 102 turbine building sump water,

8 alum sludge supernate, reverse osmosis reject water, drum dewatering water, water

9 purification plant water, and stormwater runoff from internal monitoring point (IMP)

10 103; metal cleaning wastewater, turbine building station sump water, diesel

11 generator coolant, and storm water through IMP 107; treated sanitary wastewater

12 through IMP 111; HVAC cooling water, storm water, and fire protection wastewater

13 through Outfall 112; and SCCW from Outfall 113 to the Tennessee River (refer to

14 Figure 1-2, Unit 2 Site Plan and Appendix B, NPDES Flow Diagram).

15 Since publication of the ER (TVA 2008a) treated sanitary wastewater no longer

16 discharges through Outfall 111 and the waste previously discharged through Outfall 112

17 has been rerouted to the YHP for discharge through Outfall 101 (TDEC 2011). Sanitary

18 wastewater is discharged offsite to the Spring City Wastewater Treatment Facility (PNNL

19 2009).

20 4.9.1.3 Impacts on Air

21 Federal, State, and local statutes, regulations, and ordinances control nonradioactive

22 discharges to the air. Emissions from two oil-fired boilers the WBN plant uses for building heat

23 and startup steam are currently permitted and meet applicable regulatory requirements for air

24 quality (NRC 1995; TVA 2008a). WVA expects no additional emissions for WBN Unit 2 (TVA

25 2008a).

26 4.9.2 Summary

27 Solid and liquid wastes and air emissions from WBN Unit 2 would be managed by WVA

28 according to applicable Federal, State, and local requirements and standards. Based on the

29 NRC staff's independent review of new information submitted by TVA since the 1978 FES, the

30 staff concludes that impacts on land, water, and air from nonradioactive and mixed wastes

31 generated during operation of WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL.

September 2011 4-63 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.10 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts

2 This section discusses the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

3 management for the WBN Unit 2 pressurized-water reactor (PWR) constructed at the WBN site.

4 The uranium fuel cycle includes uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium

5 hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation

6 of radioactive materials and management of low-level wastes and high-level wastes related to

7 uranium fuel cycle activities.

8 The staff reviewed the burnup levels and percent uranium-235 enrichment characteristics of

9 the fuel to be used at WBN Unit 2. The proposed fuel burnup level at WBN Unit 2 is 33,000

10 MWD/MTU for the first core and 44,000 MWD/MTU for subsequent core reloads. The fuel

11 enrichment will is expected to range from 2.10 weight percent uranium-235 up to a maximum

12 enrichment of 5.0 weight percent uranium-235 (TVA 2009a).

13 The staff compared TVA's fuel characteristics with criteria in 10 CFR 51.51, Table S-3, "Table of

14 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data" which evaluates the environmental impacts of this

15 design against specific criteria for LWR designs. Shortly after the publication of the 1995 SFES16 OL-1, the NRC published the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

17 Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). In NUREG 1437, there was a discussion regarding

18 changes in fuel burn-up levels and enrichment to fuel cycle operations since the original

19 publication of Table S-3. NUREG-1437 concluded that increased fuel burn-up levels to 62,000

20 MWD/MTU and 5.0 fuel enrichment in fuel cycle operation would not change the impacts

21 described in Table S-3. With the exception of radiological waste, the staff considered that no

22 new information exists related to the fuel cycle and operating the WBN Unit 2 reactor; therefore,

23 no further analysis is necessary for the impacts related to Table S-3. The following section

24 discusses some issues and provides conclusions related to spent fuel storage, disposal of

25 waste, and climate change.

26 4.10.1 Radiological Wastes

27 TVA ships Class A low-level waste (LLW) to Oak Ridge for compaction. The compacted Class

28 A LLW is then shipped to the Energy Solutions site in Clive, Utah for disposal. Other disposal

29 sites may be available during WBN Unit 2 operation, but none of the other currently licensed

30 sites are available to WBN Unit 2. The NRC staff anticipates that TVA would temporarily store

31 Class B and C LLW onsite until offsite disposal locations become available. In addition, TVA

32 also stores Class B and C LLW at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant located near WBN (TVA 2008a).

33 Several operating nuclear power plants have successfully increased onsite storage capacity in

34 the past in accordance with existing NRC regulations. This extended waste storage onsite

35 resulted in no significant increase in dose to the public.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-64 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 The safety and environmental effects of spent fuel storage have been evaluated by the NRC

2 and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule (10 CFR 51.23), the Commission has made a

3 generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored

4 safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years beyond the licensed

5 life of operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at

6 its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage

7 installations (ISFSIs).

8 As described in 10 CFR 51.23 "Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor

9 operation--generic determination of no significant environmental impact," the Commission has

10 made a generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be

11 stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years beyond the

12 licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that

13 reactor in a combination of storage in its spent fuel storage basin and at either onsite or offsite

14 independent spent fuel storage installations. Furthermore, the Commission believes there is

15 reasonable assurance that sufficient mined geologic repository capacity will be available to

16 dispose of the commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel generated in any reactor

17 when necessary. Accordingly, as provided in 51.23(b), this SFES contains no discussion of any

18 environmental impact of spent fuel storage in reactor facility storage pools or ISFSIs for the

19 period following the term of the requested reactor operating license.

20 This section does not alter any requirements to consider the environmental impacts of spent fuel

21 storage during the term of a reactor operating license. Based on the staffs independent review

22 of information since the 1978 FES-OL, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of

23 radioactive waste storage and disposal associated -with WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL.

24 Similarly, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage during the

25 term of a reactor operating license would be SMALL.

26 4.10.2 Greenhouse Gases from the Uranium Fuel Cycle

27 The NRC staffs analysis of the carbon dioxide footprint of a 1,000 MW(e) reference reactor

28 (NRC 2011) shows that the largest source of GHG emissions associated with nuclear power is

29 from the uranium fuel cycle, primarily from electricity consumed in the enrichment process. The

30 NRC staff estimates that the GHG emissions of the fuel cycle to support one year of WBN Unit 2

31 operation is about 480,000 metric tons of CO 2. This estimate is conservative, as gas centrifuge

32 (GC) technology is likely to eventually replace gaseous diffusion (GD) technology for uranium

33 enrichment in the United States. The same amount of enrichment from a GC facility uses less

34 electricity and therefore results in lower amounts of air emissions, such as C0 2, than a GD

35 facility. The carbon dioxide footprint of an equivalent coal-fired power plant would be about 20

36 times larger than that of WBN Unit 2 (i.e. about 9,600,000 MT).

September 2011 4-65 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the fossil fuel impacts, including GHG emissions,

2 from the direct and indirect consumption of electric energy for fuel cycle operations associated

3 with WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL.

4 4.11 Decomissioning

5 At the end of the operating life of a nuclear power reactor, NRC regulations require the facility to

6 be decommissioned. The NRC defines decommissioning as the safe removal of a facility from

7 service and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level permitting termination of the NRC

8 license. Sections 10 CFR 50.75 and 50.82 provide the NRC regulations governing

9 decommissioning and termination of licenses of power reactors. The radiological criteria for

10 termination of the NRC license are in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. In accordance with NRC's

11 requirements in 10 CFR 50.75(b)(1) and 10 CFR 50.33, TVA submitted its report certifying that

12 TVA provided financial assurance regarding the decommissioning of WBN Unit 2 (TVA 2008a).

13 The Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities

14 Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (GEIS-DECOM), NUREG-0586,

15 Supplement 1 (NRC 2002) evaluates environmental impacts of activities associated with

16 decommissioning any LWR before or at the end of an initial or renewed license. There are

17 three methods for decommissioning a nuclear power reactor. The GEIS-DECOM evaluates

18 environmental impacts of the DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB decommissioning methods

19 (NRC 2002). For the DECON method, the equipment, structures, and portions of the facility and

20 site that contain radioactive contaminants are promptly removed or decontaminated to a level

21 that permits termination of the license shortly after cessation of operations. For the second

22 method, SAFSTOR, the facility is placed in a safe, stable condition and maintained in that

23 state(safe storage) until it is subsequently decontaminated and dismantled to levels that permit

24 license termination. The third method is called ENTOMB. In this method of decommissioning,

25 radioactive structures and components are encased in a structurally long-lived substance, such

26 as concrete. The entombed structure is appropriately maintained, and continued surveillance is

27 carried out until the radioactivity decays to a level that permits termination of the license.

28 The NRC does not require an applicant requesting an operating license to identify a

29 decommissioning method at the time of application. The GEIS-DECOM presents a range of

30 impacts for each environmental issue for the activities conducted during decommissioning.

31 Therefore, the staff relies on the bases established in GEIS-DECOM and concludes the

32 following:

33 1. Doses to the public would be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of which

34 decommissioning method TVA uses.

35 2. Occupational doses would be well below applicable regulatory standards during the license

36 term.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-66 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 3. The quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes generated would be comparable to

2 or less than the amounts of solid waste generated by reactors licensed before 2002.

3 4. Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible at the end of the

4 operating term.

5 5. Measures are readily available to avoid potential significant water-quality impacts from

6 erosion or spills. The liquid radioactive waste system design includes features to limit

7 release of radioactive material to the environment, such as pipe chases and tank collection

8 basins. These features would minimize the amount of radioactive material in spills and

9 leakage that would have to be addressed at decommissioning.

10 6. Ecological impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible.

11 7. Socioeconomic impacts would be short-term and could be offset by economic diversification.

12 The NRC staff concludes that as long as TVA meets the regulatory requirements on

13 decommissioning activities to limit the impacts of decommissioning for WBN Unit 2, the

14 environmental impacts would be SMALL. The GEIS-DECOM (NRC 2002) does not specifically

15 address the carbon footprint of decommissioning activities. However, it does list the

16 decommissioning activities and states that the decommissioning workforce would be expected

17 to be smaller than the operational workforce and that the decontamination and demolition

18 activities could take up to 10 years to complete. Finally, it discusses SAFSTOR, in which

19 decontamination and dismantlement are delayed for a number of years. Given this information

20 and the assumptions and procedure set forth in its evaluation of the carbon dioxide footprint of a

21 1,000 MW(e) reference reactor (NRC 2011), the NRC staff estimates the C02 footprint of

22 decommissioning WBN Unit 2 to be on the order of 1,700 MT/yr. This footprint is about equally

23 split between decommissioning workforce transportation and equipment usage. The carbon

24 footprint during a SAFSTOR period would be about 330 MT/yr. These C02 footprints are more

25 than two orders of magnitude lower than the C02 footprint for the uranium fuel cycle.

26 Based on the GEIS-DECOM and the evaluation of air quality impacts from GHG emissions

27 above, the NRC staff expects that TVAs compliance with the regulatory requirements on

28 decommissioning activities will limit the impacts of decommissioning of WBN units. Therefore

29 environmental impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL.

30 4.12 Transportation of Radioactive Materials

31 Regarding the issue of low level waste, TVA, in the ER, stated that an evaluation of waste

32 shipments from WBN Unit I were actually lower than what was analyzed in the 1972 FES and

33 that the addition of a second unit at WBN would result in total shipments that would still be less

34 than estimated in the 1972 FES. The 1995 SFES concluded that the impacts associated with

35 the transportation of low level waste were acceptable because the dose rates from the transport

September 2011 4-67 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 vehicle would be within Department of Transportation limits, and calculated doses to the public

2 would be a small percentage of natural background radiation. Therefore the staff concludes that

3 there would be no change in the conclusions from the 1978 FES-OL or the 1995 SFES-OL-1.

4 TVA did not identify any new information related to transportation fuel since the 1995 SFES-OL5 1. However, the staff evaluated information in the WBN Unit 2 FSAR on the characteristics of

6 the fuel expected to be used. TVA plans to use reactor fuel consisting of uranium-dioxide

7 pellets that have been enriched up to 3.10 percent by weight with uranium-235 and enclosed in

8 Zircaloy tubes. The fuel burnup levels are expected to be approximately 33,000 MWD/MTU for

9 the first core load and will be increased to approximately 44,000 MWD/MTU for subsequent

10 core reloads (TVA2009a).

11 The staff reviewed this information against NRC technical evaluation documents regarding the

12 impacts associated with spent fuel. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 states that the use of fuel

13 enriched up to 5 percent by weight with uranium-235 and an increase in burnup up to

14 62,000 MWd/MTU will not significantly change dose levels associated with spent fuel

15 transportation (NRC 1999). A more recent study found that the environmental impacts

16 associated with transportation of spent nuclear fuel up to 75,000 MWd/MTU burnup, provided

17 that the fuel is cooled for at least five years before shipment would not change (Ramsdell et al.

18 2001). The expected burn-up for WBN Unit 2 is within the bounding characteristics evaluated

19 and found acceptable in the above referenced technical evaluation documents. In addition, as

20 discussed in the 1995 SFES-OL-1, the staff expects that TVA would comply with applicable

21 transportation regulations issued by NRC and/or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The

22 1995 SFES concluded that estimated dose from the transportation of fuel are unchanged from

23 the 1978 FES-OL and are acceptable because the dose rates from the transport vehicle would

24 be within Department of Transportation limits, and calculated doses to the public would be a

25 small percentage of natural background radiation.

26 4.13 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts

27 During Operation

28 In its evaluation of environmental impacts during operation of the Unit 2, the NRC relied on

29 TVA's compliance with the following measures and controls that would limit adverse

30 environmental impacts:

31 * compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations

32 intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste

33 management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions, noise control, stormwater

34 management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management)

35 9 compliance with applicable requirements of permits or licenses required for operation of the

36 new unit (e.g., NPDES)

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-68 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 9 compliance with existing Unit 1 processes and/or procedures applicable to Unit 2

2 environmental compliance activities for the WBN site (e.g., solid waste management,

3 hazardous waste management, and spill prevention and response)

4 9 implementation of BMPs.

5 TVA expects these measures and controls to be adequate for avoiding or mitigating potential

6 adverse impacts associated with operation of the new unit. The staff considered these

7 measures and controls in its evaluation of station operation impacts. Specific measures and

8 controls for each environmental review area are described in Sections 4.1 through 4.12.

9 4.14 Cumulative Impacts

10 The NRC staff considered potential cumulative impacts in the environmental analysis of

11 operation of WBN Unit 2. Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects

12 associated with the proposed action are overlaid or added to temporary or permanent effects

13 associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative

14 impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions that take place over

15 time. It is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or

16 LARGE cumulative impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on

17 the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL

18 individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall decline.

19 When evaluating the potential impacts of operating WBN Unit 2, the NRC staff considered

20 potential cumulative impacts on the resources described in Chapter 2 that could be affected by

21 operating WBN Unit 2. The 1978 FES-OL and 1995 SFES-OL-1 did not address cumulative

22 impacts.

23 The staff visited the WBN site from October 6 through October 8, 2009. The team then used

24 the information provided in the TVA ER, historical TVA documents and previous ElSs,

25 responses to Requests for Additional Information, information from other Federal and State

26 agencies, and information gathered during the site visit to evaluate the cumulative impacts of

27 operating two nuclear power plants at the site. To inform the cumulative analysis, the staff

28 researched EPA databases for recent EISs within the State, used an EPA database for permits

29 for water discharges in the geographic area to identify water-use projects, and used the

30 www.recovery.gov website to identify projects in the geographic area funded by the American

31 Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). The staff reviewed major projects

32 near the WBN site considered relevant in the cumulative analysis and used the information to

33 perform an independent evaluation of the direct and cumulative impacts of the action.

September 2011 4-69 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 This section discusses potential cumulative impacts for each resource area. In the area of

2 socioeconomics related to taxes, impacts may be considered beneficial and are described as

3 such.

4 4.14.1 Land Use

5 Section 2.1 describes the affected environment. This information serves as a baseline for the

6 cumulative impacts assessment related to land use and transmission lines. As described in

7 Section 4.1, impacts on land use from operating WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL. In addition to

8 land-use impacts from plant operation, the staff evaluated whether interactions with other past,

9 present, and foreseeable future actions could contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on land

10 use. Potential land-use impacts on the entire 80-km (50-mi) region around the WBN site are

11 considered; however, the primary geographic area of interest includes Rhea and Meigs

12 counties, because these counties are adjacent to the site and house the communities most

13 likely to experience any land-use impacts from WBN Unit 2 operation activities.

14 Historically, the WBN site and vicinity were sparsely populated and the terrain was primarily

15 forested rolling hills. One of the most significant land-use changes in the neighboring counties

16 occurred when TVA constructed Watts Bar Dam, which it completed in 1941. Dam construction

17 flooded thousands of acres of land in Rhea, Meigs, and Roane counties along the Tennessee

18 River.

19 Construction of Units 1 and 2 in the 1970s accelerated residential development in Rhea and

20 Meigs counties. Plant construction affected much of the WBN site. Over the last few decades,

21 residential areas, roads, utilities, and businesses have increased in the 80-km (50-mi) region

22 around the WBN site, and wetlands and agricultural lands have decreased.

23 As described in Section 4.1, the only land WBN Unit 2 construction and operation activities

24 would affect directly would be within the WBN site borders, and the activities would affect only

25 previously disturbed land. TVA does not plan to build any new offsite transmission corridors or

26 expand existing corridors to support operation of Unit 2. A 13-kV electric transmission system

27 links the WBN site to the power grid system to provide temporary power to the site for

28 construction and to support non-safety-related activities. Parts of this 13-kV system need to be

29 upgraded or replaced. If TVA upgrades the 13-kV system, it would build a new substation

30 onsite that would affect a 9-M2 (100-ft 2) area. Although WBN Unit 2 construction could benefit

31 from upgrading the temporary site power distribution system, TVA does not need or require

32 these upgrades to support WBN Unit 2 operation (TVA 2008a).

33 Other reasonably foreseeable projects in the review area could contribute to additional

34 decreases in undeveloped land and generally result in some increased urbanization and

35 industrialization within the 80-km (50-mi) region around the WBN site. However, existing parks,

36 reserves, and managed areas would help preserve wetlands and forested areas. Because the

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-70 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 projects within the review area would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control

2 policies, these cumulative land-use impacts from the projects would likely be manageable.

3 NRC expects the cumulative land-use impacts with the 80-km (50-mi) review area to be

4 manageable because the activities would be consistent with existing land-use plans and zoning.

5 In addition, the construction workforces for WBN Unit 2 are already onsite and TVA is mitigating

6 impacts through tax-equivalent payments to affected areas. It is unlikely that constructing and

7 operating Unit 2 would increase urbanization or conversion of land from existing uses. Based

8 on its evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts on the

9 geographic area of interest related to operating WBN Unit 2 and other projects in the geographic

10 area of interest would be SMALL.

11 TVA does not plan to build any new offsite transmission corridors or expand existing corridors to

12 supporting operating Unit 2. Based on its evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the

13 cumulative impact on land use from the transmission-line corridor would be SMALL.

14 4.14.2 Air Quality

15 The air quality in the vicinity of the WBN Unit 2 site is described in Section 2.8, and the air

16 quality impacts of operation of WBN Unit 2 were discussed in Section 4.8. This cumulative

17 analysis considers WBN Unit 2 and other reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect air

18 quality. For this cumulative analysis, NRC considers the geographic area of interest to be Rhea

19 County in the Eastern Tennessee-Southwestern Virginia Interstate Air Quality Control

20 Regiondefined in 40 CFR 81.57. Rhea County is in attainment of all criteria pollutants. Air

21 quality attainment status reflects the effects of past and present emissions from all pollutant

22 sources in the region.

23 Reflecting on other projects in this region, most air quality effects would maintain the status quo.

24 Any new industrial projects would either have minimal impacts or would be subject to regulation

25 by the TDEC. Given these institutional controls, it is unlikely regional air quality would degrade

26 significantly (i.e., degrade to the extent that the region is in nonattainment of national

27 standards). Consequently, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impacts on air quality

28 related to operating WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL.

29 4.14.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

30 Since NRC published its 1978 FES-OL and 1995 SFES-OL-1 (NRC 1978, 1995), global climate

31 change has become a subject of national and international interest. Therefore, analyzing the

32 impacts of global climate change associated with operating and decommissioning a nuclear

33 power plant at WBN is part of the NRC staffs assessment.

34 As the state of the science report issued by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP)

35 discusses, it is the "... production and use of energy that is the primary cause of global warming,

September 2011 4-71 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 and in turn, climate change will eventually affect our production and use of energy. The vast

2 majority of U.S. GHG emissions, about 87 percent, come from energy production and use..."

3 Approximately one third of the GHG emissions are the result of generating electricity and heat

4 (GCRP 2009).

5 Section 4.8 gives the NRC staff estimate of the annual GHG emissions from WBN Unit 2

6 operation as about 8,000 MT C0 2(e). This emission rate can be placed in context by

7 comparison with the EPA new source C02 emissions threshold value of 100,000 MT

8 (75 FR 31514) and the proposed CEQ presumptive threshold value of 25,000 MT (CEQ 2010).

9 GHG emissions from the fuel cycle required to support WBN Unit 2 operation are discussed in

10 Section 4.10.2. Similarly, GHG emissions associated with decommissioning WBN Unit 2 are

11 discussed in Section 4.11. In these sections, the NRC staff concludes that the local

12 atmospheric impacts of GHG emissions related to operating and decommissioning WBN Unit 2

13 would be SMALL. The staff also concludes that the local impacts of the combined emissions for

14 the full plant life cycle would be SMALL.

15 The GCRP report (GCRP 2009) synthesizes the results of numerous climate-modeling studies.

16 The cumulative impacts of GHG emissions around the world, as presented in the report, are the

17 appropriate basis for NRC's evaluation of cumulative impacts. Based on the impacts set forth in

18 the GCRP report, the NRC staff concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative impacts

19 from GHG emissions would be MODERATE. The staff further concludes that the cumulative

20 impact level would be MODERATE, with or without the GHG emissions of WBN Unit 2.

21 4.14.4 Water

22 4.14.4.1 Surface-Water Use

23 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.2 of this document serves as a

24 baseline for surface-water use. As described in Section 4.2.2.1, the staff concludes the impacts

25 of operating WBN Unit 2 on surface-water use would be SMALL.

26 The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and TVA have extensively studied water use in the

27 Tennessee Valley (Hutson et al. 2004; Bohac and McCall 2008). TVA uses this information to

28 inform its policies and practices for operating reservoirs on the river (TVA 2004b). The USGS

29 did not consider the impacts of operating WBN Unit 2 in its initial water-use study (Hutson et al.

30 2004), and TVA did not consider Unit 2 in the Reservoir Operations Study (TVA 2004b).

31 However, WVA evaluated water use for WBN Unit 2 in its report, Water Use in the Tennessee

32 Valley for 2005 and Projected Use in 2030, based on numbers available in 2005 (Bohac and

33 McCall 2008). Information from Bohac and McCall (2008) was also used to prepare the EIS for

34 TVA's Integrated Resource Plan (TVA 2011 i) Water Use in the Tennessee Valley for 2005 and

35

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-72 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Projected Use in 2030 (Bohac and McCall 2008) considers present and reasonably foreseeable

2 uses of water in the Tennessee River Basin. The 2008 report indicates total consumptive use of

3 water in the Tennessee River system is 19 m3

/s or 433 MGD (670 cfs) for irrigation, public water

4 supply, and industrial and thermoelectric uses (Bohac and McCall 2008). This represents

5 approximately 1 percent of the mean annual discharge of 1860 m3s (65,600 cfs) at the outlet of

6 the Tennessee River (USGS 1998). Consumptive use in the Tennessee River Basin above

7 Watts Bar Dam totaled 10 m3

/s or 229 MGD (355 cfs) in 2005 or approximately 1.3 percent of

8 the mean annual flow through the dam (see Section 2.2.1.1, Table 2-2).

9 Bohac and McCall (2008) assume in their analysis that TVA will replace some of the existing

10 coal-fired generation with nuclear generation by 2030. The report states "This will reduce the

11 amount of existing once-through cooling and will result in a reduction of water withdrawal for

12 thermoelectric use compared to 2005. However, because the use of cooling towers will

13 increase, the net water demand for thermoelectric [power generation] will increase compared to

14 2005." This increase, plus changes in consumptive use due to population growth, industrial

15 development and irrigation is expected to result in an increase in consumptive use of

16 Tennessee River water to 33 m3

/s or about 756 MGD (1170 cfs) by 2030 or approximately

17 1.8 percent of the current mean annual discharge of the Tennessee River (Bohac and McCall

18 2008). Similar information is not available for the Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam.

19 The staff is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect the water resources

20 available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on water resources for other users.

21 NRC staff considered a recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (GCRP

22 2009) in the preparation of this SFES. Projected changes in the climate for the region during

23 the life of WBN Unit 2 include an increase in average temperature of 1.1 to 1.7°C (2 to 30F) and

24 a decrease in precipitation in the spring and summer and no anticipated change in the fall and

25 winter. Changes in climate during the life of Unit 2 could result in either an increase or decrease

26 in runoff (GCRP 2009). While the potential water resource changes attributed to climate change

27 are not insignificant, the staff did not identify any information suggesting that the projected

28 cumulative impacts would substantially alter water availability.

29 Based on the current consumptive use of water in the Tennessee River and the small increase

30 in consumptive use anticipated by 2030 coupled with a small change in river flow associated

31 with climate change, the staff determined that the cumulative consumptive use of surface water

32 from the operation of WBN Units 1 and 2 and other consumptive uses (existing or reasonably

33 foreseeable users) may be detectable, but such uses would be unlikely to noticeably alter the

34 resource. Based on its evaluation, the staff concludes the cumulative impacts on surface-water

35 use would be SMALL.

September 2011 4-73 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.14.4.2 Surface-Water Quality

2 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.2 of this document serves as a

3 baseline for surface-water quality. As described in Section 4.2.2.2, the staff concludes the

4 impacts of operating WBN Unit 2 on surface-water quality would be SMALL.

5 The NRC staff considered the cumulative impacts of chemical and thermal discharges to the

6 river. WBN Unit 2 will discharge water to the Tennessee River including blowdown from the

7 condenser cooling system cooling-tower basins (through Outfall 101) and discharge from the

8 SCCW system (through Outfall 113). Operating WBN Unit 2 would also increase discharges of

9 HVAC cooling water, stormwater, fire-protection wastewater, and discharges from the YHP

10 (through Outfalls 101 and 102). TVA must meet the requirements of the current NPDES permit

11 with respect to discharging constituents. TVA (2008a) confirms its compliance with State water12 quality criteria by routine semi-annual Whole Effluent Toxicity testing at Outfall 101, Outfall 112,

13 and Outfall 113.

14 The concentration of chemical constituents in water samples collected in Chickamauga

15 Reservoir adjacent to the WBN site are indicative of the cumulative impact of all activities

16 upstream of the sampling point including industrial, agricultural, and municipal discharges. As

17 presented in Section 2.2, the water quality in these samples is generally good. However, the

18 Hiwassee River embayment of Chickamauga Reservoir is identified by TDEC as having an

19 impaired use for fish consumption because of mercury. Watts Bar Reservoir is identified as

20 having an impaired use for fish consumption because of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

21 Portions of the reservoir are also identified as impaired for fish consumption due to mercury and

22 chlordane. The Emory River Arm of Watts Bar Reservoir is identified as impaired for arsenic,

23 coal ash deposits, and aluminum, as well as mercury, PCBs, and chlordane (TDEC 2010). The

24 Emory River Arm is the area of the reservoir most affected by the ash spill that occurred at the

25 Kingston Fossil Plant in 2008.

26 Water temperature in the Tennessee River is influenced by the operation of the river system as

27 well as thermal discharge from the WBN units. The construction and operation of dams on the

28 Tennessee River has extensively altered the flow of water in the river. The dams and reservoirs

29 on the river and its tributaries provide many benefits, but also result in increased water

30 temperature and thermal stratification of some reservoirs during summer months. Water

31 temperature in the Tennessee River above and below the WBN site fluctuates throughout the

32 year in response to many factors. Air temperature and solar radiation are the dominant

33 meteorological variables influencing river system water temperatures. For example one study

34 indicated that in the Upper Tennessee River above Chickamauga Dam, a 0.60C (1 OF) increase

35 in air temperature resulted in water temperatures generally increasing by 0.14 0C to almost

36 0.28-C (0.25°F to almost 0.5 0 F), depending on the type of weather and location in the reservoir

37 system (Miller et al. 1992). During July 1993, maximum air temperatures recorded in

38 Chattanooga were above 32°C (90'F) each day, with temperatures reaching as high as 400C

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-74 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 (104 0 F). During this period, all nine mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs had surface-water

2 temperatures that exceeded 30 0C (86°F) and some had water temperatures as high as 32°C

3 (90°F) (TVA 1994).

4 The staff evaluated the thermal impact of plant discharges in the vicinity of the diffuser and the

5 SCCW discharge in Section 4.2.2.2 and demonstrated that implementation of the TVA

6 procedures (TVA 201 Ob) would result in compliance with temperature limits in the future and

7 that impacts on surface-water quality would be negligible.

8 The staff also evaluated the increase in temperature in the Tennessee River that would be

9 caused by the discharge of heated water through Outfalls 101 and 113 by the WBN plant with

10 both units operating once the discharge water was thoroughly mixed with the Tennessee River.

11 The WBN plant will discharge 7.85 x 108 BTU/hr to the Tennessee River during July through

12 Outfalls 101 and 113 (TVA 2010b). The definition of a British thermal unit (BTU) is the amount

13 of heat required to raise a pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. During periods of average

14 flow, 778 m3/s (27,500 cfs), this would raise the temperature of the water flowing past the plant

15 approximately 0.060C (0.1 °F) once fully mixed with the Tennessee River water. When flows are

16 as low as 280 m3/s (10,000 cfs), the temperature would be raised approximately 0.20C (0.4 0F).

17 Flow past the WBN site is greater than 280 m3/s (10,000 cfs) 93 percent of the time (TVA

18 2009a). Average flow past the site for July has been 530.2 m3/s (18,723 cfs) and 639.5 m3/s

19 (22,584 cfs) for August (TVA 201 Od). As a result, the temperature impacts evaluated for

20 280 m3/s (10,000 cfs) and 778 m3/s (27,500 cfs) bound the historic flows for these warmest

21 months of the year. The temperature increase attributable to operation of WBN Units 1 and 2

22 are predicted to be negligible compared to the temperature increase attributable to air

23 temperature and solar heating as indicated by Miller et.al. (1992). Therefore, the staff

24 concludes that past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the region have adversely

25 affected the chemical and thermal conditions in the Tennessee River. Based on its evaluation,

26 the staff concludes that the cumulative surface-water-quality impacts would be MODERATE.

27 Based on TVA's conformance to NPDES permit requirements, the outcome of its routine outfall

28 water-quality monitoring, and the results of water-quality monitoring in Chickamauga Reservoir

29 the staff concludes that the operation of WBN Unit 2 would not be a significant contributor to

30 these impacts.

31 4.14.4.3 Groundwater Use

32 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.2 of this document serves as a

33 baseline for groundwater use. As described in Section 4.2.2.3, the staff concludes the impacts

34 of operating WBN Unit 2 on groundwater use would be SMALL.

35 Current groundwater withdrawals are limited to water pumped from a French drain surrounding

36 the power blocks for both units on the site. Withdrawals are limited to approximately 32 L/s

37 (500 gpm) (WVA 201 Ob) and the operation of WBN 2 would not result in an increase in water

September 2011 4-75 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 withdrawn on the site because WNB 2 is already served by the French drain system. The Watts

2 Bar Utility District provides potable water for the WBN site. As discussed in Section 4.2.2.3, the

3 groundwater withdrawn to support the WBN plant during normal operation would be less than

4 3 percent of current withdrawals by the utility. Table 2-4 in Section 2.2.2.1 identifies other water

5 districts in the vicinity that rely on groundwater. All of them are sufficiently distant from the

6 Watts Bar Utility District well field (more than 10 km [6 mi]) that additional withdrawals to support

7 WBN operations would not affect the operations of these other utilities. The volume of water the

8 Watts Bar Utility District would withdraw to support operating WBN is small relative to current

9 withdrawal. In addition, groundwater withdrawal and surface alterations affecting groundwater

10 onsite have existed for some time. For these reasons, the NRC staff concludes the cumulative

11 impact on groundwater use from the operation of WBN Unit 2 and other groundwater users in

12 the site vicinity would be SMALL.

13 4.14.4.4 Groundwater Quality

14 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.2 of this document serves as a

15 baseline for groundwater quality. As described in Section 4.2.2.4, the staff concludes the

16 impacts of operating WBN Unit 2 on groundwater quality would be SMALL.

17 Groundwater quality onsite has been affected by past tritium leaks from WBN Unit 1.

18 Groundwater samples are collected from five wells onsite near the plant, one groundwater

19 source onsite upgradient of the plant, and one well located offsite (TVA 2011). The maximum

20 tritium concentrations measured in the groundwater samples has declined from approximately

21 20,400 Bq/L (550,000 pCi/L) (TVA 2008a) in 2005 to 106 Bq/L (2860 pCi/L) in 2010 (TVA 2011).

22 Current concentrations in groundwater are well below the EPA drinking water standard of

23 20,000 pCi/L (TVA 2011). No other groundwater-quality impacts from past operations at the site

24 have been identified and tritium concentrations in offsite groundwater wells have not been

25 affected by site operations (TVA 2011). Factors limiting the impacts of operations of WBN Unit

26 2 on groundwater quality in the area are discussed in Section 4.2.2.4 and include TVA's spill

27 prevention and control plans, the groundwater monitoring program at the WBN site, and the

28 relative isolation of the WBN site from local groundwater supply wells.

29 Based on the effect of previously identified leaks from WBN Unit 1 systems on groundwater and

30 the implementation of SPCC plans, the groundwater monitoring program at the WBN site and

31 the relative isolation of the site from local groundwater supply wells, the staff concludes that the

32 cumulative impacts on groundwater quality at the site have been detectable, but they are limited

33 to the WBN site and would not noticeably alter the resource beyond the site boundary.

34 Furthermore, the staff concludes that the operation of WBN Unit 2 would not contribute

35 significantly to the observed impact. For these reasons, the NRC staff concludes the cumulative

36 impact on groundwater quality from the operation of WBN 2 combined with other past, present,

37 and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the site would be SMALL.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-76 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 4.14.5 Terrestrial Ecology

2 Section 2.3 describes the affected environment and Section 2.3.1 discusses terrestrial

3 resources. This information serves as a baseline for evaluating impacts on terrestrial ecology

4 from operating WBN Unit 2. As Section 4.3.1 describes, the impacts on terrestrial and wetland

5 resources from operating Unit 2 would be SMALL. This conclusion is consistent with the

6 conclusion NRC (1978) reached in its 1978 FES-OL regarding impacts on terrestrial resources

7 from operating WBN Units 1 and 2.

8 In addition to evaluating impacts on terrestrial resources from operating WBN Unit 2, the NRC

9 staff evaluated whether interactions with other past, present, and foreseeable future actions

10 could contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on these resources. For this analysis, the

11 geographic area of interest includes Rhea and Meigs counties. In addition, all lands that occur

12 within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the transmission system that would support the proposed unit in

13 Hamilton, Bradley, McMinn, Roane, Anderson, Knox, Blount, and Loudon counties are included

14 in this analysis. Rhea and Meigs counties encompass the resource area the proposed WBN

15 Unit 2 is expected affect because of the nature of the potential impacts on terrestrial resources

16 and the characteristics of the resources such as home range size, distribution, abundance, and

17 habitat preferences. Lands within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the transmission corridor would also bound

18 the area expected to be affected by the operation of the transmission system for these same

19 reasons.

20 As discussed in Sections 4.3.1, operating the heat discharge and transmission systems could

21 affect terrestrial resources. Because WBN Unit 1 is co-located with Unit 2, the nature of impacts

22 on resources attributable to Unit 2 also would be attributable to Unit 1. Operating the Unit 1

23 cooling tower would result in TDS deposition, localized fogging/icing, and increased potential for

24 collision mortality. However, in its 1978 FES-OL, the NRC staff concluded that operating WBN

25 Units 1 and 2 would not significantly affect terrestrial resources (NRC 1978).

26 Since 1978, private companies have erected many telecommunication towers in Tennessee.

27 Operating both units may result in lower cloud ceilings. The FCC (2004) reports that lower

28 cloud ceilings and lower visibility contribute to mass collision mortality of migrant birds when

29 these conditions occur around telecommunication towers. Although it could be reasoned that

30 the operation of WBN Units 1 and 2 could result in increased bird collision mortality, the density

31 of telecommunication towers in the WBN vicinity is quite low because there is only one cell

32 tower within the expected zone of influence from the cooling towers (MapMuse 2010). Although

33 the NRC staff does not know the configuration (i.e., height, lighting, guy wires) of this tower, it

34 does not expect the presence of an additional communication tower near the WBN cooling

35 towers to contribute significantly to a regional tower mortality phenomena. No other structures

36 have the potential to interact with the cooling towers and contribute to tower mortality.

September 2011 4-77 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 The existing TVA transmission system spans the 10 counties listed above and already transmits

2 power from numerous generation facilities in the region, including WBN Unit 1. TVA does not

3 propose to build any new transmission lines to support increased electricity production in the

4 region, and adding the electricity WBN Unit 2 generates to the grid would not affect terrestrial

5 resources.

6 In the southeastern United States, the mean temperature is predicted to increase in all seasons

7 during the next 50 to 100 years and annual precipitation is predicted to decrease from global

8 climate change (GCRP 2009). Forest growth could slow, native plant and animal distribution

9 could change, invasive species may increase, and wildfire frequency and intensity could

10 increase. Because the gray bat requires very specific cave habitat conditions, changes in

11 climate may also change the distribution and abundance of this species.

12 Little is known about a phenomenon known as white-nose syndrome that has caused massive

13 mortality of many bat species in the northeastern United States (Cohn 2008). The name comes

14 from a white Geomyces fungus that grows on affected bats' muzzles. The syndrome has

15 affected at least six species of bats and is confirmed in at least eight states, including

16 Tennessee, and three Canadian provinces (FWS 2010a). The mortality rate of affected bats is

17 high, with bat colony reductions of over 90 percent in infected caves. White-nose syndrome

18 may be affecting gray bats (FWS 2010b). Because little is known about white-nose syndrome,

19 the extent that this may affect the gray bat in the Watts Bar vicinity is still unknown.

20 Based on information TVA provided and NRC's own independent review, the NRC staff

21 concludes that impacts on terrestrial resources, including Federally and State-listed species,

22 from cumulative impacts would be SMALL.

23 4.14.6 Aquatic Ecology

24 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document evaluated impacts

25 on aquatic resources in the vicinity of the WBN site. As described in Section 4.3.2.7, the staff

26 concludes that the overall impacts on aquatic biota, including Federally listed threatened and

27 endangered species, from impingement and entrainment at the SCCW and IPS intakes and

28 from thermal, physical and chemical discharges as a result of operating Unit 2 on the WBN site

29 are SMALL. This information serves as one source of information for evaluating the cumulative

30 impacts on aquatic ecology of operating WBN Unit 2. The cumulative analysis considers other

31 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that were not previously considered in

32 Chapters 2 or 4, that could affect aquatic ecology of the WBN site.

33 The geographical region for cumulative impacts for aquatic ecology primarily comprises the

34 Watts Bar and Chickamauga reservoirs. In its ER, TVA (2008a) discussed cumulative aqutic

35 impacts primarily in terms of summary indices meant to communicate the current,gener

36 environmental health of the river and reservoir system. By combining and amalgamating

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-78 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 information, such indices produce a general picture at the expense of finer detail. Here the

2 NRCstaff takes a longer view of past and present impacts while also examining finer scale data.

3 Section 2.3.2 describes some of the changes that were made to the Tennessee River since the

4 early 1900s. These changes include impoundment of the river. Historically, the Tennessee

5 River was free flowing and flooded annually. Before 1936, the few power dams that obstructed

6 streams in Tennessee backed up relatively small impoundments. In 1936, TVA completed its

7 first reservoir on the Tennessee River-Norris Reservoir. Currently, TVA operates nine dams

8 on the Tennessee River. The dams have fragmented the watershed, altered water

9 temperatures, increased sedimentation, reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations, and altered

10 flow regimes. This in turn has caused and will continue to cause extirpation of fish, mussels,

11 and other aquatic biota (Neves and Angermeier 1990; Etnier and Starnes 1993). Other past

12 actions that have changed the aquatic fauna in the geographical region include introduction of

13 non-native species, over fishing of species such as paddlefish, harvesting of mussels, toxic

14 spills, mining, and agriculture. Section 2.3.2 describes the introduction and success of non15 native and invasive aquatic fish, invertebrate, and plant species that have clearly destabilized

16 and changed Tennessee River aquatic communities. The aquatic communities can change

17 slowly in response to stress: they have been changing for a long time, are changing now, and

18 will probably continue to change for the foreseeable future. The aquatic resources are not

19 stable in the sense of persisting as they were in the past or are today.

20 WBN Unit 1 is collocated with WBN Unit 2. The two units share the same intakes and

21 discharges. As discussed in Section 3.2, the makeup flow rate through the IPS would be almost

22 twice that for the single unit operation. The intake flow rate of the SCCW system when both

23 units are operating would be less than that for a single unit of operation. As discussed

24 previously, the lower flow rate for two units in operation is anticipated because water moves

25 through the system under gravity flow, and the water level in the cooling-tower basin for Unit 2

26 would be 0.6 m (2 ft) higher when the unit is operating (TVA 2010b). This reduces the

27 difference in water level elevation between Watts Bar Reservoir and the cooling-tower basin

28 resulting in a reduction of flow rate.

29 The total flow through the two units operating (includes withdrawals from both the SCCW

30 system and the IPS) under maximum normal withdrawals would be 12 m3/s (424 cfs), which is

31 approximately 1.5 percent of the mean annual flow past the WBN site (see Table 3-1 for

32 anticipated water use). WBN Units 1 and 2 together would consume 1.7 m3

/s (61 cfs), which is

33 approximately 0.2 percent of the mean annual flow past the WBN site.

34 Sections 2.3.2 and 4.3.2 discuss numerous preoperational and operational surveys, entrainment

35 studies, impingement studies, and hydrothermal studies of the effects of operation of WBN Unit

36 1 on aquatic biota in Watts Bar and Chickamauga reservoirs. The impact determination of

37 SMALL for WBN Unit 2 as given in Section 4.3.2.7 is based on the results of the decades worth

38 of surveys and studies performed on WBN Unit 1, which show that operation of WBN Unit 1 did

September 2011 4-79 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 not destabilize or noticeably alter the aquatic environment. The discussions in Section 4.3.2

2 also take into account the cumulative impact of operating both units. As a result, the staff also

3 concludes that the cumulative impact of operation of both WBN Units 1 and 2 will not destabilize

4 or noticeably alter the aquatic environment.

5 Other facilities may potentially affect aquatic biota of Watts Bar and Chickamauga reservoirs by

6 entrainment, impingement, or thermal, chemical, or physical discharges. These include Watts

7 Bar Dam; Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, located on the Chickamauga Reservoir; the Kingston Fossil

8 Plant, located at the junction of Emory River and Clinch River; and the Oak Ridge National

9 Laboratory, located on the Clinch River.

10 Because of its proximity to the site, the Watts Bar Dam, which is located approximately 3.2 km

11 (2 mi) upstream continues to significantly adversely affect aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the

12 WBN site. Watters (1999) and Chapter 2 of this SFES describe specific impacts on aquatic

13 biota from impoundment of the reservoirs such as the extirpation of aquatic biota, which is

14 detectable, and a symptom of ecosystem destabilization. The dam is a barrier to fish migration,

15 and its placement altered the flow regimes and continues to alter the water quality, including the

16 temperature of the river (as discussed in Section 4.14.4.2). In addition, the transport of fish,

17 eggs, and larvae through the dam may result in some mortality (Cada 1991).

18 Other sources of entrainment and impingement stress exist beyond the WBN site. The

19 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, on the west shore of Chickamauga Reservoir at TRM 484.5, is located

20 approximately 71 river km (44 river mi) downstream of the WBN site in an area of the reservoir

21 where the river takes on a more lake-like appearance. The Sequoyah Nuclear Plant consists of

22 two units with an average daily intake flow of 71.81 m3/s (2,536 cfs) and a 0.37 m/s (1.2 ft/s)

23 velocity at the intake traveling screens. As a result, the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant is a source of

24 entrainment and impingement stress within the same reservoir as WBN Unit 2. TVA

25 researchers conducted impingement studies from January 25, 2005 through January 15, 2007

26 (TVA 2007c). TVA reported 22 species from 9 families during the impingement study. The

27 estimated annual impingement (extrapolated from impingement rates from weekly samples) was

28 20,233 fish during the first year and 40,362 fish during the second year. Threadfin shad

29 composed 91 percent of the total individuals, followed by bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)

30 (3 percent) and freshwater drum (2 percent). TVA researchers conducted the impingement

31 studies in the winter of December 2001 through February 2002 (Baxter and Kay 2002). During

32 this study, TVA identified 15 fish species representing 8 families and 1 exotic mussel (zebra

33 mussel) in the impingement samples (Baxter and Kay 2002). Again, threadfin shad was the

34 numerically dominant species, composing 97 percent of the total number of individuals collected

35 (74 percent of the total weight). All other species contributed less than 1 percent of the total,

36 although freshwater drum composed 15 percent of the total weight.

37 TVA also performed entrainment sampling at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant from 1980 to 1985 and

38 estimated the entrainment of total fish larvae to be 8.6 percent of those passing the plant

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-80 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 (Baxter and Buchanan 2006). TVA estimated that the seasonal mean hydraulic entrainment for

2 this period was 12.2 percent. From April 20 through July 12, 2004, hydraulic entrainment

3 averaged 24.2 percent. This higher hydraulic entrainment likely resulted from lower reservoir

4 flow rates caused by lower than average runoff from rainfall. The lower reservoir flow likely

5 influenced the entrainment rate; it was the highest recorded. During this period, TVA estimated

6 overall larval entrainment to be 15.6 percent, which was the highest ever recorded. Clupeids

7 were the dominant taxon in the entrainment samples and had an estimated entrainment rate of

8 15.4 percent of the total passing the plant. TVA estimated freshwater drum larval entrainment

9 to be 45.4 percent of the drum larvae transported past the plant. Freshwater drum eggs

10 composed 98.8 percent of the total fish eggs. The seasonal entrainment estimate for drum

11 eggs was 11.2 percent. TVA attributed the seasonal larval drum entrainment at Sequoyah

12 Nuclear Plant primarily to a sample taken on May 18, 2004, when peak density occurred

13 simultaneously with peak hydraulic entrainment (11 percent) (Baxter and Buchanan 2006).

14 The Kingston Fossil Plant, near Kingston, Tennessee is located on a peninsula at the junction of

15 the Emory River and Clinch River, approximately 68 river km (42 river mi) upstream from Watts

16 Bar Dam. TVA conducted impingement studies and reported 30 species impinged during the

17 first year and 33 in the second year of the study. The estimated annual impingement

18 extrapolated from weekly samples was 185,577 fish during the first year and 225,197 fish during

19 the second year. Similar to impingement results for the SCCW, threadfin shad accounted for

20 95 percent of the 2-year total of fish TVA collected during an impingement study conducted from

21 November 16, 2004 through November 16, 2006 (TVA 2007d).

22 Historical entrainment studies showed that, although the hydraulic entrainment of the Kingston

23 Fossil Plant averaged 22.7 percent in 1975, the biological entrainment was significantly lower, at

24 0.84 percent. TVA attributed this difference, at least partially, to its use of a skimmer wall. NRC

25 does not anticipate cumulative impacts from entrainment and impingement at the Kingston

26 Fossil Plant to affect the fish population observed in the forebay by Watts Bar Dam, because the

27 home range of most species is less than the migration distance between the two locations.

28 Thermal impacts beyond the WBN site may add to cumulative impact. The NRC also examined

29 the cumulative impacts that could potentially occur as a result of the thermal discharges at the

30 Kingston Fossil Plant, or the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant and the thermal discharges at the WBN

31 site. Because of the distances between these three sites, the travel time of the reservoirs, and

32 the dissipation of heat from the discharge plumes, the staff considers these impacts to be

33 independent.

34 Chemical contamination can also adversely affect aquatic resources. In December 2008, a coal

35 fly-ash slurry spill occurred at the Kingston Fossil Plant. The Tennessee Department of Health

36 (TDOH) sampled water quality downstream of the Kingston Fossil Plant in response to the spill.

37 It conducted the majority of sampling in the Clinch and Emory rivers. In addition, TDOH also

38 sampled at TRM 568.2. According to the TDOH, except in the immediate vicinity of the coal ash

September 2011 4-81 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 release, the coal ash or the metals in the coal ash have not affected surface water in the Watts

2 Bar Reservoir, and concentrations of radiation are below the regulatory limits that protect public

3 health. In addition, TDOH sampling and analysis of metals associated with coal ash indicate

4 that metals in all other areas of the Emory River and Clinch River have remained below any

5 health comparison values. Although the TDEC and the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency

6 advise citizens to avoid consuming striped bass and limit consumption of catfish and sauger in

7 the Clinch and Emory rivers, the pollutants of concern in these rivers include PCBs and mercury

8 from historical activities not related to TVA (TDOH 2009). PCBs and mercury are a long-term

9 hazard to biota and, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.1, PCBs are known to impair the

10 reproductive, endocrine, and immune system function in fish and increase lesions, tumors, and

11 cause death, while mercury is also known to cause reproductive effects. The effects of

12 contamination on the level of individual fish can alter population dynamics and destabilize

13 natural populations and ecosystems.

14 Operations and waste disposal activities at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Oak Ridge

15 Reservation, located on the Clinch River at river mi 17.7, introduced PCBs, metals, organic

16 compounds (including those with mercury), and radionuclides (including cesium-137) into local

17 streams and, ultimately, into the Watts Bar Reservoir system. The highest discharges occurred

18 in the mid-1950s. The mouth of the Clinch River is located at TRM 567.7, placing the Oak

19 Ridge Reservation at approximately 89 river km (55 river mi) upstream of the Watts Bar Dam.

20 The highest concentrations of chemical and radioactive contaminants lie in the subsurface

21 sediments where 40 to 80 cm (16 to 32 in.) of sediment covers the deposits (Agency for Toxic

22 Substances and Disease Registry 2010). Such legacy contaminants can adversely affect biota

23 in the Tennessee River.

24 Potential climate changes could also have a cumulative effect the aquatic biota in the vicinity of

25 the WBN site. GCRP (2009) projected that changes in the climate for the region during the life

26 of WBN unit 2 would cause an increase in the average temperature of 1.1 to 1.70C (2 to 30F)

27 and a decrease in precipitation in the spring and summer and no anticipated change in the fall

28 or winter. The raised air temperature, which would correspond to an increased water

29 temperature in the reservoirs of the Tennessee River, would increase the potential for thermal

30 effects on aquatic biota. Although the amount of temperature change is not great, even a slight

31 change could further change the balance of the aquatic community in the reservoirs.

32 Based on information TVA provided and the NRC's own independent review, the NRC staff

33 concludes that the cumulative impacts on aquatic biota, including Federally and State-listed

34 species in Watts Bar Reservoir and Chickamauga Reservoir are LARGE based on past,

35 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The environmental effects are clearly

36 noticeable and sufficient to destabilize important attributes (e.g., freshwater mussel populations)

37 of the aquatic biota in the vicinity of the WBN site. The incremental, site-specific impact from

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-82 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 the operation of WBN Unit 2 would be minor and not noticeable in comparison to cumulative

2 impact on the aquatic ecology.

3 4.14.7 Historic and Cultural Resources

4 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5.3 serves as the baseline for the

5 cumulative impacts assessment for historic and cultural resources. As described in Section 4.5,

6 impacts on historic and cultural resources from the NRC licensing action for WBN Unit 2 would

7 be SMALL. The NRC has determined that the APE for this review is the area at the power plant

8 site and the immediate environs that may be affected by activities associated with operating

9 WBN Unit 2.

10 The APE is the geographic area of interest defined for the assessment of cumulative impacts on

11 historic and cultural resources. The cumulative impacts assessment has been considered and

12 documented using the NHPA Section 106 process and played a role in determining the eligibility

13 of historical properties for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Section 106

14 process and coordination with the SHPO and Tribes provides information on cultural resources

15 and potential impacts on cultural resources with respect to other past, present, and foreseeable

16 future actions in the State of Tennessee.

17 Historically, the WBN site and vicinity remained largely undisturbed by land development. It

18 likely contains several intact archaeological sites associated with the last 10,000 years of

19 human settlement in the area, as described in Section 2.5.3. More recent land development

20 includes TVA's construction of (1) WBN Units 1 and 2 and associated infrastructure, (2) the

21 adjacent Watts Bar Fossil Plant, and (3) associated dams and reservoirs, which, taken together,

22 have resulted in impacts on and/or the loss of historic and cultural resources in the vicinity of the

23 WBN site.

24 As described in Section 4.5, the NRC staff concluded that the impact on historic and cultural

25 resources related to operating WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL. TVA construction activities and

26 existing facilities have disturbed the majority of the APE for this undertaking (TVA 2006a).

27 Operating WBN Unit 2 would only add small increments to cumulative cultural resource impacts

28 in the region. Historic and cultural resources are non-renewable; therefore, the impact on

29 historic and cultural resources is cumulative. Based on the information TVA provided, and the

30 NRC staff's independent evaluation, the staff concludes that the cumulative impacts on historic

31 and cultural resources of operating WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL.

32 4.14.8 Radiological Health Impacts

33 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.6 serves as the baseline for the

34 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.6, the NRC

35 staff concludes that the radiological impacts from operations would be SMALL.

September 2011 4-83 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Cumulative impacts from operation also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

2 future actions that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. For this analysis, the

3 geographic area of interest is the area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the proposed WBN

4 Unit 2. Historically, the NRC has used the 80-km (50-mi) radius as a standard bounding

5 geographical area to evaluate population doses from routine releases from nuclear power

6 plants. Within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the existing WBN site, there is also the TVA

7 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, located 51 km (32 mi) southwest of WBN, and DOE's Oak Ridge

8 facility, located 66 km (41 mi) northeast of the WBN site. In addition, there are likely hospitals

9 and industrial facilities using radioactive materials.

10 As stated in Section 2.6, TVA has conducted a preoperational and operational REMP around

11 the WBN Units 1 and 2 since 1976. The REMP measures radiation and radioactive materials

12 from all sources, including existing Units 1 and 2, area hospitals, and industrial facilities. In

13 2002, TVA discovered concentrations of tritium in onsite monitoring and increased its tritium

14 monitoring efforts. Based on the results of the REMP, the levels of radiation and radioactive

15 material in the environment around WBN Units 1 and 2 generally show little or no increase

16 above natural background.

17 As described in Section 4.6, the public and occupational doses predicted from the proposed

18 operation of the new unit at WBN Unit 2 are well below regulatory limits and standards. In

19 addition, the site-boundary dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) from the existing

20 Units 1 and new Unit 2 would be well within the regulatory standards in 10 CFR Part 20,

21 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and 40 CFR Part 190.

22 WBN Unit 1 currently produces tritium under a contract with the DOE, but there are no plans for

23 WBN Unit 2 to produce tritium for DOE. The REMP also monitors any potential impact from the

24 production of tritium. The results of the REMP indicate effluents and direct radiation from WBN

25 Unit 1 and area hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive materials do not contribute

26 measurably to the cumulative dose.

27 Currently, no other new nuclear facilities are being consideredwithin 80 km (50 mi) of the WBN

28 site. TVA is planning on completing the construction of Bellefonte Unit 1, but it is beyond 80 km

29 (50 mi). The NRC, the DOE, and the State of Tennessee would regulate or control any

30 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the region that could contribute to cumulative

31 radiological impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological

32 impacts of operation of the WBN Unit 2 and existing Unit 1 would be SMALL.

33 4.14.9 Nonradiological Human Health

34 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.7 serves as a baseline for the

35 cumulative impacts assessment related to nonradiological human health. The impacts the staff

36 considered from operations at the WBN site include etiological agents and noise. Impacts

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-84 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 considered from the transmission system include noise, electric shock, and chronic exposure to

2 EMFs. The impacts on nonradiological human health from operation of WBN Unit 2 and the

3 transmission system would be SMALL. In addition, the staff evaluated whether interactions with

4 other past, present, and foreseeable future actions could contribute to adverse cumulative

5 impacts on nonradiological human health. For this analysis, NRC considered the geographic

6 area of interest to be Rhea and Meigs counties because the operation of WBN Unit 2 would

7 primarily affect the communities in these counties.

8 Before TVA constructed Watts Bar Dam, the population in the vicinity of the WBN site was

9 sparse, and recreational activities were limited to the Tennessee River. Subsequent

10 development created a recreational resource, drawing people to the water, and a residential

11 community that uses the waters around the WBN site for boating and fishing. Records on

12 etiological agents in the vicinity of the WBN site are limited. However, neither the Chickamauga

13 Reservoir nor the portion of the Tennessee River in the vicinity of the WBN discharge have

14 been on the list of streams and reservoirs where human contact bacteriological advisories have

15 been issued in the past three years (TDEQ 2010). NRC also reviewed studies of waterborne

16 and notifiable diseases over the past 10 years for the state of Tennessee and found the number

17 of cases is both unchanged and within the range of national trends.

18 The results of an evaluation of noise from constructing the WBN site probably were typical for

19 large construction projects. Based on evaluations before construction, few residences in the

20 area existed that could be disturbed. Currently, three residences are located within 1,800 m

21 (6,000 ft) of the WBN site. Typical operational noises from WBN Unit 2, along with noise

22 generated from Unit 1, the possil plant, and the dam would be expected to be attenuated to

23 below the level the NRC considers significant (< 65 dBA) at the distance to the closest

24 residences (TVA 2008a; NRC 1995, 1996, 2002).

25 TVA built the existing transmission lines according to Federal and State codes and standards.

26 TVA does not expect impacts from noise generated by corona discharge from the transmission

27 lines to change with time. TVA would have to mitigate electric shock from induced currents

28 associated with the transmission lines during construction and keep lines in compliance with

29 NESC standards. With regard to chronic effects of EMFs, the scientific evidence of their effects.

30 on human health does not conclusively link extremely low frequency EMFs to adverse health

31 impacts.

32 Cumulative nonradiological human health impacts within the 80-km (50-mi) review area are

33 expected to be negligible. Other reasonably foreseeable projects in the review area could

34 contribute to additional development, residential growth in the vicinity of the area, and increased

35 recreational use of the Chickamauga Reservoir. TVA does not plan to build any new offsite

36 transmission corridors or expand existing corridors to support operating WBN Unit 2.

September 2011 4-85 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Operating WBN Unit 2 and the transmission system would only add small increments to

2 cumulative nonradiological human health impacts in the region. Based on the information TVA

3 provided and the NRC staff's independent evaluation, the staff concludes that the cumulative

4 impacts on nonradiological human health from operating WBN Unit 2 and the transmission

5 system would be SMALL.

6 4.14.10 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

7 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4 serves as a baseline for the

8 cumulative impacts assessment for socioeconomics and environmental justice. For this

9 cumulative analysis, the staff considers the geographic area of interest related to environmental

10 justice to be the 80-km (50-mi) region around the WBN site. The geographic area of interest

11 related to socioeconomic impacts also includes the 80-km (50-mi) region; however, the primary

12 socioeconomic ROI, as described in Section 4.4, includes Rhea, Meigs, McMinn, and Roane

13 counties. Much of the analysis of socioeconomics and environmental justice impacts presented

14 in Section 4.4 already incorporates cumulative impact analysis because the metrics used for

15 analysis only make sense when placed in the total or cumulative context. For instance, the staff

16 can only evaluate the impact of the total number of additional housing units that may be needed

17 with respect to the total number that will be available in the affected area. The geographic area

18 of the cumulative analysis varies depending on the particular impacts considered and may

19 depend on specific boundaries, such as taxation jurisdictions distance from the site.

20 TVA's current activities related to constructing WBN Unit 2 involve a large-scale project

21 employing approximately 1,300 onsite workers. During construction of Unit 2, the State of

22 Tennessee (Tennessee Code Annotated 67-9-101) allocates additional tax-equivalent payments

23 from TVA to affected local governments (see Section 2.4). The State makes these additional

24 payments to local governments that are designated as "impacted" by construction activities.

25 The State makes these additional, in-lieu, tax payments during the construction period in

26 decreasing amounts and for 3 years after WVA completes the construction of WBN Unit 2. All

27 four counties evaluated as part of the four-county socioeconomic ROI (including Rhea, Meigs,

28 McMinn, and Roane) are designated as "impacted" counties and are currently receiving

29 additional tax revenue.(TVA 2010b). These local governments could use these additional

30 payments by TVA to address some impacts on public services that potentially could occur with

31 an influx of workers to the region (TVA 2008a).

32 In addition to construction activities, periodic refueling outages(a) (for WBN Unit 1) would occur,

33 which would involve approximately 500 additional temporary employees working onsite for a

34 3- to 4-week period. This additional workforce would likely pose temporary strains on short-term

35 housing and hotel availability, but because of the limited period, the staff does not expect any

36

(a) A typical outage consists of fuel-reloading activities, equipment maintenance, inspections, and special

projects, such as major equipment replacements and refurbishment and cleaning of chemicals.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-86 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 noticeable impacts on public services, transportation, the education system, and housing.

2 Staggering the timing of working shifts could reduce any potential impacts on the regional road

3 networks (TVA 2009c).

4 The operation of one additional unit at the WBN site would not likely significantly add to any

5 cumulative socioeconomic impacts beyond those identified in Section 4.4. The staff does not

6 expect impacts on areas such as transportation or taxes to be detectable beyond the four7 county ROI evaluated in Section 4.4, and expects the impacts would quickly decrease with

8 increasing distance from the site. Thus, the staff concludes that the cumulative impacts on

9 socioeconomics and environmental justice related to operating WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL.

10 However, because of current strains in the capacity of the Rhea and Meigs counties school

11 systems, any additional in-migration to these counties could potentially have a MODERATE

12 impact on the school systems. It is likely, however, the modest influx of workers (200)

13 associated with operating WBN Unit 2 would coincide with an out-migration of some portion of

14 the WBN Unit 2 construction workforce as construction activities ramp down. Thus, the staff

15 concludes that the cumulative impact on schools would be SMALL, and the cumulative impacts

16 on regional economies would be SMALL and beneficial to the region around the WBN site.

17 Because the environmental justice impacts Chapter 4 analyzes are cumulative by nature, any

18 environmental justice impacts associated with other activities have been considered as part of

19 the environmental justice baseline Sections 2.4.3 and 4.4.3. The staff found no unusual

20 resource dependencies or practices or environmental pathways through which minority and low21 income populations would be disproportionately affected. As a result, the NRC staff concludes

22 that the cumulative environmental impacts on environmental justice from the operation of WBN

23 Unit 2 would be SMALL.

24 4.14.11 Postulated Accidents

25 As described in Chapter 6, the staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts (risk)

26 from a postulated accident from the operation of WBN Unit 2 would be SMALL. Chapter 6

27 considers both design-basis accidents (DBAs) and severe accidents. The NRC staff concludes

28 that the severe-accident probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) for WBN Unit 2 would

29 be SMALL. DBAs are addressed specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust

30 enough to meet NRC safety criteria. The consequences of DBAs are bounded by the

31 consequences of severe accidents.

32 The cumulative analysis considers risk from potential severe accidents at all other existing and

33 proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase risks at any location within

34 80 km (50 mi) of WBN Unit 2. The 80-km (50-mi) radius was selected to cover any potential risk

35 overlaps from two or more nuclear plants. Existing reactors within the geographic area of

36 interest include WBN Unit 1 and Sequoyah Units 1 and 2. TVA is also considering constructing

37 nuclear plants at the Bellefonte site. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 in Section 6.2 provide comparisons of

September 2011 4-87 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 estimated risk for WBN Unit 2 and other current-generation reactors. The estimated population

2 dose risk of WBN Unit 2 is near the mean and median value for current-generation reactors.

3 For the existing plants within the geographic area of interest, namely WBN Unit 1 and Sequoyah

4 Units 1 and 2, the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of

5 severe accidents are SMALL. The severe accident risk nuclear power plant gets smaller as the

6 distance increases. The combined risk at any location within 80 km (50 mi) of the Watts Bar site

7 would be bounded by the sum of risks for all of these operating and proposed nuclear power

8 plants. Even though there would be several plants included in the combination, this combined

9 risk would still be low. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from

10 severe accidents at any location within 80 km (50 mi) of the WBN Unit 2 likely would be SMALL.

11 4.15 References

12 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

13 Protection Against Radiation."

14 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of

15 Production and Utilization Facilities."

16 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

17 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

18 10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, "Disposal of High19 Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada."

20 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

21 Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

22 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and

23 Transportation of Radioactive Material."

24 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

25 "Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

26 40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125

27 "Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System."

28 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

29 "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-88 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 53 FR 30355. August 11, 1988. "Carolina Power & Light Co. et al. Shearon Harris Nuclear

2 Power Plant, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact." Federal

3 Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

4 56 FR 23360. May 21, 1991. "Standards for Protection Against Radiation." Federal Register.

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

6 59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

7 Populations and Low-Income Populations, Executive Order 12898." Federal Register.

8 U.S. Office of the President.

9 60 FR 6381. February 1, 1995. "Amendment to Executive Order No. 12898." Federal Register.

10 President of the United States.

11 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:

12 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities." Federal Register.

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

14 69 FR 41576. July 9, 2004. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Final

15 Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing

16 Facilities." Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

17 75 FR 31514. June 3, 2010. "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse

18 Gas Tailoring Rule". Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

19 Advisory Group on Non-lonising Radiation (AGNIR). 2006. Power Frequency Electromagnetic

20 Fields, Melatonin and Risk of Breast Cancer: Report of an independent Advisory Group on

21 Non-lonising Radiation. Documents of the Health Protection Agency, Series B: Radiation,

22 Chemical and Environmental Hazards, RCE-1, Health Protection Agency, Didcot,

23 United Kingdom.

24 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1996. Health Consultation - Lower Watts

25 Bar Reservoir Operable Unit US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Atlanta,

26 Georgia. Accessed January 14, 2010 at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/efork3/hc-pl.html.

27 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Public Law 111-5.

28 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 2 USC 2011 et seq.

29 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practices forAvian

30 Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electrical Institute, APLIC, and

31 the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California.

September 2011 4-89 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Baxter, D.S. and J.P. Buchanan. 2006. Entrainment Monitoring at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

2 2004. Tennessee Valley Authority. Accession No. ML093510802.

3 Baxter, D.S., K.D. Gardner, and G.D. Hickman. 2001. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental

4 Condenser Cooling Water System Fish Monitoring Program. Tennessee Valley Authority,

5 Nashville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML093510802.

6 Baxter, D.S. and L.K. Kay. 2002. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 316(B) Monitoring Program -

7 Effects of Impingement on the Aquatic Populations in Chickamauga Reservoir. Tennessee

8 Valley Authority Resource Stewardship. Accession No. ML093510802.

9 Best, T.L. and J.B. Jennings. 1997. "Mammalian Species-Myotis leibii." American Society of

10 Mammalogists 547:1-6.

11 Bohac, C.E. and M.J. McCall. 2008. Water Use in the Tennessee Valley for 2005 and

12 Projected Use in 2030. Tennessee Valley Authority prepared in cooperation with the

13 U.S. Geological Survey. Available at

14 www.tva.gov/river/watersupply/watersupplyreport-to_2030. pdf.

15 Brady, J., T. Kunz, M.D. Tuttle, and D. Wilson. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. Fish and

16 Wildlife Reference Service, Denver, Colorado. Accessed March 7, 2011 at

17 http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/listedspecies/gray-bat. html.

18 Cada, G.F. 1991. Effects of Hydroelectric Turbine Passage on Fish Early Life Stages. CONF19 910778-2. Information Bridge. Accessed September 13, 2011 at

20 http:llwww.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/5879350-POieLN/.

21 Calabrese, F.A. 1976. Excavations at 40RH6, Watts Bar Area, Rhea County, Tennessee.

22 University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee.

23 Available at

24 http://larc.tn.gov:8080/?config=tslaysm#section=resource&resourceid=47667¤tlndex=0&t

25 ab-detailViewDescriptionTab. Accession No. ML073510357

26 Chesapeake Nuclear Services, Inc. 2006. NRCDOSE for Windows. Radiation Safety

27 Information Computational Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

28 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251 et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control

29 Act [FWPCA]).

30 Cohn, J.P. 2008. "White-nose Syndrome Threatens Bats." BioScience 58(11):1098.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-90 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. "Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the

2 Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions." In Memorandum For Heads of

3 Federal Departments and Agencies. February 18, 2010. Available at

4 http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa.

5 Doneker, R.L. and G.H. Jirka. 2007. CORMIX User Manual: A Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone

6 Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface Waters.

7 EPA-823-K-07-001.

8 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility

9 Structure, International Workshop, September 13-16, 1992, Miami Florida. EPRI TR-1 03268,

10 Palo Alto, California.

11 Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee

12 Press. Knoxville, Tennessee.

13 Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2004. Notice of Inquiry Comment Review

14 Avian/Communication Tower Collisions. Prepared by Avatar Environmental, LLC, Wester

15 Chester, Pennsylvania, EDM International, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, and Pandion Systems,

16 Inc., Gainesville, Florida. Available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/reports/documents/avatar17 migratory-bird-report1 0104. pdf.

18 Hutson, S.S., M.C. Koroa, and C.M. Murphree. 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the

19 Tennessee River Watershed in 2000 and Projections of Water Use to 2030. Water-Resources

20 Investigations Report 03-4302. U.S. Geological Survey and Tennessee Valley Authority,

21 Nashville, Tennessee.

22 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and

23 Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series

24 No. 332, Vienna, Austria.

25 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the

26 International Commission on Radiological Protection: Adopted January 17, 1977. Pergamon

27 Press, New York.

28 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of

29 the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon

30 Press, New York.

31 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2007. "The 2007

32 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection." ICRP

33 Publication 103, Annals of the ICRP 37(2-4):1-332.

September 2011 4-91 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Johnson, J.B., J.E. Gates, and W.M. Ford. 2009. Notes on Foraging Activity of Female Myotis

2 leibil in Maryland. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper

3 NRS-8. U.S. Forest Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.

4 Kaseloo, P.A. and K.O. Tyson. 2004. Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations.

5 Report No. FHWA-HEP-06-016. Office of Research and Technology Services, McLean,

6 Virginia.

7 Loar, J.M., J.S. Griffith, and K.D. Kumar. 1978. An Analysis of Factors Influencing the

8 Impingement of Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma petenense) at Power Plants in the Southeastern

9 United States. Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge

10 Tennessee. Accessed March 10, 2011 at

11 http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=96DE038BBAF747EC272B2CFCBA05A2D

12 F?purl=/5066519-vRrj7d/.

13 MapMuse. 2010. Online Cellular Tower Search Tool. Accessed January 19, 2010 at

14 http://find.mapmuse.com/re1/map_brand_mm2.php?brandlD=CELLTOWERS&init=35.9391,-

15 85.8794,7&tlist=CELLTOWERS,<p=Tennessee.

16 McLean, R.B., J.S. Griffith and M.V. McGee. 1985. "Threadfin shad, Dorosoma pentenese

17 Gjnther, mortaility: causes and ecological implications in a South-eastern United States

18 reservoir." Journal of Fish Biology 27:1-12.

19 Miller, B.A., V. Alaviany, M.D. Benderz, D.J. Benton, P. Ostrowski Jr., J.A. Parslyzz and M.C.

20 Shiaox. 1992. "Integrated Assessment of Temperature Change Impacts on the TVA Reservoir

21 and Power Supply Systems." In Hydraulic Engineering: Saving a Threatened Resource-In

22 Search of Solutions: Proceedings of the Hydraulic Engineering sessions at Water Forum '92.

23 Baltimore, Maryland, August 2-6, 1992. American Society of Civil Engineers.

24 Moulder, J. 2005. Powerlines & Cancer FAQs. Available at

25 http://www.faqs.orglfaqs/medicine/powerlines-cancer-faq/.

26 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009a. "Hamilton County School District."

27 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

28 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index. asp.

29 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009b. "Louden County School District."

30 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

31 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-92 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009c. "Miegs County School District."

2 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

3 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp.

4 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009d. "McMinn County School District."

5 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

6 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp.

7 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009e. "Rhea County School District."

8 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

9 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp.

10 National Center for Educational Statistics (NACE). 2009f. "Roane County School District."

11 Search for Public Schools. Accessed September 29, 2009 at

12 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp.

13 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing

14 Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland.

15 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1995. Principles and

16 Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 121, NCRP

17 Publications, Bethesda, Maryland.

18 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended. 42 USC 4321 et seq.

19 National Historic Preservation Act of 1969, as amended (NHPA). 16 USC 470 et seq.

20 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

21 Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. NIH Publication

22 No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

23 National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks for Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

24 Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

25 Neves, R.J. and P.L. Angermeier. 1990. "Habitat alteration and its effects on native fishes in

26 the upper Tennessee River System, east-central U.S.A." Journal of Fish Biology 37:45-52.

27 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2009. Letter from JA Stegen (Pacific Northwest

28 National Laboratory) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 12, 2009. "Final

29 Watts Bar Site Audit Trip Report for JCN J-4261, 'Technical Assistance for Operating License

30 Environmental Review - Watts Bar Unit 2 Reactivation."' Accession No. ML100220022.

September 2011 4-93 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Ramsdell, J.V., Jr., C.E. Beyer, D.D. Lanning, U.P. Jenquin, R.A. Schwarz, D.L. Strenge, P.M.

2 Daling, R.T. Dahowski, and T.J. Kenyon. 2001. Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel

3 Burnup Above 60 GWd/MTU. NUREG/CR-6703, PNNL-1 3257. Washington, D.C.

4 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 42 USC 6901 et seq.

5 Rhea County Schools. 2009. Phone call from Katherine Cort (Pacific Northwest National

6 Laboratory) to Jerry Levengood (Superintendent of Rhea County School System) on

7 November 2, 2009, "Re: Bar Nuclear Plant Impact on Regional School System." Accession

8 No. ML101520416.

9 Schneider, R.W. and J.D. Tuberville. 1980. Kingston Steam Plant 316 Permit Renewal report10 1980. Tennessee Valley Authority Office of Natural Resources. Norris, Tennessee. Accession

11 No. ML093510802.

12 Simmons, J.W. and D.S. Baxter. 2009. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near

13 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, 2008. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and

14 Management, Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML093510802.

15 Soldat, J.K., N.M. Robinson, and D.A. Baker. 1974. Models and Computer Codes for

16 Evaluating Environmental Radiation Doses. BNWL--1754. Richland, Washington.

17 Stout, J. and G.W. Cornwell. 1976. "Nonhunting Mortality of Fledged North American

18 Waterfowl." The Journal of Wildlife Management 40(4):681-693.

19 Strenge, D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. Ladtap II- Technical Reference and User

20 Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

21 Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA). 67-9-101. 2009. "Tennessee Valley Authority (Tennessee

22 State Revenue Sharing Act)." Tennessee Code Annotated.

23 Tennessee Department of Health. 2009. Public Health Assessment- Public Comment

24 Release. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant Coal Ash Release.

25 December 9, 2009.

26 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2010. State of Tennessee

27 Department of Health Environmental Laboratories results for February Water Samples, TVA

28 Ash Spill Project. Accessed March 13, 2010 at

29 http://www.tennessee.gov/environment/kingston/pdf/surfacewater/02_23_2010.pdf.

30 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 2011. State of Tennessee

31 NPDES Permit No. TN0020168. Accession No. ML1 1215A099.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-94 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development (TDLWD). 2010. Noise.

2 Accessed June 1, 2010 at http://tennessee.gov/labor-wfd/toshanoise.html.

3 Tennessee Historical Commission (THC). 2007. Letter from the Tennessee Historical

4 Commission to the Tennessee Valley Authority dated January 4, 2007. "TVA, Watts Bar

5 Nuclear Plant 21, Unincorporated, Rhea County. Nashville, Tennessee." Accession

6 No. ML101180044.

7 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1972. Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear

8 Plant Units 1, 2, and 3. TVA-OHES-EIS-72-9, Office of Health and Environmental Science,

9 Chattanooga, Tennessee. Accession No. ML073470580.

10 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1976. Estimates of Entrainment of Fish Eggs and Larvae

11 by Watts Bar Steam Plant, 1975, and Assessment of the Impact on the Fisheries Resource of

12 Watts Bar Reservoir. Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch, Tennessee Valley Authority,

13 Norris, Tennessee. Accession No. ML093510802.

14 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1987. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Construction and Operation

15 Employee Survey: July 1, 1986. January, 1987. Knoxville, Tennessee.

16 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1992. A Guide for Environmental Protection and Best

17 Management Practices for Tennessee Valley Authority Transmission Construction and

18 Maintenance Activities. Technical Note TVA/LR/NRM 92/1. Chattanooga, Tennessee.

19 Accession No. ML042790355.

20 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1993. Discharge Temperature Limit Evaluation for Watts

21 Bar Nuclear Plant. Norris, Tennessee. Accession No. ML073510351.

22 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1994. Tennessee Valley Reservoir and Stream Quality -

23 1993 Summary Of Vital Signs And Use Suitability Monitoring. Chattanooga, Tennessee.

24 Accession Nos. ML093510810, ML042800078.

25 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1998a. Aquatic Environmental Conditions in the Vicinity of

26 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant During Two Years of Operation, 1996-1997. Norris, Tennessee.

27 Accession No. ML093510802.

28 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1998b. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser

29 Cooling Water Project, Environmental Assessment. Knoxville, Tennessee. Available at

30 http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/wattsbar2/related/aug_1 998.pdf.

31 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2004a. Proposed Modifications to Water Temperature

32 Effluent Requirements for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Outfall 113. WR2004-3-85-149. Knoxville,

33 Tennessee. Accession No. ML0935110802.

September 2011 4-95 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2004b. Reservoir Operations Study Final Programmatic

2 Environmental Impact Statement. Tennessee Valley Authority In cooperation with U.S. Army

3 Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accession Nos. ML041100586,

4 ML041100585, ML041100590, ML041100588.

5 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2005. Winter 2005 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar

6 Nuclear Plant Ouffall 113 Passive Mixing Zone. WR2005-2-85-151. Knoxville, Tennessee.

7 Accession No. ML093510802.

8 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2006a. Letter from Thomas Maher (Tennessee Valley

9 Authority) to Richard Tune (Tennessee Historical Commission) dated December 28, 2006,

10 "TVA, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Completion, Cultural Resources Assessment, Rhea

11 County." Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML093510802.

12 Tennessee Valley Authority (WVA). 2006b. Summer 2005 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar

13 Nuclear Plant Outfall 113 Passive Mixing Zone. WR2005-85-152. Knoxville, Tennessee.

14 Accession No. ML093510802.

15 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2007a. Summer 2006 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar

16 Nuclear Plant Outfall 113 Passive Mixing Zone. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession

17 No. ML093510802.

18 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2007b. Winter 2006 Compliance Survey for Watts Bar

19 Nuclear Plant Outfall 113 Passive Mixing Zone. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession

20 No. ML093510807.

21 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2007c. Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah Nuclear

22 Plant. NPDES Permit No. TN0026450. 316(b) Monitoring Program, Fish Impingement at

23 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant During 2005 through 2007. Accession No. ML073580266.

24 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2007d. Kingston Fossil Plant NPDES Permit

25 No. TN0005452. 316(b) monitoring program. Fish impingement at Kingston fossil plant during

26 2004 through 2006. Accession No. ML093510802.

27 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

28 Statement; Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Rhea County,

29 Tennessee submitted to NRC as the TVA Environmental Report for an Operating License,

30 Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML080510469.

31 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008b. "Appendix D: Sensitive Area Review - SAR." In

32 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement-Single Nuclear Unity at the Bellefonte

33 Plant Site. Tennessee Valley Authority, Jackson County, Alabama. Accessed June 21, 2010 at

34 http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/blnp/index.htm.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-96 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008c. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

2 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated July 2, 2008 in response to NRC

3 letter dated June 3, 2008 and TVA letters February 15, 2008 and June 16, 2008, "Watts Bar

4 Nuclear Plant (WBN) - Unit 2 - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement - Request

5 for Additional Information (TAC MD8203)." Accession No. ML081850460.

6 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2008d. Letter from Jack A. Bailey (Tennessee Valley

7 Authority, Vice President, Nuclear Generation Development) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

8 Commission dated July 25, 2008 in response to NRC letter dated July 11, 2008, "Subject:

9 Bellefonte Combined License Application - Response to Environmental Report Request for

10 Additional Information - Thermophilic Microorganisms." Accession No. ML082100395.

11 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009a. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - Unit 2 - Final

12 Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Amendment 94. Spring City, Tennessee. Accession

13 No. ML092460757.

14 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009b. Letter from Darrin Hutchison (Tennessee Valley

15 Authority, Environmental Technical Support Manager) to Vijin Janjic (Tennessee Department of

16 Environment & Conservation, Permit Writer) dated April 15, 2009, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

17 (WBN) - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. TN0020168 -

18 Request for Raw Water Treatment Modification." Accession No. ML0911190175.

0

19 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009c. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

20 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated December 23, 2009 in response

21 to NRC letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, July 2, 2008,

22 and January 27, 2009, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information

23 Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession No. ML100210350.

24 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009d. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

25 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated October 22, 2009 in response to

26 TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, July 2, 2008, and January 27, 2009, "Additional

27 Information in Support of TVA Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS)

28 (TAC MD8303)." Accession No. ML093510802.

29 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2009e. Cultural Resources. Accessed December 18, 2009

30 at http://www.tva.gov/river/landandshore/culturalresources/index.htm.

31 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010a. Letter from R.M. Krich (Nuclear Licensing,

32 Tennessee Valley Authority) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated July 6, 2010,

33 "Notification of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Renewal." Accession

34 No. ML 101890069.

September 2011 4-97 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010b. Letter from Lindy Johnson (Tennessee Valley

2 Authority, Water Permits and Compliance) to Richard Urban (Tennessee Department of

3 Environment & Conservation) dated August 17, 2010, "Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) -

4 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) - NPDES Permit No. TN0020168 - Permit Modification

5 Request - Addition of Unit 2 Operation."

6 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 201 Oc. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

7 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated February 25, 2010 in response to

8 NRC letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated July 2, 2008, January 27, 2009, and

9 December 23, 2009, 'Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information Regarding

10 Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession No. ML100630115.

11 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2010d. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

12 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated April 9, 2010 in response to NRC

13 letter dated December 3, 2009 and TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, July 2, 2008, January

14 27, 2009, December 23, 2009, and February 25, 2010, 'Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 -

15 Response to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Request for Additional Information

16 Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)." Accession No. ML101130393.

17 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 201 0e. Letter from Masoud Bajestani (Watts Bar Unit 2,

18 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated July 2, 2010, "Watts Bar, Unit 2 -

19 Submittal of Additional Information Requested during May 12, 2010, Request for Additional

20 Information (RAI) Clarification Teleconference Regarding Environmental Review." Accession

21 No. ML101930470.

22 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 201 la. Letter from David Stinson (Watts Bar Unit 2) to

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 19, 2011, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN)

24 Unit 2 - Intake Pumping Station Water Velocity - Response to Request for Additional

25 Information." Accession No. MLI 1 143A083.

26 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 b. Letter from Edwin E. Freeman (Watts Bar Unit 2

27 Engineering Manager) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated March 28, 2011, "Watts

28 Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information Related to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

29 commission (NRC) Environmental Review." Accession No. ML1 10890472.

30 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 201 Ic. "Comparison of 2010 Peak Spawning Seasonal

31 Densities of Ichthyoplankton at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant at Tennessee River 528 with Historical

32 Densities during 1996 and 1997." April 2011. In letter from David Stinson (Watts Bar Unit 2 Vice

33 President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated March 24, 2011. "Watts Bar Nuclear

34 Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Additional Information Related to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

35 (NRC) Environmental Review." Accession No. ML110871475.

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-98 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 d. Letter from Marie Gillman (Watts Bar Unit 2, Vice

2 President, Acting) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated February 7, 2011, "Submittal

3 of 'Hydrothermal Effects on the Ichthyoplankton from the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental

4 condenser Cooling Water outfall in Upper Chickamauga Reservoir' Report." Accession Nos.

5 ML110400383, ML110400384.

6 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 e. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit I - Annual

7 Radiological Environmental Operating Report - 2010. Accession No. ML1 1137A1 22.

8 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 201 if. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Unit I - 2010 Annual

9 Radioactive Effluent Release Report. Knoxville, Tennessee. Accession No. ML111126A180.

10 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011g. Letter from Dave Stinson (TVA, Watts Bar Unit 2

11 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 20, 2011, in response to

12 NRC letter dated April 13, 2011, TVA letters dated February 15, 2008, December 17, 2010,

13 February 25, 2011, and an e-mail from Justin C. Poole to William D. Crouch dated March 4,

14 2011, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Response to Final Safety Analysis Report

15 (FSAR), Chapter 11 and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Request

16 for Additional Information." Accession No. ML11146A044.

17 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 h. Letter from Dave Stinson (TVA, Watts Bar Unit 2

18 Vice President) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 26, 2011, in response to an

19 e-mail from Justin C. Poole to William D. Crouch dated March 4, 2011 and TVA letter dated

20 May 20, 2011, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 - Response to Request for Additional

21 Information from Public Meeting on May 11, 2011." Accession No. ML1 1152A1 60.

22 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2011 i. Integrated Resource Plan: TVA's Environmental &

23 Energy Future. March 2011. Accessed March 2011 at

24 http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/irp/index.htm.

25 Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933. 16 USC 831 et seq.

26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976. Development Document for Best

27 Technology Available for the Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling Water

28 Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. Effluent Guidelines Division,

29 Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. Washington, D.C.

30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Economic Analysis of the Final

31 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. EPA-821-R-01-035.

32 Washington, D.C.

September 2011 4-99 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Global Greenhouse Gas Data. Accessed

2 December 15, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html.

3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010a. White-Nose Syndrome. Online Resource.

4 Accessed May 26, 2010 at http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/about.html.

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2010b. The White-nose Syndrome Mystery-Something

6 is Killing Our Bats. Online fact sheet available at

7 http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/pdf/White-nosemystery. pdf.

8 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. National Water-Quality Assessment Program, Lower

9 Tennessee River Basin. Accessed August 25, 2011 at

10 http://www.google.com/url?q=http://tn.water. usgs.gov/lten/Iten11 fs.pdf&sa=U&ei=bnxWTomUl8XniALZ7v2UCQ&ved=OCBMQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFL3hWebYI 3

12 C5iav-p35ADhoqlwbw

13 U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the

14 United States. T. R. Karl, J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, eds. Cambridge University Press,

15 New York.

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from

17 Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with

18 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, Washington, D.C. Accession

19 No. ML003740384.

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978. Final Environmental Statement Related to

21 Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Washington, D.C.

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995. Final Environmental Statement Related to

23 the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Supplement No. 1.

24 Washington, D.C.

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

26 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

28 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1,

29 Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

30 Report. NUREG-1437, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan32 Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555,

33 Washington, D.C

Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 4-100 September 2011
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

2 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power

3 Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

4 U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Memorandum to R.W. Borchardt from

5 Annette L.Vietti-Cook dated April 2, 2009. "Staff Requirements - SECY-08-0197 - Options to

6 Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with Respect to the 2007

7 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection." Accession No.

8 ML090920103.

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

10 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Supplement 41. Washington, D.C.

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2011. "Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a

12 1000-MW(e) Reference Reactor." Appendix L in Environmental Impact Statement for the

13 Combined License (COL) for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3. NUREG-1936, Vol. 2,

14 Washington, D.C.

15 University of Wisconsin. 2010. Diervilla lonicera Plant Details Page. UW-Stevens Point

16 Freckmann Herbarium Online. Accessed 13 January, 2010 at

17 http://wisplants.uwsp.edu/scripts/detail.asp?SpCode=DIELON.

18 Watters, G.T. 2000. "Freshwater Mussels and Water Quality: A Review of the Effects of Hydro

19 geologic and in Stream Habitat Alterations." In Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk

20 Conservation Society Symposium, 1999. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio.

21 World Health Organization (WHO). 2007. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health. Exposure

22 to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Fact sheet No. 322. Available at

23 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs322/en.

September 2011 4-101 Draft NUREG-0498, Supplement 2