Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 54961 

Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.govhttp:// 

smses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments 

will become part of this docket and will 

be available for inspection and copying 

at the above address between 10 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. An 

electronic version of this document and 

all documents entered into this docket 

is available on the World Wide Web at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W21–203, 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202– 

366–5979. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

described by the applicant the intended 

service of the vessel EQUANIMITY is: 

Intended Commercial Use of Vessel: 

‘‘Scattering of human remains at sea.’’ 

Geographic Region: ‘‘California.’’ 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

Dated: September 1, 2010. 

By order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Christine Gurland, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22406 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement, Single Nuclear Unit 

at the Bellefonte Plant Site, Jackson 

County, TN 

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA) 

ACTION: Issuance of Record of Decision 

(ROD) 

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in 

accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 

CFR parts 1500 to 1508) and TVA’s 

procedures for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). A notice of availability (NOA) 

of the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for a 

Single Nuclear Unit at the Bellefonte 

Plant Site (final SEIS) was published in 

the Federal Register on May 21, 2010. 

TVA prepared the final SEIS to update 

the extensive environmental 

information and analyses that exist 

respecting the Bellefonte site and the 

construction and operation of a nuclear 

power plant on that site. On August 20, 

2010, the TVA Board of Directors (TVA 

Board) approved the expenditure of 

$248 million for additional engineering, 

design, and licensing activities, as well 

as the procurement of long lead-time 

components for the partially complete 

Bellefonte Unit 1. This decision will 

help maintain Unit 1 as a viable 

alternative to meet the projected need 

for base load generation on the TVA 

system in 2018–2020. Bellefonte Unit 1 

is a 1,260-megawatt (MW) Babcock and 

Wilcox (B&W) -designed pressurized 

light water reactor. It is anticipated that 

the TVA Board will be asked to approve 

completion and operation of Unit 1 next 

year, depending on the results of a new 

TVA Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), 

which is scheduled for completion in 

spring 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ruth Horton, Senior NEPA Specialist, 

Environmental Permits and Compliance, 

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West 

Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, 

Tennessee 37902–1499; telephone (865) 

632–3719 or e-mail blnp@tva.gov. 

Thomas Spink, Bellefonte AP1000 

Licensing Manager, Nuclear Generation, 

Development, and Construction, 

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 

Market Street, LP 5A, Chattanooga, 

Tennessee 37402–2801; telephone (423) 

751–7062 or e-mail tespink@tva.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With 

almost 37,000 MW of net dependable 

summer generating capacity, TVA 

operates the nation’s largest public 

power system, producing 4 percent of 

all the electricity in the nation. TVA 

provides electricity to most of 

Tennessee and parts of Virginia, North 

Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, 

and Kentucky. It serves about 9 million 

people in this seven-state region 

through 155 power distributors and 56 

directly served large industries and 

Federal facilities. The TVA Act requires 

the TVA power system to be selfsupporting and operated on a nonprofit 

basis and directs TVA to sell power at 

rates as low as are feasible. TVA power 

is supplied by three nuclear plants, 11 

coal-fired plants, 12 gas-fired plants, 29 

hydroelectric dams, a pumped-storage 

facility, a wind farm, a methane-gas 

cofiring facility, and several small solar 

photovoltaic facilities and through 

several power purchase agreements. 

TVA transmits electricity from these 

facilities over almost 16,000 miles of 

transmission lines. 

This final SEIS supplements and 

updates the original TVA Final 

Environmental Statement for Bellefonte 

Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 (May 1974), 

hereafter referred to as the 1974 FES; the 

TVA Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Bellefonte Conversion 

Project (October 1997); the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Production of Tritium in a Commercial 

Light Water Reactor (March 1999), 

which TVA adopted; and the TVA 

Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4, 

Combined License Application Part 3, 

Environmental Report, Revision 1 

(October 2008), hereafter referred to as 

the COLA ER. Where pertinent, the final 

SEIS incorporates by reference, utilizes, 

tiers from, and updates information 

from this substantial environmental 

record. 

The final SEIS also tiers from and 

incorporates by reference two TVA 

programmatic reviews, Energy Vision 

2020 Integrated Resource Plan Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (December 1995) and 

Reservoir Operations Study Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (May 2004). In June 2009, 

TVA began work on a new IRP for 

meeting future demand on the TVA 

power system over the next 20 years. 

The new IRP is scheduled to be 

completed in spring 2011. 

Background 

The Bellefonte site is located on a 

1,600-acre peninsula on the western 

shore of Guntersville Reservoir at 

Tennessee River Mile 392, near the 

town of Hollywood, Alabama. After 

completing an environmental statement 

for the project and receiving approval to 

begin construction from the Atomic 

Energy Commission, now the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC), TVA 

commenced construction of two B&W 

pressurized-water reactors at the 

Bellefonte site in 1974. TVA halted 

construction in 1988 when forecasted 

load growth began to decrease. 

Currently, Units 1 and 2 are in 

‘‘deferred’’ plant status, a designation by 

the NRC that construction permits for 

the facility exist, but construction is not 

currently active. 

In 2006, TVA joined NuStart Energy 

Development LLC to participate in a 

demonstration of NRC’s new combined 

licensing process. Using the Bellefonte 

site, TVA submitted a Combined 

License Application (COLA) to the NRC 

for two AP1000 units (designated as 

Bellefonte Units 3 and 4) in October 

2007. This application is pending. TVA 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

54962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 

has not proposed to construct these 

advanced reactors at the Bellefonte site 

or elsewhere. 

Public Involvement 

TVA published a notice of intent to 

prepare an SEIS in the Federal Register 

on August 10, 2009. The NOA of the 

draft SEIS was published in the Federal 

Register by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) on 

November 13, 2009. TVA accepted 

comments on the draft SEIS until 

December 28, 2009. Approximately 50 

people attended a public meeting on 

December 7, 2009, in Scottsboro, 

Alabama. Comments were received from 

35 individuals and four Federal and 

State agencies. Some commenters 

supported the development of nuclear 

power generation, while others stated 

opposition. Many comments were 

focused on the age of existing structures, 

water quality, reactor design, the safety 

of nuclear power, air quality and 

climate change, spent fuel, radwaste, the 

need for power and alternative sources 

of energy, and socioeconomic impacts. 

After considering and responding to 

all substantive comments, TVA 

completed and issued the final SEIS, 

which identifies Alternative B, 

Completion and Operation of Bellefonte 

Unit 1, as TVA’s preferred alternative. 

The NOA of the final SEIS was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 21, 2010. 

Although not required, TVA invited 

comments on the Final SEIS during a 

30-day period from May 21, 2010, 

through June 21, 2010. Comments were 

received from nine individuals, one 

State agency, and one Federal agency. 

These comments have been considered. 

Compared to the information and 

analysis in the final SEIS, none raised 

significant new issues or provided 

significant new information. 

Alternatives Considered 

TVA considered numerous 

alternatives to constructing and 

operating Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 in its 

1974 FES, including various sources of 

base load generation and eight 

alternative plant locations. As part of 

the COLA process for Units 3 and 4 (see 

background, above), TVA evaluated the 

construction and operation of two 

Westinghouse AP1000 units at the 

Bellefonte site, including alternative 

sites and energy resource options. 

In the present final SEIS, TVA 

evaluates three generation alternatives 

and two transmission alternatives. The 

power generation alternatives include 

Alternative A—No Action, Alternative 

B—Completion and Operation of a B&W 

Pressurized Light Water Reactor, and 

Alternative C—Construction and 

Operation of an AP1000 Advanced 

Passive Pressurized Light Water Reactor. 

The transmission alternatives were No 

Action and Action. 

Under Alternative A, No Action, TVA 

would continue to maintain the 

construction permits for Units 1 and 2 

in deferred status, which would involve 

routine maintenance of select plant 

systems and other regulatory 

compliance activities. Major buildings 

and plant components would remain 

intact, but some investment recovery 

activities would continue. 

Under Alternative B, TVA would 

complete construction of either the 

B&W designed Unit 1 or Unit 2. Units 

1 and 2 are approximately 55 percent 

and 35 percent complete, respectively. 

However, all major plant structures, 

including the plant cooling towers and 

the reactor, auxiliary, control, turbine, 

office, and service buildings have been 

completed and remain intact for both 

units. New construction would consist 

of support buildings, laydown areas and 

parking, minor offices, warehouses, 

security upgrades, and auxiliary 

buildings within the previously 

disturbed plant footprint. The majority 

of completion activities would take 

place inside existing buildings. Existing 

plant systems, facilities, and operational 

components continue to be evaluated to 

better determine their need for 

replacement or refurbishment under 

NRC guidelines. Major construction 

activities would not be required to 

complete either unit. 

In addition to this final SEIS, TVA has 

completed a detailed scoping, 

estimating, and planning (DSEP) study 

for Units 1 and 2 to develop a licensing 

strategy, determine the material 

condition of Units 1 and 2, define the 

schedule and cost for completion and 

startup, and assess project risk. The 

DSEP determined that seismic Category 

1 structures (e.g., safety-related 

structures designed and built to 

withstand the maximum potential 

regional earthquake stresses) for Units 1 

and 2 are intact and require only minor 

maintenance to meet current 

requirements. 

Under Alternative C, TVA would 

construct and operate a single 1,100- 

MW AP1000 advanced passive 

pressurized light water reactor at the 

Bellefonte site, designated Unit 3. New 

construction would consist of the power 

block composed of five principal 

structures: Nuclear island 

(containments, shield and auxiliary 

buildings), diesel generator, turbine, 

annex buildings, and radwaste 

buildings. The AP1000 would use the 

existing natural draft cooling towers, 

water intake channel and pumping 

station, blowdown discharge structure, 

transmission lines and switchyards, and 

several other supporting facilities. 

Construction of the new power block 

would entail blasting, excavation, and 

grading of previously disturbed ground 

and the clearing of 50 acres of forest 

within the original site footprint. As a 

modular design, half of the major 

components would be constructed 

elsewhere, then transported and 

assembled at the Bellefonte site. Natural 

features of the site would be preserved 

as much as possible, and landscaping 

would be designed to help visually 

blend the buildings with the 

surroundings. The existing turbine and 

office and service buildings would be 

removed. 

The transmission system for Units 1 

and 2 was completed in the 1980s. 

Much of this system, except two pairs 

of 500-kilovolt (kV) lines connecting the 

plant site to the TVA system and the 

associated switchyard, has been in use 

since that time. Based on an 

interconnection system impact study 

conducted in 2009, TVA determined 

that no new transmission lines would be 

needed for either Action Alternative. 

However, due to routine system growth, 

some transmission upgrades would be 

needed to accommodate the delivery of 

power produced by a single nuclear unit 

on the Bellefonte site. 

Two transmission alternatives were 

considered, Action and No Action. 

Under the No Action transmission 

alternative, current line operation and 

maintenance activity would be 

continued, but the existing transmission 

system could not support operation of a 

nuclear unit at the Bellefonte site. 

Under the Action Alternative, TVA 

would refurbish and reenergize the 500- 

kV switchyard and the two pairs of 

connecting 500-kV transmission lines. 

Additionally, approximately 100 miles 

of existing transmission lines would be 

uprated (i.e., retensioned), and 121 

miles of line would be reconductored 

(i.e., lines would be upgraded to a 

higher carrying capacity). The affected 

lines include nine transmission lines in 

Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia. All 

work would occur in existing rights-ofway. 

Other energy alternatives and sites 

were also considered in the final SEIS. 

TVA considered whether power needs 

could be met using power purchases, 

repowering of electrical generation 

plants, energy conservation, fossil fuel 

energy sources, and renewable energy 

resources including wind, solar, 

biomass, and hydropower. All of these 

energy resources have a place in TVA’s 

plans for providing affordable, reliable 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 54963 

power in the future. However, TVA’s 

need for power analysis indicates that 

even with substantial energy 

replacement through conservation 

measures, TVA must still add new base 

load generation to balance resources 

with the projected load requirements. 

Neither coal-fired nor natural gas-fired 

power was found to be environmentally 

preferable to nuclear power, and 

renewable energy sources were not 

found sufficient to meet power needs in 

the required timeframe. 

The 2008 COLA ER updated 

information about potential alternative 

sites. No obviously superior alternatives 

to the Bellefonte site were found among 

five candidate sites. 

Need for Power 

To provide the most up-to-date 

information, TVA adjusted the need for 

power analysis between the draft SEIS 

and final SEIS. Adjustments include 

updates to reserve requirements, 

forecasted hydropower production, fuel 

and emissions’ allowance prices, and 

the load forecast. New power purchase 

agreements for wind energy were taken 

into account, as were anticipated layups 

of some amount of coal-fired generation 

by 2015. Plans for TVA’s Energy 

Efficiency and Demand Response 

(EEDR) program were also updated. 

Since 1990, TVA’s net system 

requirements have grown at an average 

rate of 2.3 percent. The current mediumload (or expected) forecast shows a 1.3 

percent average annual growth from 

2010 through 2030. The high forecast 

projects load growth of only 2.0 percent, 

and the low forecast projects 0.3 

percent. The final SEIS analysis shows 

overall needs increase approximately 

7,500 MW in capacity by 2019 in the 

medium-load case, based in part on the 

projected decrease in generation from 

existing coal-fired units. TVA 

anticipates using a mix of resources, 

including EEDR programs, renewable 

resources, natural gas-fired generation, 

and nuclear generation to provide the 

additional future needs. In TVA’s basecase analysis, the EEDR portion of total 

energy capacity increases from 1 percent 

in 2010 to 6 percent in 2019. Renewable 

resources decrease slightly, from 15 

percent in 2010 to 14 percent in 2019, 

because the forecasted peak load also 

grows. 

Environmental Consequences 

The environmental consequences of 

constructing and operating Bellefonte 

Units 1 and 2 were addressed 

comprehensively in the 1974 FES. 

Subsequent environmental reviews by 

TVA and NRC have updated that 

analysis. By 1988, when construction of 

Units 1 and 2 was halted, most of the 

construction effects had already 

occurred. Completing either of these 

units would use structures that already 

exist, and most of the work required for 

completion would occur inside of those 

buildings. Land disturbances proposed 

for the construction of new support 

facilities would be within the current 

plant footprint. 

The environmental effects of 

constructing and operating two AP1000 

units were addressed in the 2008 COLA 

ER. This final SEIS updates and 

supplements information provided in 

that COLA ER. Although more site 

preparation and construction would be 

necessary under Alternative C, this 

would be offset by the somewhat 

simpler design and modern modular 

construction techniques used to 

construct the AP1000 unit. As a result, 

the construction duration and site 

construction labor force for an AP1000 

unit is comparable to the estimated 

duration and labor requirements for 

Alternative B. 

This final SEIS updates analyses of 

the following resources that could be 

effected construction and operation of a 

nuclear unit: Surface water and 

groundwater, floodplain/flood risk, 

wetlands, aquatic ecology, terrestrial 

ecology, endangered and threatened 

species, natural areas, recreation, 

archaeological resources and historic 

structures, visual, noise, 

socioeconomics and environmental 

justice, solid and hazardous waste, 

seismology, climatology, meteorology, 

air quality, global climate change, 

radiological effects of normal 

operations, uranium fuel use effects, 

nuclear plant safety, and security and 

plant decommissioning. 

Ignoring the impacts from 

constructing alternative base load 

generation, virtually no impacts would 

result at the Bellefonte site from 

implementation of the No Action 

Alternative. Most of the impacts that 

would occur under the two Action 

Alternatives would be minor to 

moderate. Thermal water effects from 

plant operations would be similar, 

although impacts from operation of an 

AP1000 unit would be slightly less than 

impacts from a B&W unit due to the 

smaller amount of water withdrawal 

and blowdown discharge. However, a 

B&W unit would consume a smaller 

amount of the water withdrawn than an 

AP1000 unit. Under either Action 

Alternative, derates are possible during 

periods of excessive heat and drought. 

Alternative B would require the removal 

of about 10 percent more material from 

the intake channel than Alternative C, 

and dredging from the main river 

channel is not required for Alternative 

C. Impacts from the intake dredges 

would be minor. Dredging of the barge 

unloading area for an AP1000 unit and 

towing of barges during construction for 

either alternative could impact the 

endangered pink mucket pearlymussel 

(hereafter referred to as pink mucket). 

Plant operations under Alternative B or 

C could also impact the pink mucket. 

Under Alternative C, 50 acres of forest 

and native grassland, including 12 acres 

of wetlands, would be lost. For both 

Action Alternatives, one archaeological 

site outside the site footprint would be 

marked to ensure avoidance. There 

could be temporary periods of moderate 

noise impacts during construction for 

both Action Alternatives. Some minor to 

moderate socioeconomic impacts are 

expected, primarily during construction, 

for either Action Alternative including 

housing availability, demand for 

schools, and increased traffic. No 

disproportionate impacts to low-income 

or minority populations are expected. 

The final SEIS also considered the 

environmental consequences of the 

proposed transmission system 

improvements on surface water and 

groundwater, aquatic and terrestrial 

ecology, threatened and endangered 

species, wetlands, floodplains, natural 

and recreation areas, land use, visual 

and archaeological resources and 

historic structures, socioeconomics and 

environmental justice, as well as 

operational impacts such as electric and 

magnetic fields and lightning strike 

hazard. Direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts on these resources from the 

transmission Action Alternative would 

be none to minor with the use of 

standard TVA right-of-way vegetation 

management guidelines and 

environmental quality protection 

specifications for transmission line 

construction. 

During the course of the SEIS 

preparation, TVA consulted with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

and the State Historic Preservation 

Officers (SHPOs) in Alabama, 

Tennessee, and Georgia, as well as 

interested tribes. On January 21, 2010, 

USFWS concluded that only the pink 

mucket could be affected by the 

proposed nuclear plant construction 

and operation. In a biological opinion 

issued April 15, 2010, USFWS issued an 

incidental take permit for the pink 

mucket under either Action Alternative. 

TVA committed to providing $30,000 to 

be used for research and recovery of the 

pink mucket should either of the Action 

Alternatives be selected. 

In a September 9, 2009, letter, the 

Alabama SHPO concurred with TVA’s 

finding of no effects on historic 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

54964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 

properties associated with construction 

and operation of a nuclear unit on the 

Bellefonte site. TVA completed a 

memorandum of agreement (MOA) with 

the Georgia SHPO on April 28, 2010, 

and with the Alabama SHPO on June 1, 

2010, for the treatment of potential 

impacts to historic properties from 

transmission system improvements on 

existing rights-of-way. Instead of 

entering into an MOA, in a May 20, 

2010, letter, the Tennessee SHPO 

requested TVA follow procedures to 

conduct a phased identification and 

evaluation of historic properties 

pursuant to 36 CFR Part 900.4(b)(2). 

Comments on the Final SEIS 

TVA received comments on the final 

SEIS from 11 persons or entities, 

including letters from four individuals, 

five citizen groups, the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation Water Supply (TDEC 

Water Supply), and the USEPA. 

Three of the four individuals 

expressed support for the project and 

interest in jobs at the plant site. One 

agreed that a plant was needed but 

expressed concern that spent fuel and 

radwaste storage issues should be 

addressed. The citizen groups included 

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, 

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense 

League and its local affiliate Mothers 

Against Tennessee River Radiation/ 

Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability 

Team, Citizen’s Task Force, and Citizens 

to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee. 

These groups preferred the No Action 

Alternative due to their perception of 

the high cost and safety risks associated 

with nuclear power, along with 

perceived uncertainties about fuel 

availability and spent fuel storage. They 

preferred that TVA implement an 

aggressive program to reduce demand 

for electricity by promoting EEDR 

programs as well as increasing 

renewable energy capacity. These 

organizations also commented on TVA’s 

power forecast, completing the IRP 

before making this decision, the 

viability of both technologies under 

consideration, flooding, earthquakes, 

and climate change. No new issues were 

raised in these comments, and similar 

comments were addressed in the final 

SEIS. 

TDEC Water Supply’s comments 

focused on source water protection, 

including water wells and underground 

injection control, during the proposed 

transmission improvements. Currently, 

no new right-of-way is planned, and 

TVA has no plans to fill sinkholes or 

disturb wells. However, TVA will 

consider TDEC’s guidance in planning 

these improvements. 

USEPA reiterated its preference for 

Alternative C, commenting that an 

AP1000 unit would operate more 

efficiently and be safer due to the use of 

passive safety features. USEPA 

expressed concern about the age of the 

partially completed B&W plant and the 

cost effectiveness of completing one of 

the B&W units versus new construction 

over the life of the plant. However, 

USEPA also gave deference to the NRC 

licensing process regarding the 

identification of the appropriate reactor 

technology for the site. TVA was 

commended for pursuing energy 

technology options that would reduce 

air emissions. 

In response to USEPA’s comment on 

environmental justice, TVA has 

examined U.S. Census data for 

neighboring block groups. TVA found 

that seven block groups surround the 

Bellefonte site block group. Of these, 

five block groups had minority 

populations greater than the county 

average, but well below the state and 

national averages. These groups are not 

expected to be disproportionately 

affected by construction and operation 

of a nuclear plant. The in-depth analysis 

of the impacts on low-income or 

minority populations conducted in 

2008, referenced in the final SEIS, 

includes information regarding specific 

outreach strategies used for data 

collection in the COLA ER. The final 

SEIS acknowledges the need to provide 

ongoing outreach to all affected 

populations. The final SEIS also 

acknowledges the potential for housing 

issues related to the construction 

workforce and the need for mitigation. 

TVA has undertaken an in-depth 

housing study to better identify the 

extent and location of housing impacts 

and to develop a strategy for addressing 

those concerns. This study, to be 

completed in fall 2010, will be available 

for consideration when TVA makes its 

final decision about plant construction. 

Any additional mitigation that might be 

identified because of the housing study 

will be incorporated into a second ROD 

described below. Material was added to 

the final SEIS stating what actions TVA 

would take under both Alternatives B 

and C to prevent and monitor tritium 

leaks to groundwater, based on industry 

and NRC guidance. USEPA also asked 

whether TVA planned to fill wetlands 

on the rights-of-way for the transmission 

system serving the site. TVA has no 

plans to fill wetlands in existing rightsof-way. Final SEIS Table E–3 includes 

information requested by USEPA 

regarding a comparison of effluent 

temperatures for the B&W and AP1000 

units. The effluent temperature from a 

B&W unit would be the same as for an 

AP1000 unit, and no adverse thermal 

effects are expected beyond the mixing 

zone. 

Decision 

TVA has chosen a phased decisionmaking approach for the Bellefonte 

project. As stated in the final SEIS, 

TVA’s preferred alternative is 

completion and operation of Bellefonte 

Unit 1. On August 20, 2010, the TVA 

Board approved a budget allocation of 

$248 million in support of continued 

engineering, design, and regulatorybasis development, as well as the 

procurement of long-lead components 

such as steam generators for Unit 1 in 

order to preserve the completion option 

on a timely basis. This will help ensure 

that Unit 1 continues to be a viable 

alternative for meeting base load power 

needs in the 2018–2020 time frame. 

Based on the results of TVA’s new IRP, 

scheduled to be completed in spring 

2011, the TVA Board will be asked to 

approve the completion and operation 

of Unit 1. TVA will issue a second ROD 

to document that decision. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, 

TVA would continue to maintain the 

construction permits for Bellefonte 

Units 1 and 2 in deferred status. There 

would be little change to the Bellefonte 

site and minimal direct environmental 

impacts. Under this alternative, TVA 

would have to pursue other means of 

meeting the need for power. Although 

energy conservation is expected to 

substantially reduce future demand 

growth on the TVA system, TVA’s 

analyses indicate that it would still need 

more base load generation. Because 

Bellefonte Unit 1 has been partially 

constructed and any major disturbance 

of the Bellefonte site has already 

occurred, constructing a new base load 

plant would likely result in greater 

environmental impacts than completing 

and operating Unit 1. 

The environmental impacts of the two 

Action Alternatives are very similar. 

The B&W unit (Alternative B) would 

withdraw more water from the reservoir 

than would the AP1000 plant 

(Alternative C), but due to increased 

evaporative losses, the AP1000 would 

consume more water. Under both 

Action Alternatives, the proportion of 

average river flow withdrawn and 

discharged is very small, and impacts 

from thermal discharges and on water 

supply are similar and minor. Slightly 

more dredging of the reservoir would be 

required for the B&W unit, but dredging 

for the AP1000 unit at the barge 

unloading dock could impact the pink 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 54965 

mucket mussel. Operation of either 

facility could impact the pink mucket in 

the mixing zone. 

Overall, potential impacts to water 

quality and aquatic ecology of 

Alternative B are slightly higher than 

Alternative C, but both would be 

insignificant. Because part of the 

Alternative C facility would be 

constructed on a mostly forested site, it 

would result in greater impacts to 

wildlife, vegetation, and wetlands. 

Neither Action Alternative would 

clearly result in lower socioeconomic 

impacts. While both alternatives would 

employ the same number of 

construction workers, the construction 

period for the AP1000 unit would be 

about 30 percent longer. The AP1000, 

however, would require about 20 

percent fewer employees to operate the 

plant. More solid waste would be 

produced during AP1000 construction, 

while the B&W construction would 

produce more hazardous waste. The 

B&W unit would generate about 5 

percent more spent fuel during its 

operating lifetime. However, when 

standardized by the amount of energy 

generated, spent fuel generation is 

similar. The amount of radioactive 

waste produced by each reactor type 

would also be similar when 

standardized by the amount of energy 

generated. The safety effects of the two 

reactor types are not materially 

different. 

Based on this comparison, TVA has 

determined that neither Action 

Alternative would be environmentally 

preferable to the other. However, either 

Action Alternative likely would be 

environmentally preferable to the No 

Action Alternative, assuming TVA has 

to build new base load generation. 

Mitigation Measures 

Recommencement of construction 

activities on the Bellefonte site would 

not occur until the TVA Board 

authorizes construction and TVA 

formally notifies NRC of its intent to 

reactivate construction. The preliminary 

activities authorized by the TVA Board 

on August 20 do not have the potential 

environmental impacts from 

constructing and operating a nuclear 

unit at the Bellefonte site that were 

identified in the final SEIS. 

Accordingly, no actions are necessary at 

this time to mitigate potential 

environmental impacts. 

Dated: August 26, 2010. 

Ashok S. Bhatnagar, 

Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation 

Development and Construction. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22413 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8120–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

[OMB Control No. 2900–0111] 

Proposed Information Collection 

(Statement of Purchaser or Owner 

Assuming Seller’s Loans, VA Form 26– 

6382) Activity: Comment Request 

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA), Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

proposed collection of certain 

information by the agency. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995, Federal agencies are required to 

publish notice in the Federal Register 

concerning each proposed collection of 

information, including each proposed 

extension of a currently approved 

collection, and allow 60 days for public 

comment in response to the notice. This 

notice solicits comments for information 

needed to determine release of liability 

and substitution of entitlement of 

veterans-sellers to the government on 

guaranteed, insured and direct loans. 

DATES: Written comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

collection of information should be 

received on or before November 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

on the collection of information through 

the Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov 

or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans 

Benefits Administration (20M35), 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20420 or e-mail 

nancy.kessinger@va.gov. Please refer to 

‘‘OMB Control No. 2900–0111’’ in any 

correspondence. During the comment 

period, comments may be viewed online 

through FDMS. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 461–9769 or 

FAX (202) 275–5947. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3521), Federal agencies must 

obtain approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget for each 

collection of information they conduct 

or sponsor. This request for comment is 

being made pursuant to Section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect 

to the following collection of 

information, VBA invites comments on: 

(1) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of VBA’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

VBA’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or the use of other forms of information 

technology. 

Title: Statement of Purchaser or 

Owner Assuming Seller’s Loans, VA 

Form 26–6382. 

OMB Control Number: 2900–0111. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Abstract: VA Form 26–6382 is 

completed by purchasers who are 

assuming veterans’ guaranteed, insured, 

and direct home loans. The information 

collected is essential in the 

determinations for release of liability as 

well as for credit underwriting 

determinations for substitution of 

entitlement. If a veteran chooses to sell 

his or her VA guaranteed home, VA will 

allow a qualified purchaser to assume 

the veteran’s loan and all the 

responsibility under the guaranty or 

insurance. In regard to substitution of 

entitlement cases, eligible veteran 

purchasers must meet all requirements 

of liability in addition to having 

available loan guaranty entitlement. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 250 hours. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Respondent: 15 minutes. 

Frequency of Response: One-time. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,000. 

Dated: September 3, 2010. 

By direction of the Secretary. 

Denise McLamb, 

Program Analyst, Enterprise Records Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22435 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

[OMB Control No. 2900–New (VA Form 10– 

0488)] 

Proposed Information Collection 

(Follow-Up Study of a National Cohort 

of Gulf War and Gulf Era Veterans) 

Activity: Comment Request 

AGENCY: Veterans Health 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Veterans Health 

Administration (VHA), Department of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES