[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27612]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 8, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-390]

 

Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an extension of the latest construction 
completion date specified in Construction Permit No. CPPR-91 issued to 
Tennessee Valley Authority (permittee) for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 
(WBN), Unit 1. The facility is located at the permittee's site on the 
west bank of the Tennessee River approximately 50 miles northeast of 
Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would extend the latest construction completion 
date of Construction Permit No. CPPR-91 from December 31, 1994, to 
December 31, 1995. The proposed action is in response to the 
permittee's request dated September 19, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed because the construction and 
modification of the facility is not yet fully completed. Following 
completion of hot functional testing, the permittee conducted an 
extensive review of the remaining scope of work required to complete 
the unit. The resulting detailed completion plan indicates fuel load 
for the unit will occur in the spring of 1995. The requested extension 
period includes contingency in case any adjustments to the schedule are 
needed.
    The delays associated with the above efforts to ensure that WBN 
meets regulatory requirements and licensing commitments make it 
necessary for the permittee to request an extension of the expiration 
date for Construction Permit No. CPPR-91 until December 31, 1995.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The environmental impacts associated with the construction of the 
facility have been previously discussed and evaluated in the staff's 
Final Environmental Statement (FES) issued on November 9, 1972 for the 
construction permit stage which covered construction of both units. The 
FES issued in December 1978 for the operating license stage addressed 
the environmental impacts of construction activities not addressed 
previously. The activities included: (1) construction of the new 
transmission route for the Watts Bar--Volunteer 500 kV line, (2) 
construction of the settling pond for siltation control for 
construction runoff at a different location from that originally 
proposed in the Final Environmental Statement--Construction Permit 
(FES-CP), (3) the relocation of the blowdown diffuser from the 
originally proposed site indicated in the FES-CP. The staff addressed 
the terrestrial and aquatic environmental impacts in the Final 
Environmental Statement--Operating license (FES-OL) and concluded that 
the assessment presented in the FES-CP remains valid. The staff is 
currently reviewing updated environmental information and plans to 
issue findings in a supplement to the FES-OL in early 1995. The 
construction of Unit 1 is essentially 100 percent complete; therefore, 
most of the construction impacts discussed in the FES have already 
occurred.
    Since this action would only extend the period of construction, it 
does not involve impacts different from those described and analyzed in 
the original environmental impact statement. The proposed extension 
will not allow any work to be performed that is not already allowed by 
the existing construction permit. The extension will merely grant the 
permittee more time to complete construction and modification in 
accordance with the previously approved construction permit. The 
activities related to the various corrective activities will result in 
additional workforce, being primarily engineering and technical 
personnel rather than construction personnel. At the present time, this 
workforce is basically dedicated to the completion of Unit 1. This 
previously increased workforce is declining as the corrective 
activities are completed and the unit approaches fuel loading. A large 
percentage of the additional workforce is contractors and consultants 
who do not live in the area and use only temporary quarters. While the 
current workforce level has caused a temporary, increased demand for 
services in the community and increased traffic on local roads, there 
are no major impacts due to the arrival of workers' families and 
demands for services necessary to support permanent residents (for 
example, housing and schools).
    Based on the foregoing, the NRC staff has concluded that the 
proposed action would have no significant environmental impact. Since 
this action would only extend the period of construction activities 
described in the FES, it does not involve any different impacts or a 
significant change to those impacts described and analyzed in the 
original environmental impact statement. Consequently, an environmental 
impact statement addressing the proposed action is not required.

Alternatives Considered

    A possible alternative to the proposed action would be to deny the 
request. Under this alternative, the permittee would not be able to 
complete construction of the facility. This would result in denial of 
the benefit of power production. This option would not eliminate the 
environmental impacts of construction already incurred.
    If construction were halted and not completed, site redress 
activities would restore some small areas to their natural states. This 
would be a slight environmental benefit, but much outweighed by the 
economic losses from denial of use of a facility that is nearly 
completed. Therefore, this alternative is rejected.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of resources not previously 
considered in the FES for Watts Bar.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff reviewed the permittee's request and applicable 
documents referenced therein that support this extension. The NRC did 
not consult other agencies or persons.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental 
impact statement for this action. Based upon the environmental 
assessment, the staff concludes that this action will not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
    For details with respect to this action, see the request for 
extension dated September 19, 1994, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., 
Washington, D.C. and at the Local Public Document Room, Chattanooga-
Hamilton County Library, 1001 Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 
37402.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 31st day of October 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frederick J. Hebdon,
Director, Project Directorate II-4, Division of Reactor Projects I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-27612 Filed 11-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M