[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37094-37095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18004]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-390 (10 CFR 2.206)]


Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant); Final 
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

    On February 14, 1996, Ms. Faith Young (Petitioner) of Dixon 
Springs, Tennessee, submitted a letter requesting that the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC), among other things, rescind the operating 
license of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBNP). The Petitioner's concern, as 
stated in her February 14 letter, is as follows:

    Watts Bar lake water which cools Watts Bar nuclear plant's 
radioactive core holds sediment contaminated by radioactive 
material. Over a lifetime of Watts Bar nuclear plant operation 
uncontrolled access to this lake will disturb its sediment, in turn 
contaminating water drawn into the nuclear cooling system. This 
heightened radioactive contamination of nuclear plant emission has 
not been previously addressed. No action is being considered to 
restrict lake use or to remove radioactive material. This ``record 
of decision'' by Department of Energy, Environmental Protection 
Agency, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, state of Tennessee and 
Tennessee Valley Authority appears in an interagency document dated 
September, 1995.

Since the document referred to by Ms. Young (``Record of Decision for 
the Lower Watts Bar Reservoir,'' DOE/OR/02-1373&D3, dated September 
1995, hereinafter, the ``Department of Energy (DOE) report'') clearly 
addresses Lower Watts Bar Reservoir (LWBR), the staff has assumed, for 
purposes of this Decision, that the ``Watts Bar lake'' in Ms. Young's 
letter refers to the Lower Watts Bar Reservoir. On March 27, 1996, the 
staff formally notified Ms. Young that her Petition was being evaluated 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.

II. Discussion

    The DOE report presents the selected remedial action being used to 
address the contamination of the LWBR ``Operable Unit (OU).'' The 
report attributes LWBR contamination to past activities at the DOE's 
Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) and other non-DOE sources. The boundaries 
of the LWBR, as defined in the DOE report, extend from the Watts Bar 
Dam at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 529.9 on the Tennessee River, 
upstream to TRM 567.5 at the confluence of the Clinch and Tennessee 
Rivers. The DOE report, on page 2-2, discusses the selection of the 
Watts Bar Dam as the downstream boundary as follows:

    The downstream boundary of the ORR was placed at Watts Bar Dam 
because earlier studies had shown that the vast majority of 
sediment-associated contaminants released from ORR had collected in 
lower Watts Bar Reservoir. Consequently, concentrations of sediment-
associated contaminants released from ORR are much lower in 
reservoirs downstream of Watts Bar Dam. The level of Oak Ridge-
derived contaminants detected in past studies in the Tennessee River 
system below the Watts Bar Dam were well below the concentrations 
determined to be of human health concerns by the baseline risk 
assessment within the Watts Bar Reservoir.

    WBNP is located approximately 1.9 river miles downstream from the 
Watts Bar Dam on the west bank of the Chickamauga Lake. Chickamauga 
Lake is the next lake downstream from the LWBR and is bounded by the 
Chickamauga Dam approximately 57 miles downstream from WBNP. The intake 
and discharge for cooling water to WBNP are located 1.9 or more river 
miles downstream from the Watts Bar Dam. Accordingly, it must be noted 
that WBNP is located outside and below the boundary of the area 
considered by the DOE report. Therefore, since WBNP does not draw 
cooling water from within the boundary of the LWBR and does not 
discharge cooling water into the boundary of the LWBR, the operation of 
WBNP will have no effect on the sediment in the LWBR and, accordingly, 
will not cause contaminated sediment to be drawn into WBNP.
    The Petitioner's understanding that the LWBR holds sediment 
contaminated by radioactive material is consistent with the DOE report 
(see page 2-2) and with information in the NRC staff's ``Final 
Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2,'' (FES) NUREG-0498, Supplement 1, Section 2.5, 
April 1995. The NRC staff stated therein that ``Operations at the Oak 
Ridge Reservation have historically resulted in the release of 
radionuclides to the aquatic environment * * *. Most of the releases 
occurred during the 1950s and have declined since.'' The NRC staff 
concluded in the FES, Supplement 1, that there are no significant 
changes in environmental impacts as a result of changes in plant 
design, procedures or proposed methods of plant operation, or changes 
in the environment.
    By contrast, the Petitioner's claim that ``no action is being 
considered to restrict lake use or to remove radioactive material'' is 
not consistent with the DOE report. The DOE report's ``Statement of 
Basis and Purpose'' (page 2-2) states that the report ``presents the 
selected remedial action for the LWBR OU.'' The ``Description of 
Selected Remedy'' (page 2-2) and ``The Selected Remedy'' (page 2-10) 
describe the selected remedy as

[[Page 37095]]

the ``continuance of existing controls and advisories regarding LWBR 
activities'' and the ``Monitoring Plan.'' The DOE report (page 2-9) 
also notes that ``The state of Tennessee and other federal agencies are 
already implementing the main components of the preferred 
alternative.'' With respect to the removal of radioactive sediments, 
the DOE report (page 2-9) states that ``The cost of the preferred 
alternative is much lower and a more effective use of funds when 
compared to active remediation of sediments.'' In other words, a remedy 
has been developed for the contamination in the LWBR and the purpose of 
the DOE report is to present that remedy.
    Notwithstanding the conclusion that operation of WBNP will not 
disturb the sediment in the upstream LWBR, the WBNP Technical 
Specifications (TS) and the associated Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 
require programs and controls for the control of radioactive effluents 
from the plant itself. Such controls include limitations on the 
concentrations of radioactive material released in liquid effluents 
from the plant. The staff evaluated control of radioactive effluents by 
WBNP in Section 11 of NUREG-0847, ``Safety Evaluation Report related to 
the operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.'' The staff 
concluded therein that WBNP meets applicable regulations (10 CFR 
20.1302; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 60, 63, 
and 64) and other guidance documents and is therefore acceptable for 
operation.
    The NRC staff's review did not substantiate the Petitioner's 
assertions. The Petitioner did not offer information that indicated any 
need to revisit the staff's previous evaluations.

III. Conclusion

    For the reasons given above, Petitioner's request to rescind the 
operating license of the WBNP is denied. As explained above, the NRC 
staff concludes that the Petitioner has not raised any substantial 
health and safety issues as the staff believes that there is no 
appreciable threat to the public health and safety presented by WBNP's 
effluent water. Accordingly, the Petitioner's request for action 
pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, as specifically stated in the letter of 
February 14, 1996, is denied.
    A copy of this Final Director's Decision will be filed with the 
Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.206(c). This Decision will become the final action of the 
Commission 25 days after issuance unless the Commission, on its own 
motion, institutes review of the Decision within that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of July 1996.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-18004 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P