[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43268-43272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21285]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-390]


Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1; 
Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, has taken action with regard to a Petition for action under 
10 CFR 2.206 received from Ms. Jane A. Fleming (Petitioner), dated 
January 25, 1996, with regard to the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 
(Watts Bar).
    The Petitioner requested the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) implement a full and impartial review

[[Page 43269]]

of the entire licensing process for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or Licensee), examining 
both the implementation of the review procedures used by the NRC staff 
and the validity of the information presented by TVA. The Petitioner 
requested that the Chairman suspend or revoke the low-power operating 
license for Watts Bar until such a review is satisfactorily completed 
and the issues in dispute are resolved.
    The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has 
determined to deny the Petition. The reasons for this decision are 
explained in the enclosed ``Director Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 
2.206,'' (DD-96-11) the complete text of which follows this notice and 
is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C., and at 
the Local Public Document Room for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1, 
located at Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001 Broad Street, 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402.
    A copy of this Decision has been filed with the Secretary of the 
Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 
2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. As provided by this 
regulation, this Decision will constitute the final action of the 
Commission 25 days after the date of issuance unless the Commission, on 
its own motion, institutes review of the Decision within that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William T. Russell,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

    By a letter dated January 25, 1996, to NRC Chairman Jackson, Ms. 
Jane Fleming (Petitioner) requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) take action with regard to the Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 1 (Watts Bar), operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority 
(TVA or Licensee). Specifically, Petitioner requested that a full and 
impartial review of the entire Watts Bar licensing process be 
conducted, examining the review procedures used by NRC and the validity 
of the information presented by TVA, and that the low-power license for 
Watts Bar be suspended or revoked until such review is completed and 
the issues in dispute are resolved. Petitioner also suggested that, if 
the Chairman did not choose to initiate her own review, the letter be 
considered under Sec. 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR 2.206). Petitioner supplemented the January 25, 
1996, letter with another letter dated January 30, 1996, to Chairman 
Jackson.
    The Commission referred the letters to me for treatment as a 
Petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
     The Petitioner asserted that the NRC staff was not fully aware of 
TVA's license commitments and adherence to these commitments when it 
issued a low-power license to TVA on November 9, 1995. Specifically, 
Petitioner asserted that a letter from Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional 
Administrator, NRC Region II, to Oliver Kingsley, TVA, dated January 
12, 1996, stated that there were open issues regarding the radiation 
monitoring system for Watts Bar when TVA requested an operating 
license. Petitioner asserted that this raised a question about the 
conclusion drawn by the NRC staff in Supplement 16 to the Watts Bar 
Safety Evaluation Report (SSER 16) 1 issued in September 1995 that 
the system meets the acceptance criteria of the Standard Review Plan 
2 and is, therefore, acceptable. Petitioner also asserted that the 
NRC staff, in its licensing review, was not aware of the criteria 
applicable to the licensing of Watts Bar. The specific bases for these 
assertions involved the design, installation and testing of the 
radiation monitors at Watts Bar. The Petitioner also briefly refers to 
concerns associated with microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC) and 
security, as well as a concern that the large number of deviations 
described in the SER supplements documenting the NRC licensing review 
of Watts Bar presents questions about the current state of TVA's 
compliance with NRC requirements. In her January 30th letter, 
Petitioner listed the deviations from SSERs 15,3 16, and 18.4 
These deviations are associated with radiation monitors, other 
instruments, and fire protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Supplement 16, Safety Evaluation Report related to the 
operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-
390 and 50-391), September 1995. NUREG-0847.
    \2\ Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis 
Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition, July 1981. NUREG-0800 
(formerly issued as NUREG-75/087).
    \3\ Supplement 15, Safety Evaluation Report related to the 
operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-
390 and 50-391), June 1995. NUREG-0847.
    \4\ Supplement 18, Safety Evaluation Report related to the 
operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-
390 and 50-391), October 1995. NUREG-0847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the basis of these assertions, Petitioner sought a full review 
of the entire Watts Bar licensing process, and suspension or revocation 
of the Watts Bar license until the review is completed.
    By letter dated February 7, 1996, I acknowledged receipt of the 
Petition, and denied Petitioner's request for immediate suspension or 
revocation of the low-power license. By letter dated March 7, 1996, the 
NRC staff informed Petitioner that the full-power license for Watts Bar 
was issued on February 7, 1996. The full-power license superseded the 
low-power license which Petitioner requested be suspended or revoked. 
However, the NRC staff indicated that it would continue its review of 
the Petition and would take whatever action would be appropriate, 
including suspension or revocation of the full-power license, if 
warranted. The NRC staff also advised Petitioner that the information 
previously provided with respect to the issues on MIC and security was 
insufficient to permit evaluation and that additional information would 
be needed to enable these matters to be considered pursuant to 10 CFR 
2.206. Petitioner has not provided any additional information on these 
issues so these issues will not be further considered herein.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In her Petition, Petitioner noted that she had requested 
that the NRC's Office of Inspector General (IG) act as a vehicle 
regarding certain security issues. In late 1995, prior to submitting 
her Petition, Petitioner assisted the IG in pursuing security 
concerns. The IG forwarded information regarding the concerns to the 
NRC staff. The NRC staff evaluated the concerns in accordance with 
Management Directive 8.8, ``Management of Allegations'' and 
concluded that no NRC action was warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By letter dated April 3, 1996, the NRC staff informed Petitioner 
that the NRC did not intend to hold an informal public hearing 
regarding this Petition.
    By letter dated March 7, 1996, the NRC staff requested that TVA 
respond to the NRC, addressing points raised in the Petition. TVA 
responded by letter dated April 8, 1996.
    I have completed my evaluation of the Petition. As explained below, 
Petitioner has failed to provide a basis to warrant a review of the 
Watts Bar licensing process and has failed to raise any safety concerns 
that would warrant suspension or revocation of the operating license 
for Watts Bar. Thus, Petitioner's request is denied.

II. Background

    On September 27, 1976, TVA submitted an application for an 
operating license for Watts Bar, including a Final Safety Analysis 
Report (FSAR) which described the design,

[[Page 43270]]

construction, testing and operation of the plant. The NRC staff 
conducted an extensive review of TVA's application. The results of the 
review were documented in a Safety Evaluation Report 6 (SER). TVA 
subsequently submitted 90 amendments to the FSAR which the NRC staff 
reviewed. The NRC staff thereafter issued 20 supplements to the SER 
documenting the results of this review. In addition, the staff 
inspected various aspects of the design, construction, and testing of 
Watts Bar, and documented the results in inspection reports. On 
November 9, 1995, the NRC staff issued a low-power operating license 
for Watts Bar Unit 1, which allowed TVA to load fuel and operate the 
plant up to a maximum power level of 5 percent. On January 30, 1996, 
the NRC staff, and TVA attended the NRC Commission meeting to discuss 
TVA's readiness to operate Watts Bar Unit 1 up to rated power. The 
Commission subsequently authorized the NRC staff to issue a full-power 
operating license for Watts Bar Unit 1. The full-power license was 
issued on February 7, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Watts 
Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391), 
June 1982. NUREG-0847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toward the end of the Watts Bar licensing review and before the 
submittal of the Petition, the NRC staff had extensive contact with 
Petitioner concerning various issues associated with Watts Bar. By 
letters dated July 27, August 22, and December 20, 1995, Petitioner 
raised issues associated with Watts Bar, including public participation 
in the Watts Bar licensing process and decommissioning cost associated 
with Watts Bar. By letters dated August 17 and September 5, 1995, the 
NRC staff responded to various issues raised by her. In addition, the 
NRC staff conducted frequent conference calls with Petitioner to gain a 
better understanding of the issues of concern to her, and to explain 
the results of the NRC staff's ongoing assessment of these concerns.

III. Discussion

A. Open Inspection Issues
    Petitioner refers to a letter from Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional 
Administrator, NRC Region II to TVA dated November 3, 1995. 
Specifically, Petitioner cites the following language from that letter:

    The problems and schedules resulted in System 90 [the radiation 
monitoring system] being the last of the major systems to be 
completed and turned over to the operating staff and there were 
several issues still open when TVA submitted the letter to NRC 
requesting the operating license.

    Petitioner contends that the fact that Mr. Ebneter acknowledges 
open issues associated with the radiation monitoring system brings into 
question the conclusion by the NRC staff in SSER 16 that, ``the process 
and effluent radiological monitoring and sampling system for Watts Bar 
Unit 1 complies with 10 CFR 20.1302 and General Design Criteria (GDC) 
60, 63, and 64.''
    The NRC staff's evaluation of the process and effluent radiological 
monitoring and sampling system is described in Section 11.5 of SSER 16. 
The conclusion in SSER 16 addresses the system as described by TVA in 
the FSAR. The adequacy of implementation is reviewed by NRC inspectors, 
and the results are documented in inspection reports. This is generally 
an effort for which the NRC regional office has responsibility. As 
implementation proceeds, it is not uncommon for inspectors to identify 
open issues associated with implementation that must be addressed by a 
licensee. For example, there was an issue regarding training of TVA 
personnel on the operation of the radiation monitoring system at Watts 
Bar. This issue was identified as an open issue during an inspection in 
November 1995. TVA agreed to complete the training prior to initial 
criticality. The training was subsequently conducted, and the open 
issue was closed by the NRC in January 1996. Thus, the open issues 
referred to in Mr. Ebneter's letter dated November 3, 1995, are part of 
the normal NRC licensing process, and do not raise questions about the 
conclusions in SSER 16.
    In January 1996, the NRC conducted a special inspection of the 
radiation monitors at Watts Bar (see NRC Inspection Report 50-390/96-
01). The inspection focused on the technical issues raised by 
Petitioner. The inspection concluded that selected effluent monitors 
and post accident radiation monitors at Watts Bar had been calibrated 
and installed in accordance with the TVA's commitments, and the 
installation met NRC requirements.
    In SSER 16, the NRC staff concluded that design and testing 
requirements for the process and effluent radiological monitoring and 
sampling system for Watts Bar Unit 1 complied with 10 CFR 20.1302 and 
GDCs 60, 63, and 64. In addition, the staff conducted numerous 
inspections of the radiation monitoring system at Watts Bar. Open 
issues were identified and resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC 
staff before licensing, enabling the NRC staff to conclude that the 
installation and testing of the radiation monitoring system at Watts 
Bar met NRC requirements.
B. Regulatory Requirements and Licensee Commitments
    Petitioner contends that the NRC staff was not fully aware of TVA's 
commitments and TVA's adherence to those commitments when the NRC 
issued the low-power license for Watts Bar. Petitioner further asserts 
that the lack of understanding resulted from a lack of adherence to NRC 
procedures or ``misinformation'' provided by TVA, or a combination of 
both. Petitioner bases this assertion on NRC documents, including SSER 
16. Petitioner quotes the following from SSER 16:

    On the basis of its review, the staff concludes that the process 
and effluent radiological monitoring and sampling system for Watts 
Bar Unit 1 complies with 10 CFR 20.1302 and GDCs 60, 63, and 64. The 
staff also concludes that the system design conforms to the 
guidelines of NUREG-0737...Item II.F.1...RGs 1.21 and 4.15, and 
applicable guidelines of RG 1.97. Thus, the system meets the 
acceptance criteria of SRP Section 11.5 and is, therefore, 
acceptable.

    Petitioner contends that TVA did not implement specific guidelines 
in Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.15 7 and ANSI N13.10 8 at Watts 
Bar, and that there is no indication that the NRC staff approved 
deviations from these guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 1, Quality Assurance for 
Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal Operations)--Effluent 
Streams and the Environment, February 1979.
    \8\ ANSI N13.10-1974, Specification and Performance of On-Site 
Instrumentation for Continuously Monitoring Radioactivity in 
Effluents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RG 4.15 describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff for 
designing a program to assure the quality of the results of 
measurements of radioactive material in the effluents and environment 
outside of nuclear facilities during normal operation. ANSI N13.10 is 
an industry standard which provides guidance for instrumentation used 
to continuously monitor radioactive effluents.
    Petitioner also contends that RG 1.21 9 and ANSI N13.1 10 
have not been met at Watts Bar. RG 1.21 provides methods acceptable to 
the NRC staff for measuring and reporting radioactivity in effluents 
from nuclear power plants.

[[Page 43271]]

ANSI N13.1 is an industry standard which provides guidance for sampling 
airborne radioactivity in nuclear facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 1, Measuring, Evaluating, 
and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of 
Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents for Light-
Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants, June 1974.
    \10\ ANSI N13.1-1969, Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive 
Materials in Nuclear Facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements that must be met before a plant can be licensed 
are defined in NRC regulations, including the General Design Criteria 
in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. General Design Criteria (GDCs) 60, 63, 
and 64, address the radiation monitoring systems.
    Over the years, the NRC staff has prepared a number of guidance 
documents, such as Regulatory Guides, that describe methods which are 
acceptable to the staff for meeting the requirements in the 
regulations. However, except for a few Regulatory Guides that are 
specifically referenced in a regulation or referenced in or 
incorporated into a license, these documents do not constitute 
requirements. RG 4.15 contains the following statement:

    Regulatory Guides are issued to describe and make available to 
the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff of implementing 
specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate 
techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or 
postulated accidents, or to provide guidance to applicants. 
Regulatory Guides are not substitutes for regulations, and 
compliance with them is not required.

    In addition, the industry has developed many documents, such as 
ANSI Standards, in which methods are described for meeting certain 
requirements contained in the regulations. To varying degrees, the NRC 
staff has endorsed these documents as providing acceptable methods for 
meeting the regulations. But again, adherence to these guidance 
documents is not mandatory.
    As an applicant develops the design of a system such as the 
radiation monitoring system, it may chose to ``commit'' to one or more 
of these NRC or industry reference documents. If an applicant commits 
to a document, then it should satisfy the guidelines contained in the 
document or request authorization from the NRC staff for a 
``deviation.'' The NRC staff specifically approves or denies each 
deviation requested.
    However, an applicant may choose not to commit to a specific 
document, but may instead choose an alternative approach to meeting a 
regulatory requirement. When an applicant chooses to do this, the NRC 
staff must evaluate the alternative approach to determine if it meets 
the regulation. The design of each nuclear power plant, including 
commitments and alternative approaches, is described in the FSAR 
specific to each plant and prepared by the applicant, and submitted to 
the NRC for review.
    The NRC staff's review of an application is guided by the Standard 
Review Plan (NUREG-0800). However, like Regulatory Guides, the Standard 
Review Plan imposes no requirements. Each section of the Standard 
Review Plan contains the following statement, ``Standard review plans 
are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission's 
regulations and compliance with them is not required.''
    As the NRC staff reviews an application, the reviewer will often 
use the guidelines contained in a Regulatory Guide or ANSI standard as 
a measure of whether the application complies with the regulations. In 
such cases, the reviewer will often attempt to determine whether the 
application satisfies the intent of the guidelines in a Regulatory 
Guide or ANSI standard. This does not mean that the Regulatory Guide or 
ANSI standard becomes a requirement or a commitment, and it does not 
mean that the application must meet every guideline in the standard to 
be found acceptable.
    The radiation monitoring system at Watts Bar must comply with GDCs 
60, 63, and 64. In addition, TVA has committed to Regulatory Guides 
1.21, 1.68 (Revision 2),11 and 1.97 (Revision 2) 12 which 
address, at least in part, the radiation monitoring system.13 More 
importantly in the context of this Petition, TVA has specifically 
stated that it is not committed to RG 4.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Regulatory Guide 1.68, Revision 2, Initial Test Program for 
Water-Cooled Reactor Power Plants, August 1978.
    \12\ Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, Instrumentation for 
Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant Conditions 
During and Following an Accident, December 1980.
    \13\ Although Petitioner contends that TVA has not satisfied RG 
1.21 and ANSI N13.1, Petitioner provides no basis for this 
assertion. In fact, the NRC staff has determined that Watts Bar 
satisfies RG 1.21. TVA has not committed to meet ANSI N13.1 and 
there is no requirement that it do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner asserts that the statement in SSER 16 quoted above 
commits TVA to comply with RG 4.15. Petitioner further asserts that 
this assumed commitment requires that TVA also meet all of the 
guidelines contained in ANSI N13.10 because ANSI N13.10 is referenced 
in RG 4.15. Petitioner contends that, if any guideline in RG 4.15 or 
ANSI N13.10 is not met, TVA must submit a request for a deviation to 
the NRC staff for approval.
    These assertions are in error for the following two reasons.
    First, TVA has explicitly stated in a letter dated July 21, 1995 
(referenced on page 11-1 of SSER 16), that it is not committed to RG 
4.15, although TVA noted that Watts Bar ``generally agrees with and 
satisfies the intent of RG 4.15 * * *.'' Accordingly, the TVA 
application was not reviewed to assure adherence to RG 4.15. Rather, 
the application was reviewed to assure that regulatory requirements and 
guidance to which TVA did commit were satisfied. On page 11-28 of SSER 
16, the NRC staff states: ``The staff finds that the radiation 
monitoring system for Watts Bar Unit 1 meets the intent and purpose of 
RG 4.15, with respect to quality assurance provisions for the system.'' 
This statement in SSER 16 is an acknowledgement of and agreement with 
TVA's statement that Watts Bar generally meets the intent of RG 4.15. 
However, the NRC staff did not review Watts Bar to the standards of RG 
4.15, and strict adherence to RG 4.15 was not required.
    Second, even if TVA were committed to RG 4.15, that would not 
commit TVA to ANSI N13.10 merely because it is referenced in RG 4.15. 
RG 4.15 specifically states:

    Guidance on principles and good practices in the monitoring 
process itself and guidance on activities that can effect [sic] the 
quality of monitoring results * * * are outside the scope of this 
guide. However, some references are provided to documents that do 
provide some guidance in these areas [43 separate references are 
cited in the guide]. The citation of these references does not 
constitute an endorsement of all of the guidance in these documents 
by the NRC staff. Rather, these references are provided as sources 
of information to aid the licensee * * *.

    Petitioner identifies three technical issues as a basis for the 
assertion that ANSI N13.10 was not met. As described above, TVA is not 
required to meet ANSI N13.10. The NRC staff has reviewed the radiation 
monitoring system and inspected its implementation. The system 
satisfies NRC requirements.
    Thus, RG 4.15 and ANSI N13.10, which Petitioner contends were not 
implemented at Watts Bar, are not commitments, and TVA was not required 
to implement these guidelines or to request deviations from them. TVA 
documented the fact that it was not committed to RG 4.15, and the NRC 
staff was aware of this, as is indicated by the language referred to 
above from SSER 16.
    The NRC staff acknowledges that the language in SSER 16 that Watts 
Bar ``conforms'' to RG 4.15 could cause confusion. Accordingly, the NRC 
staff attempted to clarify in SSER 20 14 the

[[Page 43272]]

conclusion reached in SSER 16. In SSER 20, the NRC staff explicitly 
acknowledged that TVA was not committed to RG 4.15, ANSI N13.1, or ANSI 
N13.10. The NRC staff clarified that Watts Bar meets the intent of RG 
4.15 with respect to quality assurance provisions for the radiation 
monitoring system. The NRC staff revised the statement in SSER 16 cited 
above to read:

    \14\ Supplement 20, Safety Evaluation Report related to the 
operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-
390 and 50-391), February 1996. NUREG-0847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff also concludes that the system design conforms to the 
guidelines of NUREG-0737 (TMI Action Plan II.F.1, Attachment 1 and 
2), RG 1.21, and applicable guidelines of RG 1.97 (Revision 2). The 
staff further concludes that the system design meets the intent and 
purpose of RG 4.15.

    As stated in SSER 20, the NRC staff has concluded that the 
radiation monitoring system at Watts Bar meets the ``intent and 
purpose'' of RG 4.15. The intent and purpose of RG 4.15 is to provide 
an acceptable method to comply with applicable NRC requirements. 
However, as discussed above, alternatives to RG 4.15 may also be found 
to be acceptable in meeting this intent and purpose of RG 4.15 (i.e., 
compliance with applicable NRC requirements). In its review of Watts 
Bar, the NRC staff has concluded that applicable NRC requirements have 
been satisfied while not necessarily conforming to all the details of 
RG 4.15. Thus, although the staff's conclusion in SSERs 16 and 20 could 
have been clearer, as explained above, TVA did not commit to RG 4.15. 
For these same reasons, Petitioner's assertions provide no basis to 
conclude that TVA provided ``misinformation'' in this area. Rather, the 
NRC staff properly evaluated the radiation monitoring system at Watts 
Bar and correctly determined that the applicable regulatory 
requirements were satisfied prior to licensing.
C. Deviations From Regulatory Guides
    By letter dated January 30, 1996, Petitioner submitted a list of 
deviations from Regulatory Guides that Petitioner extracted from the 
Watts Bar SER and supplements. Petitioner questioned whether an overall 
review of the aggregate effect of the deviations had been performed for 
Watts Bar.
    Each deviation is reviewed by the NRC staff and, if found to be 
acceptable, is approved in an SER. It should be noted that a deviation 
is an alternative. Approval of a deviation does not suggest that a 
lesser safety standard has been applied. The NRC staff reviews each 
program area described in the FSAR, and related regulatory documents to 
ensure that the program complies with regulatory requirements. That 
review includes an assessment of the impact of any deviations requested 
by a Licensee. Thus, the integrated impact of any requested deviations 
on a program is considered as part of the review of that program.
    Accordingly, the concern raised by Petitioner regarding the overall 
effect of the deviations approved at Watts Bar has not raised a safety 
issue that would warrant suspension or revocation of the operating 
license for Watts Bar.
    Accordingly, Petitioner has not provided a basis to warrant a 
review of the Watts Bar licensing process, nor has Petitioner 
identified a safety concern that would warrant suspension or revocation 
of the operating license for Watts Bar.

IV. CONCLUSION

    The institution of proceedings in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206, as 
requested by Petitioner, is appropriate only where substantial safety 
issues have been raised. See Consolidated Edison Company of New York 
(Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 175 (1975), and 
Washington Public Power System (WPPS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7, 
19 NRC 899, 923 (1984). This is the standard I have applied to the 
Petition. Petitioner has not raised any substantial safety concerns 
with regard to Watts Bar. Therefore, Petitioner's request to revoke or 
suspend the operating license for Watts Bar is denied.
    A copy of this Decision will also be filed with the Secretary for 
the Commission's review as provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the 
Commission's regulations.
    As provided by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the 
final action of the Commission 25 days after issuance, unless the 
Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision 
within that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William T. Russell,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-21285 Filed 8-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P