ML15257A130

Record of Decision

ML15257A130
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	10/22/2015
From:	Bill Dean Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Kuntz R, NRR/DORL/LPLWB, 415-3733
References
Download: ML15257A130 (7)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 RECORD OF DECISION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-391 OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION FOR WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 October 22, 2015 BACKGROUND:

The Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN or Watts Bar) is owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and is located in southeastern Tennessee, approximately 50 miles (80 kilometers) northeast of Chattanooga. The facility consists of two Westinghouse-designed four-loop pressurized-water reactors within ice condenser containments.

TVA received a construction permit for both units in 1973. In June 1982, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued safety evaluation report (SER), NUREG-0847, "Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2,"

on TVA's application for licenses to operate WBN Units 1 and 2. In SER Supplements (SSERs) 1 through 20, the NRC staff concluded that WBN Unit 1, met all applicable regulations and regulatory guidance, and on February 7, 1996, the NRC issued an operating license (OL) to WBN Unit 1. TVA did not complete WBN Unit 2. Accordingly, the NRC did not make a final approval or denial of the request for an operating license for WBN, Unit 2.

On March 4, 2009, TVA submitted an updated application in support of its request for an OL for WBN Unit 2, pursuant to Title 1O of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 O CFR) Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML090700378). Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) authorizes the NRC to issue operating licenses for utilization facilities. The NRC published a notice of receipt of the update to the application and the opportunity for hearing in the Federal Register on May 1, 2009 (74 FR 20350). The proposed action was issuance of a 40-year facility OL for WBN Unit 2.

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

(42 U.S.C. 4321), directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC's regulations implementing NEPA list a full power operating license for a nuclear power reactor as an action that requires an EIS (10 CFR 51.20(b)(2)). In 1978, the NRC issued a final environmental statement related to the OL for WBN Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-0498, "Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2,"

(December 1978, 1978 FES-OL, the final environmental statement (FES) is an EIS equivalent).

Because TVA did not operate WBN Unit 2 as scheduled and there was new information relevant to environmental concerns, the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 51.92, "Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement," required the NRC staff to prepare a supplement to the 1978 FES-OL. Therefore, the NRC staff prepared NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 which was published in May 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13144A092). This supplement updates NUREG-0498,

Supplement 1, which was published in April 1995 (ADAMS Accession No. ML081430592). The purpose of NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, was to determine if there were substantial changes in the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns or if significant new circumstances or information existed related to environmental concerns that bore on the proposed action or its impacts.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103, the NRC staff has prepared this concise public record of decision (ROD) to accompany its action on the WBN Unit 2 OL application. This ROD incorporates by reference the material contained in the NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c).

DECISION:

The NRC makes the decision to grant or deny an OL based on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the environmental and safety requirements in the agency's regulations can be met during the period of operation. The results of the NRC's safety review of the WBN Unit 2 OL application are documented in the SER and SSERs 1 through 29. By letter dated February 12, 2015, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) notified the Commission of the ACRS's conclusions and recommendations (ADAMS Accession No. ML15039A005) which were:

1. There is reasonable assurance that WBN 2 can operate as the second unit of the dual-unit Watts Bar Nuclear Plant without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. The OL for WBN 2 should be approved following completion of remaining staff inspections and closure of remaining open items.

2. The integration of WBN 2 as the second unit in a dual-unit plant which has operated as a single unit for almost 20 years requires specific, detailed planning to ensure against creating challenges to WBN 1 operation. Our review indicates that this planning has been done and necessary preparations for WBN 2 operation have been made.

3. Adequate recirculation core cooling will be assured following a Loss of Coolant Accident, taking debris effects into account, provided high levels of containment cleanliness are maintained.

4. We strongly endorse the development of a methodology for Probabilistic Flooding Hazard Analysis. This is important for future use consistent with risk-informed, performance-based approaches to natural hazard assessment.

This ROD and the NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, which is incorporated by reference herein, document the NRC staff's decision for the environmental review that the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action (i.e., issuance of an OL for WBN Unit 2) are not great enough to deny the option of issuing the OL.

Under its OL, TVA will be able to operate WBN Unit 2 for 40 years from the issuance of the license.

NEED FOR POWER:

Section 8.0 of NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 discusses the consideration of new information on the need for power. The current rule governing environmental review at the operating license

stage (1 O CFR 51.95) states that, unless otherwise determined by the Commission, a final environmental statement (FES) supplement on the operation of a nuclear power plant will not include a discussion of need for power. For Watts Bar Nuclear (WBN) Unit 2, the Commission in its Memorandum and Order (CLl-10-29, ADAMS Accession No. ML103340280) stated its expectation that the NRG staff would take the requisite 'hard look' at new information on the need for power, and authorized the NRG staff to supplement the FES if they concluded that there was new and significant information on the need for power. The Commission indicated that new and significant information would be information that would likely alter the cost-benefit balance of issuing the operating license for WBN Unit 2. After taking the requisite hard look, the NRG staff concludes that the new information on need for power is not significant information because it does not alter the cost-benefit balance of issuing the WBN Unit 2 operating license.

NRG EVALUATON OF ALTERNATIVES:

Section 7.0 of NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 discusses consideration of new information on the environmental impacts of alternatives. The current rule governing environmental review at the operating license stage (10 CFR 51.95) states that, unless otherwise determined by the Commission, a FES supplement on the operation of a nuclear power plant will not include a discussion of alternative energy sources, or of alternative sites. For WBN Unit 2, the Commission stated its expectation that the staff would take the requisite 'hard look' at new information on alternative sources of energy and authorized the NRG staff to supplement the FES if the NRG staff concluded that there was new and significant information on alternative sources of energy. The Commission indicated that new and significant information would be information that would likely tip the cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license for WBN Unit 2. While the Commission recognized that technologies might change, the Commission stated that it was unlikely that such changes would tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license.

After taking the requisite hard look, the NRG staff concludes that the new information on alternative energy sources is not significant because it does not tip the cost-benefit balance against issuance of the WBN Unit 2 operating license. Although energy alternatives have changed in terms of performance and viability since TVA submitted its WBN Unit 2 construction permit EIS in 1972, the NRG staff's hard look at energy alternatives did not identify any new and significant information related to energy alternatives. The NRG staff did not identify a viable alternative that was clearly and substantially environmentally superior to operation of WBN Unit 2 (i.e., an alternative that would tip the cost-benefit balance).

CONTINUED STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL:

Section 4.10.1, "Radiological Wastes," of NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, references the analysis for the onsite storage of spent fuel and the offsite radiological impacts resulting from spent fuel and high-level waste disposal for the period after the reactors have been permanently shut down. Section 4.10.1 further indicates that these two issues relied on the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision and Rule (10 CFR 51.23), which were vacated in New York v. NRG, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Therefore, NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 did not have an analysis of or make an impact determination on the environmental impacts associated with the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel for the period after the licensed life for operation of a reactor and the offsite impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal, including possible

disposal in a deep geologic repository. Instead, NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 stated that it would rely on the revised 10 CFR 51.23 and its supporting EIS to provide the NEPA analyses of the waste confidence-related (i.e., continued storage) human health and environmental issues.

On August 26, 2014, the Commission approved a revised rule at 10 CFR 51.23 and associated "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel" (NUREG-2157, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14196A105 and ML14196A107). Subsequently, on September 19, 2014, the NRC published the revised rule (79 FR 56238) and NUREG-2157 (79 FR 56263). The revised rule adopts the generic impact determinations made in NUREG-2157 and codifies the NRC's generic determinations regarding the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor's OL (i.e., those impacts that could occur as a result of the storage of spent nuclear fuel at away-from-reactor or at-reactor sites after a reactor's licensed life for operation and until a permanent repository becomes available). As directed by 10 CFR 51.23{b), the impacts assessed in NUREG-2157 regarding continued storage are deemed incorporated into NUREG-0498, Supplement 2.

In CLl-14-08 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14238A242), the Commission held that the revised 10 CFR 51.23 and associated NUREG-2157 cure the deficiencies identified by the court in New York and stated that the rule satisfies the NRC's NEPA obligations with respect to continued storage for initial, renewed, and amended licenses for reactors. Therefore, NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, which by rule now incorporates the impact determinations in NUREG-2157 regarding continued storage, contains an analysis of the generic issues of "Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel" and "Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal" that satisfies NEPA. To account for these impact determinations, the NRC staff analyzed whether the revised rule at 10 CFR 51.23 and the associated NUREG-2157 presented new and significant information such that a supplement to NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, was required.

As detailed in an NRC staff evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML15259A417), NUREG-2157 and the revised rule do not constitute new and significant information because they do not present a "seriously different picture" of the environmental impacts of the proposed action (i.e.,

issuance of an OL) as compared to the impacts analysis presented in NUREG-0498, Supplement 2. As discussed above, NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 did not evaluate or make an impact determination on the impacts of continued storage of spent fuel beyond the licensed life for reactor operations. Instead, NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 stated that it would rely on the revised 10 CFR 51.23 and its supporting Generic EIS (i.e., NUREG-2157) to provide the necessary NEPA analyses of the waste-confidence-related human health and environmental issues. By virtue of revised 10 CFR 51.23, NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 now incorporates the impact determinations in NUREG-2157 regarding continued storage such that there is a complete analysis of the environmental impacts associated with spent fuel storage beyond the licensed life for reactor operations and before disposal in a geologic repository. The NRC staff also considered whether the revised rule and NUREG-2157 had altered the NRC staff's recommendation in NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, that the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action are not great enough to deny the option of issuing an OL for WBN Unit 2.

As described in an NRC staff evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML15259A417), NUREG-2157 analyzes continued storage of spent fuel at away-from-reactor and at-reactor sites during three timeframes: the short-term timeframe (60 years beyond the licensed life of a reactor), the long-term timeframe (an additional 100 years after the short-term timeframe), and an indefinite timeframe. The analysis in NUREG-2157 supports the conclusion that the most likely impacts

of continued storage are those discussed for at-reactor storage. For continued at-reactor storage, impacts in the short-term timeframe would be SMALL. Over the longer timeframes, impacts to certain resource areas would be a range (i.e., for historic and cultural resources during both the long-term and indefinite timeframes the range is SMALL to LARGE and for nonradioactive waste during the indefinite timeframe the range is SMALL to MODERATE). In NUREG-2157, the NRC stated that disposal of the spent fuel before the end of the short-term timeframe is most likely. There are inherent uncertainties in determining impacts for the long-term and indefinite timeframes, and, with respect to some resource areas, those uncertainties could result in impacts that, although less likely, could be larger than those that are to be expected at most sites and have therefore been presented as ranges rather than as a single impact level. Those uncertainties exist, however, regardless of whether the impacts are analyzed generically or site-specifically. As a result, these impact ranges provide correspondingly more limited insights to the decisionmaker in the overall picture of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (i.e., issuance of an OL).

The NRC staff concluded that when weighed against the array of other uranium fuel cycle impacts presented in NUREG-0498, Supplement 2, and the more-likely impacts of continued storage during the short-term timeframe in NUREG-2157, which are SMALL, the uncertainties associated with the impact ranges for the long-term and indefinite timeframes also do not present a seriously different picture of the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts compared to the NRC staff's analysis of the impacts from issuance of an OL for WBN Unit 2 attributable to the uranium fuel cycle and waste management {which includes the impacts associated with spent fuel storage).

The NRC staff therefore concludes that the revised rule and the impact determinations related to continued storage in NUREG-2157 do not alter the NRC staff's recommendation in NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 that the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action are not great enough to deny the option of issuing an OL for WBN Unit 2.

MITIGATION MEASURES:

The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected. The NRC staff did not identify a viable alternative that was clearly and substantially environmentally superior to operation of WBN Unit 2 (i.e., an alternative that would tip the cost-benefit balance). While the NRC is not requiring any mitigation measures for operation of WBN Unit 2, required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act {also known as the Clean Water Act) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) do impose effluent limitations and monitoring requirements, as well as best management practices, to ensure that the impacts to water quality and aquatic life are minimal during the operation of WBN Unit 2.

The NRC is not imposing any license conditions in connection with mitigation measures.

Additionally, the NRC is not requiring any new environmental monitoring programs outside what is required for the NPDES permits.

DETERMINATION:

Based on the independent review, analysis, and evaluation contained in NUREG-0498, Supplement 2; careful consideration of all the identified social, economic, and environmental factors; input received from other agencies, organizations, and the public; and the factors and

mitigation measures outlined above, the NRG has determined that the standards for issuance of an OL, as described in 10 CFR 50.50, have been met and that the requirements of Section 102 of NEPA have been satisfied.

e tor Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

ML15257A130 *via email OFFICE DORL/LPWB/PM* DORL/LPWB/LA DLR/RE RB/BC DORL/LPWB/BC NAME JPoole BClayton DWrona JQuichocho DATE 9/15/2015 9/15/2015 9/17/2015 10/08/2015 OFFICE QTE* DORL/D OGC* NRR/D NAME JDougherty ABoland CKanatas WDean DATE 10/09/2015 10/09/2015 10/07/2015 10/22/2015