Adoption of Final Environmental Impact Statement

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Adoption of Final Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Adoption of Final Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with TVA's procedures implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and consistent with 40 CFR 1506.3

(1993), TVA has decided to adopt a Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement (FSEIS) that was issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) in late April 1995. This FSEIS is entitled, ``Final

Environmental Statement related to the operation of Watts Bar Nuclear

Plant Units 1 and 2, Supplement No. 1.'' Notice of the availability of

this FSEIS was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 1995 (60 FR

22,389). TVA has determined that the FSEIS meets the standards for an

adequate FSEIS and can be adopted.

ADDRESSES: The FSEIS can be inspected by the public at the following

places:

TVA Corporate Library, East Tower Building, 400 West Summit Hill Drive,

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902;

TVA Corporate Library, Signal Place, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga,

Tennessee 37402;

and

TVA Technical Library, A100 National Environmental Research Center, CTR

1E, Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660.

Copies of the FSEIS may also be obtained by writing or calling:

Dale V. Wilhelm, Team Leader, Environmental Management Staff, 400 West

Summit Hill Drive, WT 8C-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (615) 632-6693.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jon M. Loney, Manager, Environmental Management Staff, Tennessee Valley

Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 8C-K, Knoxville, Tennessee

37902, (615) 632-2201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On or about April 21, 1995, NRC released a

FSEIS on the operation of TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN). The

supplement addresses changes in the plant design and the environment

that occurred after NRC issued its ``Final Environmental Statement'' in

1978 on the operation of the plant. NRC concluded in the FSEIS that

there have been no significant changes in potential environmental

impacts associated with plant operation from those evaluated in its

1978 document. The FSEIS also concluded that TVA's preoperational and

operational environmental and radiological monitoring programs were

appropriate for establishing baseline conditions and for assessing

resulting environmental impacts. Finally, the FSEIS concluded that the

analysis of severe accident mitigation design alternatives for the

plant demonstrated that none would be cost beneficial for further

mitigating environmental impacts beyond the procedural changes which

TVA had already committed to implement.

Background

TVA is the electric supplier to an 80,000 square mile area

containing parts of seven States. It and the distributors of the

electricity, which TVA generates, serve about 7.5 million people. TVA

currently has 25,600 megawatts of generating capacity on its system.

This includes coal-fired units, nuclear units, hydro-electric units,

combustion turbines, and pumped storage hydro units.

TVA's WBN is located in Rhea County, Tennessee, approximately 13

kilometers (8 miles) southeast of Spring City, Tennessee, and 80

kilometers (50 miles) northeast of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The site is

located adjacent to TVA's Watts Bar Dam Reservation at Tennessee River

Mile 528. WBN is a two unit pressurized water reactor nuclear plant.

Each of its units has a nameplate capacity of 1,170 megawatts. TVA

expects to load fuel in Unit 1 in the Fall of 1995. Unit 2 is

approximately 65 percent complete. Alternatives to TVA completing Unit

2 are being evaluated as part of an integrated resource planning (IRP)

process and an associated EIS. The IRP is scheduled to be completed in

December 1995. In December 1994, the TVA Board of Directors announced

that based on interim data from the IRP, it would not be in TVA's or

its customers' interests for TVA itself to complete Unit 2.

In August 1970, TVA proposed to construct and operate WBN in order

to meet forecasted power needs in the TVA region. The Atomic Energy

Commission (AEC), now NRC, issued construction permits for the two

units on January 23, 1973. TVA commenced construction of WBN in 1973.

In 1976, TVA applied to NRC for licenses to operate WBN.

At the time TVA sought operating licenses, construction of WBN Unit

1 was 85 percent complete and Unit 2 was 65 percent complete. TVA's

proposed fuel loading dates for the units were December 1979 and

September 1980, respectively. However, licensing of the plant was

delayed and the construction permits for the units were extended by

NRC. The delay was due in part to installation of modifications that

NRC ordered for most nuclear plants following the 1979 incident at the

Three

[[Page 35578]]

Mile Island nuclear plant. In addition, the need for power in the TVA

region and elsewhere in the country dramatically changed from the need

forecasted in the early 1970s. After the Arab oil embargo in the mid-

1970s, energy consumption in the country substantially declined. In the

mid-1980's, plant licensing was delayed while TVA resolved a number of

WBN-specific safety concerns that were raised by employees and the

public. TVA implemented a series of corrective actions and plant

modifications to prepare WBN Unit 1 for operation.

It takes many years to plan, permit, and construct new energy

sources or to plan and deploy energy conservation programs (demand-side

management programs). Years before the demand for electric energy

arises, electric utilities have typically had to make decisions about

the energy resource mix that they want on their systems to meet future

demands. If no action is taken, a utility risks being unable to meet

demand and the customers in its service territory would not be served.

TVA, like most utilities, projects or forecasts the future demand for

power in its region. Determining the need for power of future ``load''

on an utility system depends on two factors: (1) The capabilities of

currently available energy resources, and (2) the forecast of future

energy needs. If the forecasted need for power exceeds available

capabilities to provide that power, additional energy resources must be

obtained by the utility. These resources can be in the form of self-

built generating facilities, purchases from other energy generators, or

energy conservation measures that reduce the potential demand to levels

capable of being met with existing energy resources.

TVA routinely produces three load forecasts to help in making

energy resource decisions--a high-, medium-, and low-load forecast. The

high forecast is designed to project a level of future energy demand

for which there is a 90 percent chance or probability of not being

exceeded. For the medium forecast, there is a 50 percent probability of

not being exceeded; for the low forecast, a 10 percent probability of

not being exceeded.

Under all of TVA's current forecasts, there is a need for

additional energy resources in the immediate future to meet the demand

for energy in the TVA region. In the medium-load forecast, there is a

need in 1996 for the capacity of WBN Unit 1 (1170 megawatts) as well as

an additional 850 megawatts. Under the high-load forecast, there is a

need beyond WBN Unit 1's capacity for an additional 1500 megawatts in

1996. Only under the low-load forecast is there a slight surplus of

capacity in 1996 of 300 megawatts with the capacity of WBN Unit 1

online.

Operating WBN Unit 1 will help meet projected future loads on the

TVA power system at a very economically competitive cost. TVA has

invested $6.4 billion in the construction of WBN Unit 1 and facilities

which are shared in common with Unit 2. These costs have already been

incurred and cannot be avoided even if TVA now chooses to meet future

needs some other way. Operating the unit will allow TVA the opportunity

of earning a return on the agency's investment. Compared to purchasing

power or meeting demand with coal-fired generation or combustion

turbine units, operation of WBN Unit 1 will be among TVA's lowest cost

generating sources. WBN Unit 1's operating costs are projected to be

approximately 1.7 cents/kwh. In contrast, the operating costs of

alternative generating sources would range from 2.0 to 6.0 cents/kwh.

Environmental Reviews

In accordance with NEPA, TVA prepared and released in November 1972

a Final EIS on the potential environmental impacts associated with

constructing and operating WBN. AEC relied on the TVA EIS when it

issued construction permits to the plant in 1973. When TVA began the

operating license application process for the WBN units in 1976, it

updated the environmental analyses and information about the plant in a

report entitled ``Environmental Information Statement,'' and

supplemented this report in 1977 to respond to NRC questions. This

report and supplement were made part of the public record for the

plant. Relying in part on TVA's analyses and information, NRC then

issued its 1978 Final EIS. This EIS supplemented the earlier TVA EIS,

and focused on the potential environmental impacts associated with

operating WBN.

In 1993, TVA initiated an interdisciplinary environmental review of

WBN. The purpose of this review was to determine if there were any new,

significant environmental impacts related to WBN that had not been

addressed in TVA's 1972 EIS. This review relied on the substantial

amount of environmental-related data that TVA had collected through its

preoperational monitoring programs at WBN and a number of special

environmental studies that TVA had conducted over the years at WBN.

Review findings were documented in an August 1993 report entitled

``Review of Final Environmental Statement, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

Units 1 and 2.'' Based on this review, TVA determined:

The [1972] EIS concluded that the principal ways the plant will

interact with the environment are: (1) Releases of small quantities of

radioactivity to air and water, (2) release of minor quantities of heat

and non-radioactive waste waters to TVA's Chickamauga Reservoir and

major quantities of heat and water vapor from the plant's cooling

towers into the atmosphere, (3) loss of aquatic life (such as fish

larvae and plankton) that is drawn into the water intake, and (4) a

change in land use from farming to industrial. These conclusions remain

valid today.

* * * * *

Changes have occurred since the release of WBN's EIS in 1972. Most

of these changes involve design modifications or changes in expected

operational practices which improve safety or lessen potential

environmental impacts. Additional information about environmental

conditions in the vicinity of WBN has also been developed. None of the

changes or new information materially affect impact projections in the

EIS.

In September 1994, NRC decided to issue a formal supplement to its

1978 Final EIS. NRC released a Draft SEIS for public comment in

November 1994. A public meeting to obtain comments on the Draft SEIS

was held on January 10, 1995 in Sweetwater, Tennessee. NRC issued its

FSEIS in late April 1995. Consistent with TVA's 1993 review, NRC did

not identify any changes to WBN, significant new circumstances, or

environmental concerns that substantially differed from those addressed

earlier.

The FSEIS reached the following conclusions:

There are no changes in the design of WBN that result in

significant change in environmental impacts.

Changes in proposed WBN operations have occurred but these

changes do not result in significant environmental impacts.

Changes in the population and demographics of the region

have occurred; however these changes are not significant and changes in

employment at the plant have not had significant socioeconomic impacts.

Land use and water use impacts essentially remain

unchanged.

Regional climatology and WBN site meteorology have not

changed significantly.

There have been no significant changes in the terrestrial

and aquatic environments in the vicinity of WBN.

There have been no significant changes to the background

of

[[Page 35579]]

radiological characteristics in the vicinity of the plant.

Based on available data, it does not appear that any

minority or low income communities would be disproportionally affected

by WBN operations.

The action before NRC is responding to TVA's request for an

operating license for Watts Bar Unit 1. A favorable decision would

allow the operation of the unit by TVA. Although the actions before the

two agencies are essentially the same from the perspective of potential

environmental consequences, it was deemed inappropriate for TVA to

participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation and issuance of

the SEIS because TVA is the applicant for the NRC operating license.

However, TVA provided NRC and its contractor, Pacific Northwest

Laboratory, substantial amounts of environmental data, information, and

analyses that it had collected and prepared over the years for WBN.

Much of this data and information were used in the FSEIS.

In its regulations implementing NEPA, the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) strongly encourages agencies to reduce the paperwork and

duplication that have frequently been the hallmarks of NEPA reviews.

One of the methods identified by CEQ to accomplish these goals is

adopting the environmental documents prepared by other agencies. 40 CFR

1500.4(n) (1994). Under applicable regulations, TVA is allowed to adopt

the NRC FSEIS as its own.

TVA has carefully reviewed the FSEIS and has concluded that it

adequately updates the earlier environmental reviews, adequately

assesses the remaining environmental impacts associated with operation

of WBN Unit 1, and is an adequate supplement. This review has been

documented in a TVA publicly-available report entitled, ``Supplemental

Environmental Review, Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.''

Accordingly, TVA hereby adopts NRC's ``Final Environmental Statement

related to the operation of Wattts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,

Supplement No. 1.''

Dated: June 30, 1995.

Kathryn J. Jackson,

Senior Vice President, Resource Group.

[FR Doc. 95-16848 Filed 7-7-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120-01-M