ML17340B408
| ML17340B408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| CLI-80-4, NUDOCS 8003070023 | |
| Download: ML17340B408 (10) | |
Text
0 CLI-80-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COHHISS IONERS:
John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T.
Kennedy Joseph M. Hendrie Peter A. Bradford In the Hatter of VIRGINIA ELECTRIC POWER CO.
(Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
For Relief Under 10 CFR 2.206 Docket Nos.
50-280 50-281 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Commission has before it for sua
~s onte review three decisions by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on petitions filed under 1/
10 CFR s 2.206 involving the steam generator repair at the Surry Nuclear Power Station.
On January 29, 1980, the Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.206(c)(l),
took review of the three decisions on the issue of the need for an environmental impact statement regarding the proposed repair.
1/
The three petitions are from the North Anna Environmental Coalition (filed December 29, 1978; denied February 1, 1979); the Environmental policy Institute (filed February 20, 1979, denied April 4, 1979);
and the Potomac Alliance, Citizens Energy Forum, Inc., Truth in Power, Inc., and the Virginia Sunshine Alliance (filed April 18,
- 1979, denied October 24, 1979).
0 I
The primary issue presented by the repair, and the sole issue considered 2/
on the merits in this Comnission review, is whether the NRC's action in approv-ing the repair is one "significantly affecting the quality of the human environ-ment" for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and there-3/
fore one that requires an environmental impact statement.
This admittedly vague
- test, and the lack of definitive criteria that can be used in applying it, leaves the Commission and its Staff with a difficult decision in many cases.
The circumstances of this case presented the Director with just such a difficult decision.
Our review has focused on the occupational radiation exposure that the repair program will entail because we believe that this adverse environmental impact is the only one associated with the repair program that might be considered significant.
h'e have carefully examined the Director's Decisions and the bases
- therefor, and are unable to determine from the data and arguments presented by the Director whether the occupational radiation exposure involved here is signi-ficant.
The Director's Decisions rest essentially on a comparison of the impact of the radiation exposure resulting from the repair with the net savings in total occupational exposure resulting from operation using repaired steam generators 2/
i(hen this issue first arose, both units at Surry were the subject of the petitions.
At this point however, repairs at Unit 2 are essentially completed and the repairs at Unit 1'are scheduled to begin in Dune of 1980.
- Hence, the need for an environmental impact statement for the Unit 2 repairs is moot.
- However, the issue of the need for a statement for the Unit 1 repair is very much alive and is the focus of this Commission review.
3/
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub.
L. No.91-190, 83 Stat.
852 as amended by Pub.
L. 94-83, 89 Stat.
- 424, 42 U.S.C.
55 4321 et
~se
0 lh 4 ~
instead of defective
- ones, and a comparison with the incidence of cancer for the worker population due to causes other than the repair at Surry.
The first com-parison is relevant to the question whether the expected benefits of the act'ion outweigh the environmental
- costs, which is distinct from the question whether the expected environmental impact of a federal action is sufficiently great to require an impact statement.
Even if on balance the result of the Federal action is beneficial, the proper criterion on which to base the decision whether to prepare an EIS is the significance of the action. Hence, the fact that the 4/
occupational exposure at Surry (2070 man rems for the repair at each unit) is expected to be less than the occupational exposure resulting from continued operation with defective steam generators over a period of four years is a valid consideration in assessing the merits of the repair once the requirements of tiEPA have been satisfied, but has no bearing in determining the threshold ques-tion of the "significance" of the exposure and the attendant decision whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Director's second
- basis, comparing the occupational exposures to the number of worker deaths due to cancer from risks unrelated to the repair, neces-sarily entails a judgment regarding the significance of these other risks.
Yiore specifically, it'implies the proposition that these other risks are either not significant or that a small percentage of them is not significant.
- However, nothing in the Director's Decisions establishes this proposition.
Thus the comparison, without more, does not enable us to determine whether the exposures here are significant.
4/
See Regulations For Implementing The Procedural Provisions'of NEPA, 40 CFR 1508.27(b)(1).
0 il
Given this, and given the controversy in the scientific community as to the effects of such exposures, we are unable to determine whether the environmental impacts here aresignificant.
Therefore, we believe that the preferable course of action in the circumstances of this case is to prepare an environmental impact statement on the repair.
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Staff to expeditiously prepare and issue an environmental impact statement on the proposed repair at Unit l.
Chairman Ahearne and Commissioner Hendrie dissent from this decision.5/
It,is so ORDERED.
For the Commission Dated at 'Washington, D.C.,
this day.of Narch, 1980.
SAMUEL J CHILK Secretary of thp Comnission 5/
Section 201'f the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.
5 5841 provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a "majority vote of the members present."
Had Commissioner Gilinsky been present at the meeting he would have voted with the majority,.
To enable the Commission to proceed with this case without delay, Chairman Ahearne, who was a
member of the minority on the question up for decision, did not partici-pate in the formal vote.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Conmission was two to one in favor of the decision.
NRC Central'i'le/LPDR'hapar/Engelhardt Christenbury/Scinto WJ01mstead f1Karman SCGoldberg/Chron (2)
NGrotenhuis, 316 Phil.
Neil Chonin, Esq.
New World Tower Bldg.
30th Floor 100 N. Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 MAR 4 1980 In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos
~ 3 and 4)
Docket Nos. 50-250 a 50-251 (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses to Permit Steam Generator Re air
Dear Mr. Chonin:
I am writing in response to your letter of February 25, 1980 requesting a copy
- of the movie made. of the Surry steam generator repair operation and copies of the minutes of the January 23, 1980 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) subcommittee at which it was shown.
The movie in question was made by the VirginiaElectric and Power Company and is not in the possession of the NRC. I am advised that the movie may be obtainable by contacting the followingindividual:
A. Leonard Parrish, III, Project Manager Power Station Engineering and Construction VirginiaElectric and Power Company Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Tel. 804/771-3992 (4345)
A transcript of the January 23, 1980 ACRS subcommittee meeting is enclosed.
An additional copy is being sent to the NRC local public document room located at the Environmental and Urban Affairs Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
Enclosure.'s stated cc w/o enclosure:
OFFICE SURNAME DATEf NRC FORM S$ II (9 21) 'NRCM4I240 Sincerely,
/s I Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff 0ELD "
1 ELD SCGoldbergi d
3/3/80 3/g
/80 WU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979.289 369
0 4
V