ML18113A872
| ML18113A872 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Proffitt W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18113A873 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902260597 | |
| Download: ML18113A872 (11) | |
Text
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mr. H. L. Proffitt
. -~
Senior Vice President - Power Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia* 23261
Dear Mr. Proffitt:
NRC PDR Local PDR NRR Rdg ORB1 Rdg V. Stello H. Denton E.. Case D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer A. Schwencer D. Neighbors
- P. Kreutzer OELD I&E (3)
ACRS (16)
J. Buchanan TERA B. Grimes I enclose. for your information a copy of a letter dated December 29, 1978 from June Allen of the North Anna Environmental Coalition requesting that the Commission conduct a hearing and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed replacement of steam generators at VEPCO's Surry Nuclear Power Station.
This request
_was made under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Co111J1ission 1s regulations.
A copy of the Decision which we are filing with the Office of the Federal Register relating to this request is also enclosed for your information.
Sincerely.
Harold R._ Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat,on
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: w/enclosures See next page I
190226051'7 I
Y'~
........ 9.9~;_.9.R?.L...... 9.~?.L........ 9.9.; *.
0 B) **.*....... 9<.l-.0............... qotf;{().......... ~R~-ct****
- uRNANil,.. P.N~rnti.~.9.n\\....... P..~~u:t;igr........ A:/..b... e.o.c.e.r..................................V~:fe.l.l.o............. HBQ.... tRn....
DATil. 9.1/....l.?.~.... :..... R J./~~-./.7.~...........Q.1 /:,1~.l.~.............. l.... l.7.9......... ). 1.1).p~...... :.. -~ 1/..1.i.f..
Nae FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 02.(g u *** GCVERNMKNT PRINTING Ol"P'ICe: 111n
- zes
- 760
e UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR R°EGULATORY COMMISSION Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mr. W. L. Proffitt WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 C-1:' ~
"'1 i._ i.-'
i
,-;:'."'.",)
j._ I.J Senior Vice President - Power Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Proffitt:
I enclose for your information a copy of a letter dated December 29, 1978 from June Allen of the North Anna Environmental Coalition requesting that the Commission conduct a hearing and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed replacement of steam generators at VEPC0 1s Surry Nuclear Power Station. This request
. was made under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
A copy of the Decision which we are filing \\'Jith the Office of the Federal Register relating to this request is also enclosed for your information.
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
w/enclosures See next page Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Virginia Electric & Power Company 2
cc:
Mr. Michael W. Maupin Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23213 Swem Library College of William & Mary Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 Mr. Sherlock Holmes, Chairman Board of Supervisors of Surry County Surry County Courthouse, Virginia 23683 Commonwealth of Virginia Council on the Environment 903 Ninth Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mr. James R. Wittine Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission Post Office Box 1197 Richmond, Virginia 23209 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW-459)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Mall #2
~rlington, Virginia 20460 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III Office ATTN:
EIS COORDINATOR Curtis Building - 6th Floor 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Donald J. Burke USNRC, Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
~ORTH ANNAiNVIRONMENT.l COALITION Ch".rl-ot*i.;-cs'?' llle, Vlrgillia - *
,l.!.ailizi.g Address:
41.2 °"1tns Drin Dece?!!Der 29 1978 Htmt*T_1ll*' A.la.baEU.
35801.
(205) 636-0678 Secretary of the Com.~iasion
- u. Sa Nuclear Regul~tory Com.~isaion Docketine & Service Section iiaahington, D. c.
20555 Re:
Hear l!ie-and Environ-mental I:::pa.ct State-c:ient !or S".irry Stea::
Generator Replace~ent In the Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Compa.tly' Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units l alld 2 Docket Noe. 50-230 and 50-281 Dear Sirs Thi5 letter is addressed to yoa 1.u accord.s.z::ce w!th th.a proT1-aia:u o~ 10 c~ 2.206 a..od 10 CT.a 5.l.50 to r~~ tl:..at th.e ~*.n.:-
R*~...lator,- Cc:::d.u1::::i (~Cl cc::,:fa.:\\ a. r:..ll. ~~
11::1!. r---.~-. &
complete.!:z:Tiro=ental. ~ac~ St~~ (lr.I:,J an f.!.P'.;o*a ~:;>o*ed.
atea::i generator replaoement &tits S:1.rry Ha.clear Po7er Statio::1.
There is no qaestion but what this experimental rSiJledial pro-
- oedure represents "an unreviewed safety question" in accordance
- with 10 CFR 50.59, and is "a significant licensing step" 1n terms or th~ ACRS discussion of October 28, *1978 (Tr. 38 - 39).
Nevertheless, despite the fact that VEPCO's proposal to re~ove a.~d replace de!ecti7e Westinghouse steam generators is the first pro-cedure 0£
- its kind in the country and represents an a.tte?:?:pt to solve an industry-~ide problem 1n7olv1ng malf'unction and radiation e:rposure 9 RRC did not issue a news release on October 21, 1977 for :p-~blic hea..r1ng 0 The only notice that ~
can discover 1s Mr. Case's letter of that date to the Federal Register, read by !ew 1! er.~ affected citizens in the Surry area9 BJ:ld seen for the first time by RAEC just a few weeka ago when Stlrry's Project Manager kindly mailed the Coalition a requested copy.
!U..re reqa.ested. the copy af'ter learning tbat the signi!ioant ha.J:srda con-aid.eraticn o~ ateB:1 generator replaoec,eIIt ooul.d ( and sh.o-::i.ld. ) be pn-o~ b7 a. pgl>>l1o he-a:-1.ug, per ~
10-ZS-78 JCES tr&ru1or1pt, ~
l.22-3,
- m. IEBI!',
Do 7ou upect requeats ~or
- public
. hearlll8' on this actionl" 1
MR *.BL.'iTON'i No.
I ?elieve the-~~~ent period £or that action has alre~ expired.
The !oregoing ax:cha.nge led the Coalition to make the above request for*
- a. hearing* on this major modi.fioation planned for the Surry nuclear plant a modi!'ica:ion which certaillly involves the "poea1b111-ty !or an acoide::t' or malf'unc.,lon of a. different tn,e* than any evaluated previously 1n th safety analysis report *** "
e y
-~
.,or
~-
~
~~
-~*--*
~
~;; ---
~-------------:----~--~-
- e*
.e s* ay r the.A.CRS Surry Subcom.~ittee transcript or October
~* cle::; th~t the &.ir:ry procedure involves multiple :,lllknowna at
- age of the Ulldertaking, including, but not l
- 1
- nited to:
" *** occupational radiation exposure, airborne radioactive releases, liquid and solid ~aste handling, disposal of steam generator lower assemblies a.nd the tubing, and radiological consequences of postulated e.ccidents *** " (Tr. 5) 28 z:ue a every It 1s. generally. a.cknowledEHi that welding the reactor ooolant pipe will give the highest radiation exposure to the workers involved, but total dosage estimates varJ widely:
VEPCO estimates only 2070 man.rem per unit whereas "the Battelle study ran 3300 to 5500." (Tr* 33)
How will the radiological dose be distributed,.A.GRS asks.
DP.. ISBINs
'lib.st is the relationship here to transient workers? *** Isn't the staf! looki!lg in general at this problem?
Rave you reached some pos i tion1 MR.B.ARR.ErT:
- I believe there a.re changes to part 20 foi:thcoming.
I do not believe that they have been issued yet on transient workers.
I S!ll sorry.
I can't give you IIrJ.ch of the deta_ils. (Tr.48/9)
Thus it is evide:at that needed regulations la.g behind the IIUclea.r situations requ.iring them.
- Similarly, we f'i.nd on p8e 19 t.hs.t it will be months before Westinghouse completes its report on comparative dose estimates between "re tubing a.nd replacing steam generators.
On page 16, Ur. Grimes speaks of "the time scale that is desired oy this utility" as it the NRC were powerless to insist upon st"l..~Ml' being completed, envirom1ental_ impao1i statements prepared, :p14blic hear-ings held, and aign!tica.nt haze.rd.a confronted before ~
major and axper-L-mental modification is. allowed at a II!lclear plant.
It is our understa:o.ding that NBC *Reg-.ilations require a licensing *proced'll:re betore a utility 1a per-_
mitt ed. to go-forward with such a s 1.gn~fioSllt lieena iDg step.
Tl:ms the Coalition respecti"tllly repeats ita request that the Com:nia-a ion prepare a thorough Enviroi:mental.Impact Statement on VE:PC'O's 'Orouosed steam ~nerator replacement at Surry, and that the C~ission hold. a Fl,blio hearing at which,.::!.::CO is required to sh.ow cause as to w~ au.oh a ha.:i:a..rd.ous and unproven procedure should. be allowed at the Surry stat ion.
We further a..sk that the publio hearing be widely noticed in Virginia..
Thank you.
for your professional c onaideration.
e UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATO'RY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mrs. June A11en North Anna Environmental Coalition 412 Owens Drive Huntsville, Alabama 35801
Dear Mrs. Allen:
This in in response to your request by letter dated December 29, 1978, on behalf of the North Anna Environmental Coalition requesting that the Commission prepare an environmental impact statement concerning the steam generator repair program at the VEPCO Surry Nuclear Power Station and conduct a Show Cause hearing.
For the reasons set forth in the enclosed response to your letter, your request is hereby denied.
A copy of this detennination will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
20555 and at the Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185.
A copy will also be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for its review in accordance with 10 CFR §2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations.
Enclosure:
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR §2.206 Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
e In the Matter of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION HAROLD R. DENTON, DIRECTOR
)
Virginia Electric Power Company (Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2)
) Docket Nos. 50~280
)
and 50-281
)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR §2.206 By letter dated December 29, 1978, Mrs. June Allen on behalf of the North Anna Environmental Coalition (Coalition) reauested that the
!Juclear Regulatory Commission prepare an environmental impact statement on the Virginia Electric Power Company's (VEPCO) proposed steam generator repair program at the Surry Power Station and hold a Show Cause hearing on this proposed program.
This letter was filed pursuant to 10 CFR
§2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
The asserted bases for the request by the Coalition are (1) that the proposed steam generator replacement is an experimental remedial procedure representing an unreviewed safety question in accordance with 10 CFR §50.59 and is a *significant licensing step in view of the ACRS discussion of October 28, 1978, and (2) that the notice of proposed issuance of the amendments to the operating licenses for the Surry Nuclear Power Station to allow the steam generator replacement was not adequate.
In accordance with 10 CFR §50.59 of the Commission's regulations, a licensee seeking to make a change in the technical specifications or a change in the facility involving an unreviewect safety question must submit an application for an amendment to the license.
On August 17, 1977, VEPCO submitted a request for a NRC review and approval required in order to repair the steam generators at the Surry Power Station, Units l and 2. It was determined in accordance with 10 CFR §50.59 that such a program would involve an unreviewed safety question and, therefore, would require an amendment of VEPCO's Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-32 and DPR-37 for the Surry plant.
In accordance with 10 CFR §2.105, a Notice of the Proposed Issuance of Amendments to the licenses at issue was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 1977 (42 FR 56652).
The Notice was also available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room and at the local public document room at the Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. This Notice provided an opportunity for interested persons to request a hearing by November 28, 1977.
No requests for a hearing were received in response to that Federal Register notice.* The Coalition's request ctoes not
- The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board constituted to review requests for a hearing under the October 27, 1977 Federal Register Notice provided the Commonwealth of Virginia the opportunity to file a request for a hearing up to 10 days after issuance of the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report which was issued on December 15, 1978.
On December 20, 1978, the Commonwealth stated it would not request a hearing.
purport to be filed pursuant to the October 27, 1977 notice of opportunity to request a hearing.**
The Coalition's December 29, 1978 letter quotes brief excerpts from the transcript of an ACRS meeting held on October 28, 1978.
Apparently these excerpts are intended to reflect the Coalition's concern for radiation exposure to workers involved in the steam generator replacement program.
Prior to issuing the amendment to allow the repairs to be made to the steam generator, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation prepared the Staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER) which is attached to and made a part of this decision (Appendix A).
That evaluation, which expressly addressed the matter of radiation exposure to workers, concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public (including the workers) will not be endangered by the proposed steam generator repair program and that the changes would be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations.
The references to the ACRS tr.anscript do not provide reasons for altering that conclusion.
- If the December 29, 1978 request is intended as a request for a hearing under that notice, it was untimely filed.
Apart from the observation that NRC did not issue a news release concerning the opportunity for a public hearing, and the contention that the Federal Register is read by few if any of the affected citizens in the Surry area, the only reason given was it was seen for the first time by the Coa 1 i ti on "just a few 'fl'eeks" prior to submitting the December 29, 1978 request.
This reason is not adequate to support the request for a hearing made more than a year late.
e As to the Coalition's request for the preparation of an environmental impact statement, no reason is given for requiring such a statement.
An environmental impact statement is not required for every licensing action.
Under 10 CFR §51.5 of the Commission's regulations, an environ-mental impact statement is required if the licensing action is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environ-ment.
If such a finding is not made in the atfirmative, the Commission is required under 10 CFR §51.5(c) to prepare a negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal.
In this case it was determined after pre-paration of an environmental impact appraisal that a negative declaration rather than an environmental impact statement was appropriate.
The declaration was issued on January 20, 1979.
A copy of the Negative Declaration and the Environmental Impact Appraisal is attached to and made a part of this decision (Appendix B).
Based on the foregoing discussion and the provisions of 10 CFR
§2.206, I have determined that there exists no adequate basis for holding a Show Cause hearing on the steam generator repair program and that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. The request of the North Anna Environmental Coalition is hereby denied.
A copy of this determination will be placed in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
20555 and the Local Public Document Room for the Surry Nuclear Power Station located at the Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185.
A copy of this document will also be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for its review in accordance with 10 CFR
§2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations.
In accordance with 10 CFR §2.206(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, this deci~ion will constitute the final action of the Commission 20 days after the date of issuance, unless the Commission on its own motion institutes the review of this decision within that time.
Appendix A -
Staff Safety Evaluation Report dated December 15, 1978 Appendix B -
Notice of Issuance of Amendments Original Sign2d By Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Facility Operating Licenses, Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Appraisal dated January 20, )979