ML19305B685
| ML19305B685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1980 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305B674 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-CC, TASK-SE SECY-80-077, SECY-80-77, NUDOCS 8003200075 | |
| Download: ML19305B685 (6) | |
Text
.
/~%
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION February 11, 1980 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SECY-80-77 CONSENT cal.ENDAR ITEM s.
fk 0
D
_To:
The Ccamissioners From:
Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel
Subject:
SURRY STEAM GE:!ERATOR RE? AIR - ORDER Facility:
Surry lluclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2
Purpose:
To obtain Octmissicn approval of the attached order.
Discussion:
On January 29, 1930, the Commission took review of three decisicns by the Director of
!!uclear Reactor Regulation denying recuests for enforcement action filed pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.206.'* The three petiticns involved the need for an environmental impact statement on the proposed repair at the Surry IIuclear Power Station.
The attached order directs the Staff to issue an environmental impact statement on the proposed repair at Unit 1.
Recctmendation:
Approve the attached order.
Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel
Attachment:
Order
- SECY NOTE:
Ref. SECY-A-79-S4A.
CC! TACT:
0 Marian E. Mce, CGC 6993200 634-3224
, t Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, February 27, 1980.
I Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT February 20, 1980, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical i
review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
l This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of March 3, 1980, Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
2 DISTRIBUTION i
Commissioners Commission Staff Offices l
Exec Dir for Operations ACRS Secretariat l
l
)
1 4
I
CLI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Richard T. Kennedy Joseph M. Hendrie Peter A. Bradford
'l
)
In the Matter of
)
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC POWER CO.
)
Docket Nos. 50-280
)
50-281 (Surry Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
For Relief Under 10 CFR 2.206
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Commission has before it for sua sponte review three decisions by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on petitions 1/ filed under 10 CFR 5 2.206 involving the steam generator repair at the Surry Nuclear Power Station.
On January 29, 1980, the Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.206(c)(1),
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).
l l
2 The primary issue presented by the repair,2/ and the sole issue considered on the merits in this Commission 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),3_/ and there-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.
We have carefully examined the Director's Decisions and the bases therefor, and are not convinced from' the data and arguments presented by the Director that the occupational radiation exposure involved here is not significant.
The Director's Decisions rest essentially on a corparison 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/
When 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 June of 1980.
Hence, the need for an environn. ental impact statement for the Unit 2 repairs is moot.
However, the issue of a 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. is 4321 et, seq.
=
3 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
- comparison is relevant to the question whether the expected benefits of the action 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.S/
ence, the fact that the H
i
)
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 1
operation with defective steam generators over a period of four years is a valid I
consideration in assessing the merits of the repair once the requirements of NEPA have been satisfied, but has no bearing in determining the threshold question of the " significance" of th'e 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, necessarily entails a judgment regarding the significance of these other risks.
More.
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 show that the exposures here are not significant.
4/
See Regulations For Implementing The Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR
~'
1508.27(b)(1).
I r.~
-c r---
J' i
4 i'
Given this, and given the controversy in the scientific community as to the effects of such exposures, we are unable to find that the environm*:ntal impacts 1
here are not significant. 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 1.
For the Commission SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Commission I
Dated at Washington, D.C.,
r this day of-February, 1980. "
i 4
[