ML020160586

Issuance of Environmental Scoping Summary Report Associated with the Staffs Review of the Application by Virginia Electric and Power Company for Renewal of the Operating Licenses for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2

ML020160586
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	01/16/2002
From:	Kugler A Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs
To:	Christian D Dominion Generation
Kugler A, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-2828
References
Download: ML020160586 (25)

Text

January 16, 2002 Mr. David A. Christian Senior Vice President-Nuclear Dominion Generation 5000 Dominion Blvd.

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING

SUMMARY

REPORT ASSOCIATED WITH THE STAFFS REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION BY VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY FOR RENEWAL OF THE OPERATING LICENSES FOR SURRY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2

Dear Mr. Christian:

From August 15 through October 15, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducted a scoping process to determine the scope of the NRC staffs environmental review of the application for renewal of the operating licenses for the Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, submitted by Virginia Electric and Power Company by letter dated May 29, 2001. As part of the scoping process, the NRC staff held two public environmental scoping meetings in Surry County, Virginia, on September 19, 2001, to solicit public input regarding the scope of the review. The scoping process is the first step in the development of a plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), for the Surry Power Station.

The NRC staff has prepared the enclosed environmental scoping summary report identifying comments received at the September 19, 2001, license renewal environmental scoping meetings. The NRC did not receive any comments in writing during the comment period. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29(b), you are being provided a copy of the scoping summary report. The transcripts of the meetings can be found as an attachment to the meeting summary. The meeting summary is available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room) (Note that the URL is case-sensitive).

Although not included in this summary report, the NRC also received a letter dated November 15, 2001, from Mr. John P. Wolflin of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

providing comments on the scope of the staffs environmental review. The staff intends to consider the comments from FWS to the extent possible in the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS for the Surry Power Station.

The next step in the environmental review process is the issuance of a draft supplement to the GEIS, which is scheduled for April 2002. Notice of the availability of the draft supplement to the

D.A. Christian GEIS and the procedures for providing comments will be published in an upcoming Federal Register notice. If you have any questions concerning this matter, you can call me at (301) 415-2828.

Sincerely, Original Signed By: AJKugler Andrew J. Kugler, Senior Project Manager License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: see next page

D.A. Christian GEIS and the procedures for providing comments will be published in an upcoming Federal Register notice. If you have any questions concerning this matter, you can call me at (301) 415-2828.

Sincerely, Original Signed By: AJKugler Andrew J. Kugler, Senior Project Manager License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: see next page DISTRIBUTION Environmental r/f DMatthews/FGillespie CCarpenter BZalcman AKugler RPrato CGrimes OGC EHickey (PNNL)

Accession no.: ML020160586

• See previous concurrence Document Name:G:\\Rgeb\\North Anna-Surry\\Surry\\Scoping\\SPS Scopg Rept & ltr.wpd OFFICE PM:RGEB SC:RGEB C:RGEB C:RLSB OGC NAME AKugler*

BZalcman*

CCarpenter*

CGrimes*

RWeisman DATE 12/06/01 12/06/01 12/10/01 12/12/01 01/16/02 OFFICIAL FILE COPY

ENCLOSURE Introduction On May 29, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application dated May 2001, for renewal of the operating licenses of Surry Power Station (SPS), Units 1 and 2.

The SPS units are located in Surry County, Virginia. As part of the application, Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo, also referred to as Dominion Generation), the applicant, submitted an environmental report (ER) prepared in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. 10 CFR Part 51 contains the NRC requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. Section 51.53 outlines requirements for preparation and submittal of environmental reports to the NRC.

Section 51.53(c)(3) was based upon the findings documented in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (GEIS). The GEIS, in which the staff identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, was issued for public comment. The staff received input from Federal and State agencies, public organizations, and private citizens. As a result of the assessments in the GEIS, a number of impacts were determined to be small and to be generic to all nuclear power plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific plant or site characteristic. These were designated as Category 1 impacts. An applicant for license renewal may adopt the conclusions contained in the GEIS for Category 1 impacts, absent new and significant information that may cause the conclusions to fall outside those of the GEIS. Category 2 impacts are those impacts that have been determined to be plant-specific and are required to be addressed in the applicants ER.

The Commission determined that the NRC does not have a role in energy planning decision-making for existing plants, which should be left to State regulators and utility officials.

Therefore, an applicant for license renewal need not provide an analysis of the need for power, or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action. Additionally, the Commission determined that the ER need not discuss any aspect of storage of spent fuel for the facility. This determination was based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Commissions Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR 51.23.

On August 15, 2001, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (66 FR 42897), to notify the public of the staffs intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS to support the renewal application for the SPS operating licenses. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, and 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local government agencies; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than October 15, 2001. The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at the Surry County Government Center in Surry County, Virginia, on September 19, 2001. The NRC announced the meetings in local newspapers (The Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Daily Press -

Williamsburg, The Virginian Pilot, The Virginia Gazette, and The Sussex-Surry Dispatch),

issued press releases, and distributed flyers locally. Approximately 70 members of the public attended the meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. Following the NRCs prepared statements, the meetings were open for public comments. Twenty (20) attendees provided

2 either oral comments or written statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. The transcripts of the meetings can be found as an attachment to the meeting summary, which was issued on October 10, 2001. The meeting summary is available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) under accession number ML012830412. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room) (Note that the URL is case-sensitive).

Although not included in this summary report, the NRC also received a letter dated November 15, 2001, from Mr. John P. Wolflin of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),

providing comments on the scope of the staffs environmental review. The staff intends to consider the comments from FWS to the extent possible in the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS for the Surry Power Station.

The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and highlight public concerns and issues. The Notice of Intent identified the following objectives of the scoping process:

Define the proposed action Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify significant issues to be analyzed in depth Identify and eliminate peripheral issues Identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements being prepared that are related to the supplement to the GEIS Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements Indicate the schedule for preparation of the supplement to the GEIS Identify any cooperating agencies Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor reviewed the transcripts and identified individual comments. All comments and suggestions received orally during the scoping meetings were considered. As previously noted, no written comments were received during the scoping period. Each set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique alpha identifier (Document ID letter), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back to the transcript in which the comments were documented.

Several commenters submitted comments through multiple sources (e.g., afternoon and evening scoping meetings).

Table 1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the Document ID letter associated with each persons set(s) of comments. The Document ID letter is preceded by SurS (short for Surry Power Station scoping). The individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting.

3 Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the topic within the proposed supplement to the GEIS or according to the general topic if outside the scope of the GEIS.

Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues that had been raised in the source comments. Once comments were grouped according to subject area, the staff and contractor determined the appropriate action for the comment.

The staff made a determination that each comment was one of the following:

a comment that was actually a question and introduces no new information.

a comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general (or specifically, SPS) or that made a general statement about the license renewal process. It may have made only a general statement regarding Category 1 and/or Category 2 issues. In addition, it provided no new information and does not specifically pertain to 10 CFR Part 54.

a comment about a Category 1 issue that provided new information that required evaluation during the review, or provided no new information a comment about a Category 2 issue that provided information that required evaluation during the review, or provided no such information a comment regarding Alternatives to the proposed action, or a comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS, or a comment on Safety issues pertaining to 10 CFR Part 54, or a comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 10 CFR Parts 51 or 54).

Each comment is summarized in the following pages. For reference, the unique identifier for each comment (Document ID letter listed in Table 1 plus the comment number) is provided. In those cases where no new information was provided by the commenter, no further evaluation will be performed.

The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (which is the supplemental EIS, or SEIS) will take into account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping process. The SEIS will address both Category 1 and 2 issues, along with any new information identified as a result of scoping. The SEIS will rely on conclusions supported by information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues, and will include analyses of Category 2 issues and any new and significant information. The draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be made available for public comment. The comment period will offer the next opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, State, and local government agencies; local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to the NRCs environmental review process. The comments received on the draft SEIS will be considered in the preparation of the final SEIS. The final SEIS, along with the

4 staffs Safety Evaluation Report (SER), will provide much of the basis for the NRCs decision on the SPS license renewal application.

TABLE 1 - Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period Commenters ID Commenter Affiliation (If Stated)

Comment Source SurS-A Bill Barlow Virginia House of Delegates Scoping Meeting SurS-B Henry Bradby The Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors Scoping Meeting SurS-C Judy Lyttle Surry County Board of Supervisors Scoping Meeting SurS-D Doug Caskey Isle of Wight County Scoping Meeting SurS-E Tyrone Franklin Surry County Government Scoping Meeting SurS-F Constance Rhodes Smithfield Isle of Wight Scoping Meeting SurS-G Claude Reeson Surry County Chamber of Commerce Scoping Meeting SurS-H Wilton Bobo Dominion Scoping Meeting SurS-I Richard Blount Dominion Scoping Meeting SurS-J Bill Bolin Dominion Scoping Meeting SurS-K Mike Stevens Scoping Meeting SurS-L Howard Daniels Tri-County Interdenominational Ministers Conference Scoping Meeting SurS-M Thomas Hardy Surry County Scoping Meeting SurS-N Ralph Anderson Nuclear Energy Institute Scoping Meeting SurS-O Ernest Blount Surry County Board of Supervisors Scoping Meeting SurS-P Terry Lewis Surry County Scoping Meeting SurS-Q Jim Dishner Scoping Meeting SurS-R Richard Blount Dominion Scoping Meeting SurS-S Bill Bolin Dominion Scoping Meeting SurS-T Fred Quayle Virginia Senate Scoping Meeting SurS-U James Brown Dominion Scoping Meeting SurS-V Bill Subjack Scoping Meeting

5 Surry Power Station (SPS), Units 1 and 2 Public Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses The following pages summarize the comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping process, and discuss their disposition. Parenthetical numbers after each comment refer to the Commenters ID letter and the comment number. Comments can be tracked to the commenter and the source document through the ID letter and comment number listed in Table 1. Comments are grouped by category. The categories are as follows:

1.

General Comments in Support of License Renewal and its Processes 2.

Comments in Support of License Renewal at Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 3.

Comments Concerning Category 1 Socioeconomic Issues 4.

Comments Concerning Category 1 Decommissioning Issues 5.

Comments Concerning Category 2 Aquatic Resource Issues 6.

Comments Concerning Category 2 Threatened and Endangered Species Issues 7.

Comments Concerning Category 2 Socioeconomic Issues 8.

Comments Concerning Category 2 Historical and Archaeological Resource Issues 9.

Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of License Renewal: Safety and Need for Power

10. Questions: Safety and Other Issues

6 Comments

1. General Comments in Support of License Renewal and its Processes Comment: License renewal is good for the environment. (SurS-N-1)

Comment: It has been clearly shown that the life of a nuclear power plant is much longer than the original term of this license. (SurS-T-7)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal and are general in nature. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

2. Comments in Support of License Renewal at Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 Comment: Our volunteer program is key to Dominion's corporate philosophy. (SurS-I-14)

Comment: The environment is a major issue here today. We feel that the power plant here has shown a very clear and strong adherence to sound environmental policies. (SurS-A-2)

Comment: The quality of the environment is carefully continued by the existence of this plant, and by the policies and the operation of the plant. (SurS-A-3)

Comment: The Surry power plant is a good neighbor. (SurS-B-1)

Comment: The Isle of Wight County has a very close relationship with the staff over at the power plant. (SurS-B-3)

Comment: The Surry plant has been a great asset, and we know it has been a great asset to this county. (SurS-C-1)

Comment: The Surry plant provides economics for our -- just taking care of our citizens in a lot of ways. (SurS-C-3)

Comment: We are glad you are here, we hope that the NRC will relicense the plant.

(SurS-C-5)

Comment: The Isle of Wight County is in support of the renewal of the license for this facility.

(SurS-D-1)

Comment: The service that is provided, the utility that is provided to the region, to the Commonwealth, is immeasurable in many aspects. (SurS-D-3)

Comment: Surry is committed to the environment. (SurS-D-5)

7 Comment: There are numerous areas in which Surry has led the way over the decades in being environmental stewards, to being in the business of providing nuclear energy, and yet to have the level of consciousness that they do, relative to the environmental protection, is certainly to be commended. (SurS-D-6)

Comment: Surry's total commitment, also, is to the Hampton Roads regions, and to the communities at large. (SurS-D-7)

Comment: Certainly we are in support, and stand ready to assist in any way possible for this license renewal. (SurS-D-9)

Comment: Dominion Virginia Power has continued to operate the facility with the highest degree of professionalism, while paying close attention to the concerns posed by the Board of Supervisors, and citizens of Surry County, and the approval process of their condition use permit. (SurS-E-1)

Comment: Dominion is a very well ran [run] operation. (SurS-E-3)

Comment: Smithfield/Isle of Wight endorses the Surry Power Station units 1 and 2 for relicensing. (SurS-F-1)

Comment: I should probably comment on the community commitment perspective. They provided safe and reliable electricity to this community and adjoining communities, for more than 20 years. (SurS-F-3)

Comment: Dominion contributes to a meaningful way of life, contributes to the quality of life, and therefore giving the citizens a better place in which to live and work. (SurS-F-4)

Comment: Surry is a stellar facility, extremely clean, well maintained, and operated.

(SurS-G-1)

Comment: The Surry County Chamber of Commerce does encourage NRC to approve this process. (SurS-G-3)

Comment: The people at the Surry Power Plant have worked with the county, they have worked with the people in the emergency operations center, they have provided training.

(SurS-H-2)

Comment: The issue of hurricanes, tornadoes, those kinds of things that have nothing to do with the operation of the plant, the fact that we work with Surry, we maintain a viable emergency response organization, keeps us better prepared to respond to those non-nuclear emergencies.

(SurS-H-3)

Comment: I'm glad to have Surry Power Plant as a partner. Surry has always responded to requests for technical advice and procedural advice. (SurS-H-4)

8 Comment: Not only is James City County a better-prepared county because of the presence of Surry Power Plant in our community, but also the whole region is better prepared. It spills over into jurisdictions that are not even risk jurisdictions. (SurS-H-5)

Comment: The environmental report concludes to continue operation of Surry Power Station beyond 40 years, and the negligible impact to the environment around the plant. (SurS-I-11)

Comment: We (Surry) took those excavated materials and made roads and dikes out on Hog Island state wildlife refuge. So that they could do more soil management for waterfowl.

(SurS-J-3)

Comment: In our (Surry's) environmental assessment we performed a review of these same issues (GEIS), and our assessment concurred with the NRC assessment. (SurS-J-5)

Comment: Some of the issue categories we looked at Surry included aquatic biology, terrestrial biology, demographics, and transmission line impacts. (SurS-J-6)

Comment: In evaluating these specific issues Surry consulted with representatives of state and federal resource agencies, as well as academicians, to update our information. In every issue we examined it was determined that the continued generation of electricity from Surry Power Station benefits our customers, and the community, while at the same time minimizing environmental impact. Surry has a history of excellent environmental stewardship. (SurS-J-13)

Comment: Surry participates in numerous company-wide environmental stewardship projects, such as the recent peregrine falcon project, which we did this spring, conducted in partnership with various state and federal agencies. (SurS-J-14)

Comment: The refuge manager at Hog Island is extremely pleased to be a neighbor, or to have Surry as a neighbor. (SurS-J-15)

Comment: The refuge manager at Hog Island wanted to emphasize education; there is a joint program that they work in conjunction with our education people at the power station when they bring school group tours on. (SurS-J-17)

Comment: The refuge manager at Hog Island wanted to emphasize the environmental projects that we do on the power stations, such as the -- I mean, on the refuge, such as the clean-up.

(SurS-J-18)

Comment: There is a sense of trust that I feel with the plant operators. (SurS-K-4)

Comment: The Surry plant is clean and orderly. (SurS-K-5)

Comment: I come in favor of relicensing Surry. (SurS-L-1)

Comment: We certainly speak today in favor of the relicensing. (SurS-L-5)

9 Comment: We are in favor of relicensing. (SurS-M-1)

Comment: Surry is a good neighbor to us in many ways. (SurS-M-3)

Comment: License renewal is good for the local community and the region. (SurS-N-3)

Comment: Finally, renewal of Surry's license is good for the national economy. (SurS-N-5)

Comment: Surry station's professional people continually monitor the station's operations on a daily basis to ensure that the station complies with the regulations and the units do not have adverse impact on the local environments here in Surry County. (SurS-O-2)

Comment: Surry has an excellent operation record, primarily because of the maintenance testing and corrective actions that take place at the Surry Power station. (SurS-O-3)

Comment: Safe practices are reinforced through training issues, and continuous training throughout the community. Surry even reaches outside to the community, training with various rescue and fire agencies throughout the county. (SurS-O-5)

Comment: Surry's impact and importance to state and local economics, the Surry power station plays a crucial role in providing low cost energy, which makes Virginia more attractive to businesses, as well as Surry county. (SurS-O-9)

Comment: Surry power station has demonstrated commitment to the community. Surry has partnered with Chippokes state park and has an ongoing program. (SurS-O-12)

Comment: We support the relicensing of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant. (SurS-O-13)

Comment: Surry power station is very, very important to Surry County. (SurS-P-1)

Comment: Surry is of benefit to the region. (SurS-P-4)

Comment: The county enjoys a great working relationship with the Surry Power Station and Dominion Generation. (SurS-Q-1)

Comment: Surry has provided us with a lot of equipment and training, and certainly classes to benefit us to be able to help the power station and the county to maintain that high level of readiness in the event of an emergency here at the power station. (SurS-Q-3)

Comment: I enjoy playing in VOPEX drills all the time, and I think there should be one a year so that we stay focused, and we are up on top of rules, regulations, SOPs and training.

(SurS-Q-4)

Comment: Surry allows the county to help maintain that high level of readiness that we strive to keep. (SurS-Q-5)

10 Comment: I personally have enjoyed a great working relationship with the Surry Power Station personnel. (SurS-Q-6)

Comment: What we (Surry) did with the excavated materials we used those excavated materials and made roads and dikes out on Hog Island state wildlife refuge. And that has fulfilled their goal of being a waterfowl management area. (SurS-S-2)

Comment: In our environmental assessment we (Surry) performed a review of these same issues, and reached the same conclusion that the NRC did, that they are of minor consequence.

(SurS-S-3)

Comment: Some of the issue categories we looked at Surry included aquatic biology, terrestrial biology, demographics, and transmission line impacts. (SurS-S-4)

Comment: In every issue Surry examined it was determined that the continued generation of electricity from Surry Power Station best benefits our customers, and the community, while at the same time minimizing environmental impact. (SurS-S-12)

Comment: There are educational and environmental programs that Surry shares with the information center. (SurS-S-13)

Comment: Surry Power Station is concerned, as a neighbor to the people in the county of Surry. (SurS-T-1)

Comment: They (Surry) are good neighbors to this community; they are good neighbors to the surrounding community. (SurS-T-3)

Comment: They (Surry) have participated with Chippokes in some of the projects that take place over at Chippokes, and we are forever grateful for that. (SurS-T-4)

Comment: Thirdly the environmental concerns that are so much on everybody's mind today, throughout this country, throughout Virginia, Surry Power Station has been a leader in this area of the state in their awareness of the environmental concerns. (SurS-T-6)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at the Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2, and are general in nature. The comments provide no new information and therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

Comment: Additionally, nuclear energy provides the largest energy source that makes electricity without emitting green house gases, or other air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxide, that have been related to issues such as global warming, and degradation of air quality. (SurS-N-2)

Comment: Electricity provided by Surry power station is electric that does not give off emissions, emission-free type, and it is very important to the economy of Surry, Virginia, and other areas as well. (SurS-O-4)

11 Comment: Even on the environmental side, it is quality, being that Surry does not give off emissions, even in the air it does not give off the products that are associated with some emission fuels. So that is even safe for our natural resources. (SurS-O-7)

Response: The comments are supportive of license renewal and are noted. Air quality impacts from plant operations were evaluated in the GEIS and found to be minimal. These emissions are regulated through permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the States. The comments provide no new information and therefore will not be evaluated further.

3. Comments Concerning Category 1 Socioeconomic Issues Comment: Dominion Power has proven to be a great corporate citizen and steward for the environment. (SurS-E-2)

Comment: Dominion's commitment in Isle of Wight, in particular, has been demonstrated in a big way through the United Way effort. (SurS-F-5)

Comment: Dominion assisted in 12 non-profit agencies in Isle of Wight on a yearly basis, enabling us to meet the needs of those less fortunate in our community. (SurS-F-6)

Comment: As well when a recent devastating hurricane hit southeastern Virginia, the Surry employees joined forces with other Dominion employees, to provide canned foods and household items for those who suffered the loss of homes and property. (SurS-F-7)

Comment: We (Surry) have strived to be a good corporate citizen. (SurS-I-13)

Comment: The employees have volunteered their time to build an amphitheater over at Chippokes, to paint some buildings over there. (SurS-K-3)

Comment: We view the power station as a great corporate neighbor to the county. (SurS-Q-2)

Comment: Our volunteer programs and participation is key to Dominion's corporate philosophy.

And we continue this commitment to our communities in the future. (SurS-R-12)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at the Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2. Public services were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. Information regarding the impact on social services will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

Comment: The Surry plant has provided for a great number of educational purposes.

(SurS-C-2)

Comment: Revenues from Surry have helped the county to do many things to improve itself.

For instance we have probably one of the better education systems in the state of Virginia.

(SurS-P-3)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at the Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2. Public services were evaluated in the GEIS and determined

12 to be a Category 1 issue. Information regarding the impact on education will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

Comment: The containment structures for Surry were constructed below grade so as to reduce the visual impact to the historic James Town and Colonial Williamsburg sites. (SurS-J-2)

Comment: Another example of the design feature was the fact that the containment structures were constructed below grade so as to reduce the visual impact to the historic James Town and Colonial Williamsburg. (SurS-S-1)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at the Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2. Aesthetic impacts were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. Information regarding the impact of Surry Power Station structures on the natural landscape and scenic vistas will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

4. Comments Concerning Category 1 Decommissioning Issues Comment: If we close down that facility we recognize the fact that we would have to put into place all types of security just to make certain that what remains in the county, the residue in terms of radioactive material, would have to be guarded. (SurS-P-11)

Comment: Losing Surry in terms of being a tax asset to the county, but also we pick up the liability in terms of having to provide the services that would be necessary to keep Surry county secure in the event that the plant itself is closed. (SurS-P-12)

Response: The comments are noted; however the statements are not accurate. Once the plant is permanently shutdown, it will be decommissioned and the license will be terminated. To date, all nuclear power plants that have been decommissioned and have had their license terminated, have had unrestricted access, which allows the site to be used for other activities and does not require any additional security or monitoring. If fuel is maintained onsite in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), a license for the ISFSI will be maintained and any required security and monitoring would be provided by the licensee. Decommissioning issues are Category 1 issues as evaluated in the GEIS. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

5. Comments Concerning Category 2 Aquatic Resource Issues Comment: We designed Surry Power Station such that the water that is released from the power station goes around Hog Island such to protect the oyster beds. (SurS-I-9)

Comment: We designed a structure, which takes in, as water comes in, removes fish from the water, protects them, and puts them back (SurS-I-10)

Comment: The discharge for the Surry station was placed upstream to prevent, or to protect the oyster beds downstream. (SurS-J-1)

13 Comment: Surry has state of the art withdraw screens, which are at the intake structure to protect fish. (SurS-J-4)

Comment: In the mid to late '70s we conducted a study that led to the impacts of this waste heat on the bottom of the James River. Basically we found no long-term deleterious effects.

And the Virginia State Water Control Board, which is now called the Department of Environmental Quality, agreed with our findings. (SurS-J-8)

Comment: Water withdrawal issues were looked at, also. Water withdrawal represents the water that I mentioned earlier, that is used for cooling. The Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences studied the water withdrawal issue, and again demonstrated no long-term deleterious effects on the James River ecosystem. And, again, the water board, now VEQ, concurred with our findings. (SurS-J-9)

Comment: Our waterways, our water streams, Surry has safety in mind, you know, with our fish and wildlife, even at the intake. And they have designed a special fish separating system intake screen that separates, and where it goes into the James river as well. (SurS-O-8)

Comment: We designed Surry Power Station such that when the water that is released from the power station, that it does not impact the oyster beds. The station was turned such that water goes out, and by the time it gets to the oyster beds it is all cooled down again. (SurS-R-8)

Comment: Surry has developed the structure such that when fish are coming in, the structure picks up the fish, and puts them back into the river without being harmed. (SurS-R-9)

Comment: In the mid to late '70s Surry conducted a study that looked at the impacts of this waste heat on the biology of the James River. Basically we found no long-term deleterious effects. The Virginia State Water Control Board, which is now called the Department of Environmental Quality, agreed with our findings. (SurS-S-6)

Comment: Water withdrawal issues were looked at, also. Water withdrawal represents the water that I mentioned earlier, that is used for cooling. The Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences studied the water withdrawal issue, and again they demonstrated no long-term deleterious effects on the James River ecosystem, which the water board agreed with, also. (SurS-S-7)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments relate to aquatic ecology and are supportive of license renewal at the Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2. Aquatic Ecology will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

6. Comments Concerning Category 2 Threatened and Endangered Species Issues Comment: Surry looked at such issues as waste heat, water withdrawal, and threatening of endangered species. (SurS-J-7)

Comment: Our research showed no impact to any threatened and endangered species as a result of operation of Surry and its associated transmission lines. In fact one of the most long-lived and successful bald eagle nest in Chesapeake bay population is located on Surry Power Station property. (SurS-J-10)

14 Comment: Some of the issues that we (Surry) looked at, at Surry, include such things as waste heat, water withdrawal, and threatened and endangered species. (SurS-S-5)

Comment: The evaluation of threatened and endangered species was a little different, in that we had to go to state and federal agencies to investigate possible impacts on listed species, since species are continually being listed. The research showed no impact to any threatened and/or endangered species as a result of the operation of the station, and its associated transmission lines. In fact one of the most long-lived and successful bald eagle nest in Chesapeake bay population is located on the station property. (SurS-S-9)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments acknowledge the importance of the manner in which Surry Power Station operates the site to the benefit of threatened and endangered species. This issue will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

7. Comments Concerning Category 2 Socioeconomic Issues Comment: Surry provides a tremendous employment base. (SurS-D-8)

Comment: Surry has also been a model corporate citizen, and have helped many organizations in the county, plus provided jobs and an enormous tax base. (SurS-G-2)

Comment: License Renewal will assure that the local economy will continue to reap the benefits of the large number of employees at Surry Power Station. (SurS-I-2)

Comment: Since 1966 130 million dollars has gone to Surry County. (SurS-I-3)

Comment: With regard to socioeconomic issues, we found contribution to the local infrastructure. (SurS-J-11)

Comment: Surry provided 10.3 million dollars in taxes last year for a county of 6,000 people.

(SurS-K-1)

Comment: From a business point of view, I have a restaurant, a small inn. Surry helps us to keep our employee level high through the year. (SurS-K-2)

Comment: We are impressed and proud of the fact that we receive a tax base here. And we are, more so, pleased with the fact that you employ some of our citizens. (SurS-L-3)

Comment: Surry has a profound effect on your tax base. (SurS-N-4)

Comment: Surry power station provides significant tax revenue for Surry County. (SurS-O-10)

Comment: Surry employment provides employment for 900 to 1,000 people at the power station, which contributes to the local economics here in the community, and surrounding areas throughout Virginia. (SurS-O-11)

Comment: Surry power station has been of great benefit to the county, in terms of the tax revenues that are generated by the plant for Surry. (SurS-P-2)

15 Comment: Revenues from Surry have helped the county to do many things to improve itself.

For instance we have probably one of the better education systems in the state of Virginia.

(SurS-P-3)

Comment: Surry power station allows Surry County to be a net producer of jobs. (SurS-P-5)

Comment: The jobs that are available at Surry power station are high end, high paying jobs, highly skilled, highly technical people are employed in those jobs. (SurS-P-6)

Comment: Surry will also ensure that our local economy will continue to reap the benefits of a large employer in the area. (SurS-R-2)

Comment: Surry County will continue to receive the tax revenue from the station operation.

(SurS-R-3)

Comment: Surry Power Station will continue to have jobs well into this century. (SurS-R-4)

Comment: With regard to socioeconomic issues, we (Surry) found positive contribution to the local infrastructure, much of which you've heard about tonight. (SurS-S-10)

Comment: For the time that, since 1966, the Surry Power Station has pumped 130 million dollars into the economy of this county. It has provided jobs for 850 people, many of whom live in this county. (SurS-T-2)

Comment: Without Dominion Power we won't get no businesses. We use that to show that we have a low tax base, and we use that to show that we have power to give you. (SurS-U-3)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments support license renewal at the Surry Power Station Unit 1 and 2. Socioeconomic issues specific to the plant are Category 2 issues and will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

8. Comments Concerning Category 2 Historical and Archaeological Resource Issues Comment: Because there would be no new construction activity at Surry, we are going to continue to use the same facilities, the continued operation of the station means that there will be, the impacts to the cultural resource will also be negligible. (SurS-J-12)

Comment: There will be no new construction activity at Surry of a major consequence, so therefore the cultural resource impacts would be negligible. (SurS-S-11)

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at the Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2. Historical and archaeological resources are addressed as Category 2 issues. Potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources will be addressed in Chapter 4 of the SEIS.

16

9. Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of License Renewal:

Safety Comment: When the plant was designed, we on the Planning Commission and others, thought more of ground security. Now we have to look towards the air. And from where I live I see flight patterns over Patrick Henry. (SurS-M-4)

Comment: Surry Power Station has a history of safe and efficient operation. (SurS-R-5)

Comment: Under the NRC new oversight process, which is updated on a quarterly basis on the agency's website, Surry Power Station has maintained green windows in all areas of safety performance, meaning all the NRC safety cornerstones are fully met. (SurS-R-6)

Comment: First and foremost is safety at Surry. (SurS-S-12)

Comment: In regard to, and the last point I would like to make is in regard to safety. I have really been impressed with how carefully the plans, the procedures have been worked out, and have been carried out in regard to the operation of the plant. (SurS-A-4)

Comment: I feel that this plant has demonstrated, on a daily basis through monitoring, self-monitoring by the plant itself, monitoring by the nuclear regulatory officials, I think it has shown that this is a safe operation. (SurS-A-5)

Comment: The Surry plant, it is well maintained, carefully looked after, and I don't have any knowledge of ever having any environmental problem over in Isle of Wight that happened over at the power plant. (SurS-B-2)

Comment: We feel that Virginia Power is very safe. (SurS-C-4)

Comment: Surry is interested in safety and security. (SurS-D-4)

Comment: We are very impressed with their professional operation, and their attention to safety. (SurS-F-2)

Comment: The NRC is considering the issue of safety, among other things, for the relicensing of Surry Power Plant. And in response to last week's events is right up there with Dominion's issue of safety. Surry is complete and airtight. Surry does the nuclear safety on the same level

- high security. (SurS-H-1)

Comment: Surry Power Station has a history of safe and efficient operation. Since the 1990s Surry has consistently been ranked one of the most efficient producers of nuclear generated electricity in the United States. (SurS-I-4)

Comment: The Surry station has also achieved, and continues to achieve high levels of safety and performance as measured by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation. (SurS-I-5)

17 Comment: From 1992 to 1998 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a systematic assessment of license performance reports gave the Surry station high marks for safety. (SurS-I-6)

Comment: Under the new oversight process, which is updated on a quarterly basis on the agency's website, Surry Power Station has maintained green windows in the area of safety performance, meaning all the NRC safety cornerstones are met. (SurS-I-7)

Comment: The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations also has consistently given Surry Power Station high marks. (SurS-I-8)

Comment: The refuge manager at Hog Island wanted to emphasize safety at Surry.

(SurS-J-16)

Comment: Surry has demonstrated [its commitment] through the safety record. (SurS-L-2)

Comment: But if Surry was not safe, those aspects (economical) would not be important at all.

I'm impressed with the safety record. So I'm very pleased with the environment, the safety environment as well. (SurS-L-4)

Comment: I am pleased with the safety record that we have at this plant. (SurS-M-2)

Comment: In closing I would like to commend Dominion, and the nuclear professionals at Surry, for their continuing excellent record of safety performance, and their commitment to protecting public health and safety, and the environment. (SurS-N-6)

Comment: Safety, in touring the plant, was one of the top priorities at the Surry Plant. The station being here in the county has a history of safe and reliable operations. Every day the station earns respect from people on the NRC side, because I feel that in my tour, you had members of the NRC that are residents, that are there on a daily basis, checking for the safe operations and unsafe, as well, of the Surry Power station. (SurS-O-1)

Comment: Surry was built with safety in mind. (SurS-O-6)

Comment: Virginia Power is a very, very safe operation. (SurS-P-7)

Comment: Surry power plant, I happen to feel, is probably the safest plant of that particular type that you will find, not only just in Virginia, or in the U.S., but perhaps in the world.

(SurS-P-8)

Comment: I am proud of the kind of security that the plant has by way of protecting it from the kind of terrorist attacks that we saw occur in New York and in the northern Virginia area over the past week. (SurS-P-9)

Comment: Surry power plant is the only industry in this area that does have an evacuation plan, not only for just the employees at the plant, and not only for just the citizens that are in Surry county, but for the entire region. (SurS-P-10)

Comment: The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations also has consistently given Surry Power Station high marks for nuclear safety and excellence. (SurS-R-7)

18 Comment: Surry was quick to establish an outstanding safety record. (SurS-U-1)

Comment: They were safety conscious, whatever you did for Virginia Power; they were safety conscious about it. (SurS-U-2)

Response: The comments are noted. They relate to operational safety and not to aging management or environmental issues within the scope of evaluation under 10 CFR Parts 51 and

54. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated in the SEIS.

Concerns related to operational safety have been forwarded to the NRCs licensing project manager for consideration.

Need for Power Comment: Surry produces about 15 percent of the electricity in the state of Virginia.

(SurS-R-1)

Comment: It is providing low cost energy to this community, and this part of the state.

(SurS-T-5)

Comment: Need to make sure there is an uninterrupted flow of electrical energy. (SurS-A-1)

Comment: Surry's total commitment in the sense of providing nuclear energy in the most efficient and safe manner, I think, that technology will allow, and regulations will allow, in terms of this being a facility. (SurS-D-2)

Comment: We need the power, we need the good people that we have at the plant, we need the leadership and guidance, and the continued partnership of Surry Power Plant, as well as James City County, and the other jurisdictions in the area. (SurS-H-6)

Comment: License renewal will assure continued safe operation of Surry Power Station, which now produces 15 percent of the power in the State of Virginia. (SurS-I-1)

Comment: We considered the cost of replacing the Surry plant. The Surry Power Station generates more than 1,600 megawatts of electricity, electricity equivalent for 400,000 homes.

The station is relatively inexpensive in today's economy. (SurS-I-12)

Comment: Surry Power Station generates about 1600 megawatts of electricity, enough for 400,000 homes. (SurS-R-10)

Comment: Because of Surry Power Station's low production costs and overall safety performance, we believe that relicensing the station is the best option for meeting the future electricity needs for the state of Virginia. (SurS-R-11)

Response: The comments are noted. The need for power is specifically stated to be outside the scope of license renewal (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)). The comments are interpreted as expressing support for license renewal at the Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2; however, they provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

19

10. Questions: Safety and Other Issues Comment: And to what extent will the review process include maybe a more severe event than was considered [i.e., September 11 terrorist attacks]? And to what extent does the process consider this? And, secondly, the second part of the question is, as we are all reflecting on this from comparable facilities countrywide, to what extent is there a mechanism to share ideas?

(SurS-V-1)

Response: The questions are noted. The NRCs environmental review is confined to environmental matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant.

An NRC safety review related to aging during the license renewal period is conducted separately. Security (or safeguards) and emergency planning matters are outside the scope of these reviews because licensees are required by 10 CFR Part 50 to maintain and update those programs. In view of the recent unprecedented events, NRC Chairman Richard A. Meserve, with the full support of the Commission, has directed the staff to review the NRC's security regulations and procedures.

Although a topic may not be within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is always concerned with protecting health and safety. Any matter potentially affecting safety can be addressed under processes currently available for the existing operating licenses absent a license renewal application. In terms of sharing information, licensees regularly share information through various forums, such as the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations and the Nuclear Energy Institute. The NRC also shares information with licensees through various means, such as event reports and generic communications (e.g., information notices). The questions provide no new information, and do not pertain to the scope of license renewal as set in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore, they will not be evaluated further. The concern related to operational safety has been forwarded to the NRCs licensing project manager for consideration.

Summary The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (or SEIS) for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, will take into account all the relevant environmental issues raised during the scoping process that are described above. The draft SEIS will be made available for public comment. Interested Federal, State, and local government agencies, local organizations, and members of the public will be given the opportunity to provide comments to be considered during the development of the final SEIS. Concerns identified that are outside the scope of the staffs environmental review have been or will be forwarded to the appropriate NRC program manager for consideration.

Virginia Electric and Power Company Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 cc:

Mr. David R. Lewis, Esquire Shaw Pittman 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Mr. Richard H. Blount, II Site Vice President Surry Power Station Virginia Electric and Power Company 5570 Hog Island Road Surry, Virginia 23883 Dr. W. T. Lough Virginia State Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation P.O. Box 1197 Richmond, Virginia 23209 Robert B. Stroube, M.D., M.P.H.

Acting Deputy State Health Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Virginia Department of Health Room 214 P. O. Box 2448 Richmond, Virginia 23218 Old Dominion Electric Cooperative 4201 Dominion Blvd.

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Mr. Stephen P. Sarver, Director Nuclear Licensing & Operations Support Virginia Electric and Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Blvd.

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060-6711 Office of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mr. William Corbin Virginia Electric and Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glenn Allen, Virginia 23060-6711 Mr. Alan Nelson Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20006 Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5850 Hog Island Road Surry, Virginia 23883 Chairman Board of Supervisors of Surry County Surry County Courthouse Surry, Virginia 23683 Mr. Alan Zoellner Government Information Department Swem Library College of William and Mary P.O. Box 8794 Williamsburg, VA 23187-8794 Caudle A. Julian U.S. NRC, Region II Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 23 T85 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3415 Ms. Lillian Cuoco Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.

Millstone Power Station Rope Ferry Road Building 475/5 Waterford, Connecticut 06385

Virginia Electric and Power Company Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 2

Kamilla Gary Sussex-Surry Dispatch P.O.Box 270 Wakefield, Virginia 23888 Herbert N. Charity 24000 Moonlight Road Smithfield, Virginia 23430 Tyrone Franklin Community Development Director Surry County 45 School Street Surry, Virginia 23883 Hugh Spain The Smithfield Times 228 Main Street Smithfield, Virginia 23431 Sheila Harrison 3730 Hog Island Road Surry, Virginia 23883 Matilda Hill 194 Burnt Mill Road Surry, Virginia 23883 Bill Maher Exelon Corporation 203 Hazelton Court Mullica Hill, New Jersey 08062 Fran Reining Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 13 Friendly Drive Quarryville, Pennsylvania 17566 Henry Bradby Chair, Isle of Wight Board of Supervisors 14082 Track Lane Smithfield, Virginia 23430 Claude W. Reeson Surry County Chamber of Commerce 8263 Colonial Trail West Spring Grove, Virginia 23881 Thomas Hardy 9205 Colonial Trail East Smithfield, Virginia 23430 Pastor Howard Daniels Tri County Ministers Conference and Surry Industrial Development Authority 3956 Colonial Trail West Spring Grove, Virginia 23881 Leslie Foldes Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Radiological Health 1500 E. Main Street, Room 240 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Jon Cudworth Tetra Tech NUS 900 Trail Ridge Road Aiken, South Carolina 29803 Hon. Fred Quayle Virginia State Senate 3806 Poplar Hill Road Chesapeake, Virginia 23321 William and Joyce Subjack 225 Tappahanna Hundred Surry, Virginia 23883 William Roach P.O. Box 266 Surry, Virginia 23883 Jim Dishner York County Fire and Life Safety P.O. Box 532 Yorktown, Virginia 23690 Terry D. Lewis Surry County Administrator P.O. Box 65 Surry, Virginia 23883 Karen Patterson Tetra Tech NUS 900 Trail Ridge Road Aiken, South Carolina 29803