ML030520583

V. C. Summer Environmental Scoping Summary Report

ML030520583
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	01/01/2003
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Suber G, NRR/DRIP/RLEP 301-415-1124
Shared Package
ml030520590	List: ML030520531 ML030520583
References
Download: ML030520583 (26)

Text

Environmental Scoping Summary Report V. C. Summer Nuclear Station Fairfield County, South Carolina January 2003 Docket No. 50-395 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland (Enclosure 1)

1 January 2003 V.C. Summer Introduction 1

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application from South Carolina 2

Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) dated August 6, 2002, for renewal of the operating 3

licenses of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (V.C. Summer). The V. C. Summer Nuclear 4

Station is located in Fairfield County, South Carolina. As part of the application, SCE&G 5

submitted an environmental report (ER) prepared in accordance with the requirements of 6

10 CFR Part 51. 10 CFR Part 51 contains the NRC requirements for implementing the National 7

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Section 51.53 outlines requirements for preparation 8

and submittal of environmental reports to the NRC.

9 10 Section 51.53(c)(3) was based upon the findings documented in NUREG-1437, Generic 11 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, (GEIS). The 12 GEIS, in which the staff identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated with 13 license renewal, was first issued as a draft for public comment. The staff received input from 14 Federal and State agencies, public organizations, and private citizens before developing the 15 final document. As a result of the assessments in the GEIS, a number of impacts were 16 determined to be generic to all nuclear power plants. These were designated as Category 1 17 impacts. An applicant for license renewal may adopt the conclusions contained in the GEIS for 18 Category 1 impacts, in the absence of new and significant information that may cause the 19 conclusions to fall outside those of the GEIS. Category 2 impacts are those impacts that have 20 been determined to be plant-specific and are required to be evaluated in the applicants ER.

21 22 The Commission determined that the NRC does not have a role in energy planning decision-23 making for existing plants, which should be left to State regulators and utility officials. There-24 fore, an applicant for license renewal need not provide an analysis of the need for power, or the 25 economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action. Additionally, the Commission 26 determined that the ER need not discuss any aspect of storage of spent fuel for the facility that 27 is within the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) and in accordance with 28 10 CFR 51.23(b). This determination was based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and 29 the Commissions Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR 51.23.

30 31 On October 25, 2002, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (67 FR 32 65612), to notify the public of the staffs intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the 33 GEIS to support the renewal application for the operating license for V. C. Summer. The plant-34 specific supplement to the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA and 10 CFR Part 35

51. As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the 36 Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local government 37 agencies; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing 38 oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and 39 comments no later than January 6, 2003. The scoping process included two public scoping 40 meetings, which were held at the White Hall A.M.E. Church in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, on 41 December 11, 2002. The NRC announced the meetings in local newspapers (The Herald 42

Scoping Comment Report 2

V.C. Summer January 2003 Independent, The State, and The Lake Murray News), issued press releases, and distributed 1

flyers locally. Approximately 20 members of the public attended the meetings. Both sessions 2

began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the license renewal process and 3

the NEPA process. Following the NRCs prepared statements, the meetings were open for 4

public comments. Nineteen (19) attendees provided either oral comments or written statements 5

that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. The transcripts of the 6

meetings and the meeting summary were issued on January 14, 2003. The meeting summary 7

and transcripts are available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document 8

Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRCs document 9

system (ADAMS) under accession numbers ML030030791, ML030030808, and ML030030848.

10 ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html (the Public 11 Electronic Reading Room) (Note that the URL is case-sensitive).

12 13 The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be 14 addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and highlight public concerns and 15 issues. The Notice of Intent identified the following objectives of the scoping process:

16 17

Define the proposed action.

18 19

Determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify significant issues to be 20 analyzed in depth.

21 22

Identify and eliminate peripheral issues.

23 24

Identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements 25 being prepared that are related to the supplement to the GEIS.

26 27

Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements.

28 29

Indicate the schedule for preparation of the supplement to the GEIS.

30 31

Identify any cooperating agencies.

32 33

Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared.

34 35 At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor reviewed the tran-36 scripts and all written material received, and identified individual comments. All comments and 37 suggestions received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered. Each 38 set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique alphabetical identifier 39 (Commenter ID letter), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back to 40 the transcript, letter, or e-mail in which the comments were submitted. Several commenters 41 submitted comments through multiple sources (e.g., afternoon and evening scoping meetings).

42

3 January 2003 V.C. Summer 1

Table 1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the Commenter ID letter associated 2

with each persons set(s) of comments. The Commenter ID letter is preceded by SU (short for 3

V.C. Summer). For oral comments, the individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at 4

the public meeting. Accession numbers indicate the location of the written comments in 5

ADAMS.

6 7

Table 1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period 8

9 Commenters 10 ID 11 Commenter Affiliation (If Stated)

Comment Source and ADAMS Accession Number SU-A 12 Pearson Afternoon Public Meeting(a)

SU-B 13 Marchiara Fairfield County Council Afternoon Public Meeting SU-C 14 Bursey Afternoon Public Meeting SU-D 15 Coleman Representative Afternoon Public Meeting SU-E 16 Robinson Fairfield County Council Afternoon Public Meeting SU-F 17 Wilder Fairfield County Schools Afternoon Public Meeting SU-G 18 Murphy Fairfield County Council Afternoon Public Meeting SU-H 19 Harmon Pomaria-Garmany Elementary School Afternoon Public Meeting SU-I 20 Byrne V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Afternoon Public Meeting SU-J 21 Summer SCANA Services Afternoon Public Meeting SU-K 22 White South Carolina Public Service Commission Afternoon Public Meeting SU-L 23 Bowlers Irma/Chapin Recreation Commission Afternoon Public Meeting SU-M 24 Vickers Fairfield County Chamber of Commerce Afternoon Public Meeting SU-N 25 Cannon Pastor Evening Public Meeting SU-O 26 Pearson Evening Public Meeting SU-P 27 Sprott Fairfield County School System Evening Public Meeting SU-Q 28 Byrne V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Evening Public Meeting SU-R 29 Summer South Carolina Evening Public Meeting SU-S 30 White South Carolina Public Service Commission Evening Public Meeting SU-T 31 Rabb Evening Public Meeting SU-U 32 Caldwell Evening Public Meeting SU-V 33 Spratt United States House of Representatives Letter, December 11, 2002 (ML023540416)

(a) The afternoon transcript can be found under accession number ML030030808.

34 (b) The evening transcript can be found under accession number ML030030848.

35 36 Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the topic within the proposed 37 supplement to the GEIS or according to the general topic if outside the scope of the GEIS.

38 Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential 39 issues that had been raised in the source comments. Once comments were grouped according 40 to subject area, the staff and contractor determined the appropriate action for the comment.

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

42 43

A comment that was actually a question and introduced no new information 44 45

A comment that was either related to support for or opposition to license renewal in 46 general (or specifically, V.C. Summer) or that made a general statement about the 47 licensing renewal process. It may have made only a general statement regarding 48 Category 1 and/or Category 2 issues. In addition, it provided no new information and 49 did not pertain to 10 CFR Part 54.

50

Scoping Comment Report 4

V.C. Summer January 2003 1

A comment about a Category 1 issue that 2

3

. - provided new information that required evaluation during the review 4

5

- provided no new information.

6 7

A comment about a Category 2 issue that 8

9

- provided information that required evaluation during the review 10 11

- provided no such information.

12 13

A comment regarding alternatives to the proposed action 14 15

A comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS 16 17

A comment outside the scope of license renewal, which includes comments regarding 18 the Need for Power 19 20

• A comment outside the scope of the environmental review on safety issues pertaining to 10 21 CFR Part 54.

22 23 24 Each comment is summarized in the following pages. For reference, the unique identifier for 25 each comment (Commenter ID letter listed in Table A.1 plus the comment number) is provided.

26 In cases where no new information was provided by the commenter, no further evaluation will 27 be performed.

28 29 The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (which is the SEIS) will take into 30 account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping process. The SEIS will address both 31 Category 1 and 2 issues, along with any new information identified as a result of scoping. The 32 SEIS will rely on conclusions supported by information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues, and 33 will include the analysis of Category 2 issues and any new and significant information. The 34 draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be made available for public comment. The 35 comment period will offer the next opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, State, and 36 local government agencies; local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to 37 the NRCs environmental review process. The comments received on the draft SEIS will be 38 considered in the preparation of the final SEIS. The final SEIS, along with the staffs Safety 39 Evaluation Report (SER), will provide much of the basis for the NRCs decision on the V.C.

40 Summer license renewal application.

41 42

5 January 2003 V.C. Summer The following pages summarize the comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping 1

process, and discuss their disposition. Parenthetical numbers after each comment refer to the 2

Commenters ID letter and the comment number. Comments can be tracked to the commenter 3

and the source document through the ID letter and comment number listed in Table 1.

4 Comments are grouped by category. The categories are as follows:

5 6

1.

General Comments in Support of License Renewal and its Processes, or Specifically V.C.

7 Summer 8

2.

General Comments in Opposition to License Renewal and its Processes, or Specifically 9

V.C. Summer 10 3.

Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues 11 4.

Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues 12 5.

Comments Concerning Human Health Issues 13 6.

Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues 14 7.

Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues 15 8.

Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues 16 9.

Comments Concerning Water Resource Issues 17

10. Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of License Renewal: Operational Safety, 18 Aging Management, Need for Power, and Other Issues 19

11. Comments Concerning Process Issues 20

Scoping Comment Report 6

V.C. Summer January 2003

1. General Comments in Support of License Renewal and its Processes, or Specifically 1

V.C. Summer 2

3 Comment: And their employees have gone out and formed a partnership, I think, with the local 4

schools, so that they can do teaching and mentoring and assistance to these children in the 5

afternoons, to help them have a better education, so that they are not in the percentage of 6

illiterates in this county. (SU-E-5) 7 8

Comment: In addition to the fishing on the lake, the recreational lake was put in by SCE&G, 9

which is at the northern part of Lake Monticello. We have a nature trail on site that has been 10 used for our schools. We also facilitate the land for the county park that is on this side of the 11 county, Western Fairfield County. (SU-I-10) 12 13 Response: The comments are noted. Education, recreation, and social services were 14 evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be socioeconomic Category 1 issues. Information 15 regarding socioeconomics will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the supplement to the GEIS 16 for V.C. Summer license renewal. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, 17 will not be evaluated further.

18 19 Comment: Anytime we work toward an economic development project or just any event, 20 theyre always there. (SU-E-4) 21 22 Comment: I also want to reiterate that the persons at the plant, some of the employees have 23 been very instrumental in our school system. (SU-F-5) 24 25 Comment: But through it all, I think V.C. Summer Nuclear Plant has been a safe partner, a 26 good neighbor, one that Fairfield County has to look at and say thank you for coming here, 27 thank you for managing it. Its rated in the top five safest nuclear plants in America. (SU-G-3) 28 29 Comment: And Im here today to tell you of the support that my school has received from 30 SCE&G. (SU-H-1) 31 32 Comment: Now, the wonderful part of that fact that these SCE&G employees came to my 33 rescue is that only one of them had children in my school. I did know two of the others, but I 34 had never met any of the others, and they came through for me. (SU-H-2) 35 36 Comment: V.C. Summer, as many of you are probably aware, is owned two-thirds by South 37 Carolina Electric & Gas, and one-third by the State of South Carolina through the Public Service 38 Authority. Youre going to hear a little bit more about that relationship when Robin White comes 39 up to speak a little bit later. Together, we have operated V.C. Summer safely for 20 years 40 (SU-I-1) 41

7 January 2003 V.C. Summer 1

Comment: we look forward to operating the plant safely in this community for another 40 2

years. And obviously, we can only do that with a license renewal for plant extension that we've 3

been talking about today. (SU-I-2) 4 5

Comment: In addition to energy, jobs and taxes, which are very, very tangible, there are a lot 6

of intangible benefits. You've heard about some of them here today.... But we also have a 7

shadowing program Fairfield County Schools we support. We have a friendship program for 8

vocational welding, who we support through Fairfield County Schools. (SU-I-7) 9 10 Comment: Community service, you heard a little bit about the chamber. Right now, one of our 11 employees is the vice president of the chamber, next year will be the president of the chamber.

12 I've been the president of the chamber in the past. (SU-I-11) 13 14 Comment: United Way Campaign, we have long been associated with the United Way 15 campaign. we have an employee from our plant that has chaired that campaign three out of 16 the last five years. (SU-I-12) 17 18 Comment: The communities and schools board, you heard some comments about Jeff Archie.

19 I don't know if he ishe was this year, but he's going to be the chair of the County 20 Communities and School Board.

21 (SU-I-13) 22 23 Comment: Also, we are very interested in the Fairfield Behavioral Health Services, and their 24 capital campaign committee to build a new facility, and I'm the chair of that steering committee, 25 and SCE&G just announced $30,000 towards that building campaign. (SU-I-14) 26 27 Comment: We think we have been a good neighbor of this community. (SU-I-15) 28 29 Comment: We have operated the plant safety, within the confines of regulation. (SU-I-16) 30 31 Comment:...we would like to be a part of this community for the next 40 years. (SU-I-17) 32 33 Comment: Summer Station's environmental performance has been very good, as evidenced 34 by the lack of news coverage for environmental problems at the plant for the first 20 years of 35 the operating license. (SU-J-1) 36 37 Comment: The SCE&G, the operator of the Summer Station, has made positive environmental 38 strides in recent years. (SU-J-3) 39 40 Comment: Development of the report required interviewing numerous employees, contact with 41 county, state and federal agencies and review of applicable regulations. (SU-J-4) 42 43

Scoping Comment Report 8

V.C. Summer January 2003 Comment: I believe that Summer Station will continue to provide electricity in an 1

environmentally sound manner for many years to come. (SU-J-6) 2 3

Comment: I also believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when their review is 4

complete, will find that the environmental impacts from the operation of the Summer Station are 5

not significant, and that extension of the operating license by 20 years is prudent. (SU-J-7) 6 7

Comment: I believe that nuclear power, and Summer Station in particular, has a place in our 8

society and this community today and in the future. (SU-J-8) 9 10 Comment: Santee Cooper is pleased with the safe operations with the Summer Station and 11 wholly supports license extension. (SU-K-3) 12 13 Comment: The V.C. Summer stations has supported our programs by their involvement in our 14 home delivery meals program. Without the help of volunteers, we would be limited in the 15 number of meals we could serve to seniors. (SU-L-1) 16 17 Comment: Since 1997, and Im sure long before that time, there has been a representative 18 from V.C. Summer Station on the Chamber Board of Directors. (SU-M-1) 19 20 Comment: V.C. Summer has just been invaluable to the chamber as far as our technology.

21 (SU-M-2) 22 23 Comment: They have supported the chamber, sponsorships for events and functions, 24 (SU-M-3) 25 26 Comment: As good stewards of our environment, the staff of V.C. Summer developed a 1-1/2 27 mile nature trail on the shores of Lake Monticello. (SU-M-4) 28 29 Comment: You are welcome at any time to our church, and you have been a blessing to our 30 community. We wish you success and we hope that you will continue to be a vital part of this 31 community. (SU-N-1) 32 33 Comment: V.C. Summer Nuclear Power Station has worked with Fairfield County Schools 34 since its beginning. (SU-P-1) 35 36 Comment: They have also worked in partnership with Central Midlands Career Partnership.

37 (SU-P-2) 38 39

9 January 2003 V.C. Summer Comment: SCANA in a partnership with South Carolina Downtown Development, which the 1

downtown development -- the Department of Education sponsored Downtown in the Classroom.

2 (SU-P-3) 3 4

Comment: Support through financial donations have included teacher of the year, Students 5

Against Violence, Fairfield Central High School, and National Fire Safety Council, which 6

provided materials for students to learn about fire safety. (SU-P-4) 7 8

Comment: Our station here has donated computers to the school district. (SU-P-5) 9 10 Comment: The station employees have volunteered as tutors in the afternoon homework 11 center, and they are currently junior achievement teachers. (SU-P-6) 12 13 Comment: The employees serve as mentors for -- two employees, Steve Craft and Matt 14 Smith, they donated their time at McCorey-Liston. (SU-P-7) 15 16 Comment: Employees at the station made donations to Gordon Early Childhood Development.

17 The V.C. Summer employees have made safety city presentations at McCorey-Liston, Fairfield 18 Intermediate and Geiger Elementary Schools. (SU-P-8) 19 20 Comment: Kathy Walker, a teacher at the McCorey-Liston, is partnering with the V.C. Summer 21 Station to design a reading program where employees will read for one hour once per month.

22 (SU-P-9) 23 24 Comment: Our V.C. Summer employees donated school supplies and served as judges at 25 Fairfield Middle School Science fairs. (SU-P-10) 26 27 Comment: Jeff Archie is currently serving as the chair of Communities and Schools of Fairfield 28 County, where he is my boss and tells me what to do right now. (SU-P-11) 29 30 Comment: This nationally-known program provides an afternoon program for at-risk children 31 at Fairfield Middle School. (SU-P-12) 32 33 Comment: And we look forward to being a part of this community and this county for another 34 40 years, and obviously we can only do that with an extension. (SU-Q-2) 35 36 Comment: In addition to energy, jobs and taxes, things that are very tangible, things that 37 everybody talks a lot about, we also provide a number of intangible benefits to the county.

38 Shadowing programs, strategic planning, career days, school supplies, donation of 100 39 computers. We've always been a partner in schools. (SU-Q-9) 40 41

Scoping Comment Report 10 V.C. Summer January 2003 Comment: In addition to fishing, which I understand is very good on our lake, the recreation 1

lake lands was donated by SCE&G. We have a nature trail, and we also donate the land for the 2

county park. (SU-Q-11) 3 4

Comment: And community service, youve heard a little bit about the community service that 5

we do. Aside from having somebody in the chamber every year for the last ten years, we have 6

been in leadership positions in three of the last five years. (SU-Q-12) 7 8

Comment: Weve always had somebody involved with the United Way campaign in this 9

county. We have chaired the United Way campaign in this county for the last three out of five 10 years. (SU-Q-13) 11 12 Comment: We are also a part of the campaign to raise capital funds to build a new substance 13 abuse center. I have the distinction of being the chair on their capital campaign, and SCANA 14 has just announced they're putting $30,000 towards that campaign. (SU-Q-14) 15 16 Comment: We think we have been a good neighbor in this county for the last 20 years, and 17 we would like to go on being a good neighbor for the next 40 years. (SU-Q-19) 18 19 Comment: Summer Station's environmental performance has been very good, as evidenced 20 by the lack of news coverage for environmental problems in the plant for the last 20 years. (SU-21 R-1) 22 23 Comment: SCE&G, the operator of the Summer Station, has made positive environmental 24 strides in recent years. (SU-R-3) 25 26 Comment: Development of the report required interviewing numerous employees, contact with 27 county, state and federal agencies and review of applicable regulations. (SU-R-6) 28 29 Comment: I believe that Summer Station will continue to provide electricity in an 30 environmentally sound manner for many years to come. (SU-R-8) 31 32 Comment: I also believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when their review is 33 complete, will find that the environmental impacts from the operation of the Summer Station are 34 not significant, and that extension of the operating license by 20 years is prudent. (SU-R-9) 35 36 Comment: I believe that nuclear power, and Summer Station, in particular, has a place in our 37 society and this community today and in the future. Thank you. (SU-R-10) 38 39 Comment: Santee Cooper is pleased with the safe operations of the Summer Station and 40 wholly supports license extension. (SU-S-4) 41

11 January 2003 V.C. Summer 1

Comment: I want you to know that V.C. summer is very dear to our heart, my husband and 2

myself. (SU-T-1) 3 4

Comment: We love the property. We love the plant. We love the people. I worked there for 19 5

years, and I cant say I had a bad day, because I worked with a family of people who were 6

caring people. (SU-T-2) 7 8

Comment: Thanks to SCE&G for meals on wheels that was served here in this very dining 9

area from Monday through Friday every week. (SU-T-6) 10 11 Comment: But they have been such a helping hand to us. We hope -- the community of 12 Jenkinsville and this church hope that everything goes well with your review, everything goes 13 well with your findings, and everything will go well with the V.C. Summer plant. We would hate 14 to lose them. (SU-T-7) 15 16 Comment: You have done much for the community and for Fairfield County, and have helped 17 us in the schools. (SU-U-1) 18 19 Comment: The V.C. Summer Nuclear Station has a proven track record as on the safest, most 20 reliable nuclear facilities in the nation. (SU-V-1) 21 22 Comment: They have a demonstrated record of being a good corporate neighbor through their 23 partnerships with the people of Fairfield County and the neighboring counties of Lexington, 24 Newberry and Richland. (SU-V-2) 25 26 Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal for V.C.

27 Summer and are general in nature. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the 28 comments will not be evaluated further.

29 30

2. General Comments in Opposition to License Renewal and its Processes, or 31 Specifically V.C. Summer 32 33 Comment: I understand that November 10th was the cutoff for filing for intervention. If no one 34 has filed for interventions, does that preclude the citizens being able to have a hearing on the 35 final supplement? (SU-C-1) 36 37 Comment: The rules of practice and procedure that this relicensing is going to take place 38 under are so restricted that were not going to bring out the fact -- were not going to be able to 39 bring up the fact that a major crack in what they call the hot leg, which is the main big pipe that 40 cools reactors, which caught the attention of nuclear informed people all over the world, will not 41 be able to be brought up in hearings, because its not going to be in the generic aging lessons 42

Scoping Comment Report 12 V.C. Summer January 2003 learned protocol. And if its not in the generic aging lessons learned protocol, we cant bring it 1

up. (SU-C-13) 2 3

Comment: The generic approach to age-related degradation solely benefits the nuclear 4

industry. Theyre relicensing nuclear reactors as if theyre all the same is contrary to public 5

interest. (SU-C-16) 6 7

Comment: I respect the people that work there, and I think they do a good job. I know that 8

theyre constrained by the people that pay their checks. (SU-C-22) 9 10 Response: The comments are noted. The comments oppose license renewal and its 11 processes at V.C. Summer, related to operational safety and aging issues. These issues are 12 not within the scope of the environmental review of this license renewal review. The comments 13 provide no new information; therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

14 15 Comment: You may be wondering why on earth are we here talking about relicensing a plant 16 20 years before the license runs out. Because if the plant gets relicensed now, it adds 20 17 years onto the life of it, and they can amortize that value, it makes their investment more 18 profitable. It's all about money for the company. (SU-C-14) 19 20 Response: The comments are noted. The comment opposes license renewal and its 21 processes at V.C. Summer, based on the timing of the process related to the existing operating 22 license. This issue is not within the scope of this license renewal review. The comment provides 23 no new information; therefore, the comment will not be evaluated further.

24 25 Comment: When I found out that they were going to build a nuclear power plant, I filed a 26 petition to intervene. What that means is that there were hearings that I could call witnesses, I 27 could cross-examine people. It went on for five years. I learned more than any civilian person 28 needs to learn about nuclear power. The process made a safer plant.... I'm very upset that 29 there will be no intervenor in the relicensing process. What that will probably mean is that this 30 will be the only nuclear reactor in the U.S. ever to go through a licensing process without an 31 adjudicatory hearing. (SU-C-10) 32 33 Comment: But there are so many issues that aren't going to be considered in the relicensing 34 hearing, that it's a pretty futile gesture, but that we need to make an attempt to try and get the 35 State of South Carolina involved. (SU-C-15) 36 37 Comment: I have some problems with the procedure that is being utilized by the Nuclear 38 Regulatory Commission to consider relicensing the V.C. Summer Plant, and will be working with 39 citizens in this neighborhood and hopefully bring pressure down on the Department of Health 40

13 January 2003 V.C. Summer and Environmental Control to the basis responsibility that they have to ensure that this plant 1

operates in the safest fashion. (SU-C-21) 2 3

Response: The comments are noted. The comments oppose license renewal and its 4

processes at V.C. Summer. These issues are not within the scope of this license renewal 5

review. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments will not be 6

evaluated further.

7 8

3. Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues 9

10 Comment: We also provide jobs for about 625 SCE&G employees and in excess of 100 long-11 term contract employees. (SU-I-5) 12 13 Comment: We also are the largest employer in the county now. (SU-Q-7) 14 15 Comment: Summer Stations operations provide jobs for nearly a thousand people. (SU-V-3) 16 17 Response: The comments are noted. Employment factors were evaluated in the GEIS and 18 determined to be a Category 2 issue. Information regarding employment will be examined on a 19 site-specific basis in Chapters 2 and 4 of the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license 20 renewal.

21 22 Comment: SCE&G is a wonderful partner for our county. Because they came online, we now 23 have some of the finest school facilities in the state. We also are able to offer, because of their 24 tax dollars, services to the people of this county that otherwise we could not afford because our 25 people cannot pay taxes to provide those services. (SU-E-3) 26 27 Comment: As far as an economic development impact on this county, this to me is a very 28 clean lake that they have provided. We then have people who are able to fish in this lake, and 29 we now have people who are selling property around this lake, which to us is an economic 30 development tool. And these people are coming in and building homes, which add to our tax 31 base. (SU-E-6) 32 33 Comment: that the plant has been a very vital part of the tax base in our county. (SU-F-2) 34 35 Comment: So if the plant were not to be licensed and, in my personal opinion, the industry 36 was not here to replace the plant that not relicensed, it would be devastating on the county. And 37 for the county to have a $16 million impact from one plant, that's a big impact into our economic 38 base on the county level. (SU-F-3) 39 40 Comment: The school district is fortunate that the V.C. Nuclear Summer Plant is the largest 41 tax base in the county. We get in excess 11 million dollars per year in taxes from the plant.

42 (SU-F-4) 43

Scoping Comment Report 14 V.C. Summer January 2003 1

Comment: The benefits of the taxes thats been b[r]ought in, over $17 million to the county.

2 Where would we be if it wasnt for V.C. Summer? (SU-G-3) 3 4

Comment: Were also the largest taxpayer in the county. Youve heard a lot about that. We 5

pay about 17-1/2 million dollars in taxes and represent about 67 percent of the tax base.

6 (SU-I-6) 7 8

Comment: Aside from being the largest employer, were also the largest taxpayer. Prior to 9

Mack's closing, we were 67 percent of the tax base. V.C. Summer pays about 17-1/2 million 10 dollars a year in property taxes to the county. (SU-Q-8) 11 12 Comment: There is a big tax check that keeps our schools going. (SU-T-5) 13 14 Comment: There are many things I could touch on that SCE&G has done in this community 15 but just to give you an overall picture of how they became our neighbors and how good they are 16 and the things that they have done. My husband had a vision many years ago for a fire 17 department. And so SCE&G said, No problem, we will come up with the building. Then 18 came EMS, which is a vital part of the community, very much needed, through SCE&G.

19 (SU-T-3) 20 21 Comment: Then they became customers of the Jenkinsville Water Company, very good 22 customers, for that we appreciate. They keep us going, they keep the post office going, 23 because we're a small community. We're just thankful for the things that they have done.

24 (SU-T-4) 25 26 Comment: SCANA owned companies pay more than 17.5 million in taxes to Fairfield County, 27 money that helps support vital public services and provides for a better quality of life. (SU-V-4) 28 29 Response: The comments are noted. Public services, off-site land use, taxes, and 30 transportation were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be socioeconomic Category 2 31 issues. Information regarding these socioeconomic issues will be examined on a site-specific 32 basis in Chapters 2 and 4 of the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal.

33 34

4. Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues 35 36 Comment: want to make certain that SCE&G continue to follow guidelines to ensure that we 37 are subjected to clean air and a safe environment. (SU-F-1) 38 39

15 January 2003 V.C. Summer Comment: Reliable operation of the Summer Station, a non-greenhouse gas emitter, 1

precludes the requirement to use greenhouse gas from any generation and is economical for 2

our customers. (SU-K-4) 3 4

Comment: Reliable operation of Summer Station, a non-greenhouse gas emitter, precludes 5

the requirement to use greenhouse gas from any generation and is economical for our 6

customers. (SU-S-5) 7 8

Response: The comments are noted. Air emissions are regulated through the U.S.

9 Environmental Protection Agency and the State of South Carolina. Air quality was evaluated in 10 the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. Air quality will be discussed in Chapter 2 of 11 the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal. The comment provides no new 12 information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

13 14

5. Comments Concerning Human Health Issues 15 16 Comment: Ive had constituencies ask me over the last 15 years -- there appears to be a 17 substantial increase in different types of cancer, particularly with our senior citizens. What can 18 you say to assure the community that this plant has no direct impact in regards to these 19 questions? (SU-B-3) 20 21 Comment: does your agency also check environmentally any of the medical records to see 22 whether or not these perceptions of increase of different types of cancers, do you also check 23 whether or not there is an increase of health risk to citizens in the area? (SU-B-4) 24 25 Comment: I did get asked the question about the perception of cancer. Fairfield County leads 26 the state in terms of diabetes, and the perception that the environment might complicate 27 these conditions. So I'm just raising this because we do need an independent study. That's why 28 I asked for a medical explanation. Have DHEC or other folks, the agency for this area, and just 29 for the public safety to make sure that these conditions and perceptions, that they are not 30 found, they're not authentic, and I think that will go a long ways to some uncertainties. (SU-B-6) 31 32 Response: The comments are noted. The NRCs regulatory limits for radiological protection 33 are set to protect workers and the public from the harmful effects of radiation on humans. The 34 limits are based on the recommendations of standards-setting organizations. Radiation 35 standards reflect extensive study by national and international organizations (International 36 Commission on Radiological Protection [ICRP], National Council on Radiation Protection and 37 Measurements, and National Academy of Sciences) and are conservative to ensure that the 38 public and workers at nuclear power plants are protected. The NRC radiation exposure 39 standards are presented in 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, and 40 are based on the recommendations in ICRP 26 and 30. Emissions and effluents that are below 41 the limits set by the NRC are not considered to pose any significant risk to public health or 42 safety. V.C. Summer monitors its radiological emissions and effluents to ensure that any 43

Scoping Comment Report 16 V.C. Summer January 2003 radioactive releases are within allowable limits. V.C. Summer reports the results of its 1

monitoring program on an annual basis in two documents that are available to the public and 2

are provided to the NRC. These reports are 1.) Annual Effluent and Waste Disposal Report, 3

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, and 2.) Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report, Virgil 4

C. Summer Nuclear Station.

5 6

The NRC does review the annual amounts of radiological emissions and effluents released into 7

the environment by V.C. Summer and has found them to be well within the acceptable limits. In 8

the past, the State of South Carolina independently monitored the environment around V. C.

9 Summer for radioactive contamination and their results were consistent with those of V.C.

10 Summer. To ensure that the exposure limits to the public are met, NRC sets limits on 11 radiological effluents, requires monitoring of effluents and foodstuffs. SCE&G monitors its 12 effluents and calculates potential offsite doses caused by radioactive liquid and gaseous 13 effluents. These calculations are performed to demonstrate the licensees compliance with its 14 technical specifications and the NRC regulations. Based on the information provided by V.C.

15 Summer, radiological emissions and effluents from the station have been well below the limits 16 set by the NRC and, therefore, pose no significant risk to public health or safety.

17 18 Numerous scientifically designed, peer-reviewed studies of personnel exposed to occupational 19 levels of radiation (versus life-threatening accident doses or medical therapeutic levels) have 20 shown minimal effect of human health, and any effect was from exposures well above the 21 exposure levels of the typical member of the public from normal operation of a nuclear power 22 plant.

23 24 The NRC does not routinely evaluate medical records. The NRC is not aware of any increase in 25 health risk to citizens in the area around V.C. Summer that could be linked to station operations 26 or emissions and effluents.

27 28 Radiation exposures to the public and workers were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to 29 be a Category 1 issue. Information regarding human health is discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of 30 the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal. The comments provide no new 31 information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

32 33 Comment: As far as health issues, we have a lot of health issues in Fairfield County, and a lot 34 of contributory things that have been done. Were unique in different things. We have a fault 35 line that runs right through here. We also have a great deposit of granite in the county that lets 36 off radon gas and all these other things thats not attributed to the Summer plant. (SU-G-2) 37 38 Response: The comment is noted. Human Health was evaluated in the GEIS and determined 39 to be a Category 1 issue. Information regarding human health will be discussed in Chapters 2 40 and 4 of the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal. The comment provides 41 no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

42

17 January 2003 V.C. Summer

6. Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues 1

2 Comment: Were a haven for wildlife. (SU-I-9) 3 4

Comment: On our site, you will hear a little bit more about this [haven for wildlife], but you will 5

find deer, turkeys, obviously fish, eagles and more buzzards than I can count, and an 6

occasional arrowhead. (SU-Q-10) 7 8

Response: The comment is noted. General biological resources were evaluated in the GEIS 9

and determined to be a Category 1 issue. Information regarding general biological resources 10 will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license 11 renewal. The comment provides no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated 12 further.

13 14

7. Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues 15 16 Comment: As stewards of the environment, management of Summer Station has reduced the 17 tri-annual cycle volume of low-level radioactive waste by 90 percent over the last six cycles for 18 18 years, recycling items previously disposed of and training the workforce to exercise prudent 19 utilization and materials have accomplished the significant reduction. (SU-K-2) 20 21 Comment: As stewards of the environment, the management of Summer Station has reduced 22 the tri-annual cycle volume of low-level radioactive waste by 90 percent over the last six cycles 23 for 18 years, recycling items previously disposed of and training the workforce to exercise 24 prudent utilization and materials have accomplished the significant reduction. (SU-S-3) 25 26 Response: The comment is noted. Waste management was evaluated in the GEIS and 27 determined to be a Category 1 issue. Information regarding waste management will be 28 discussed in Chapter 2 of the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal. The 29 comment provides no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

30 31

8. Comments Concerning Threatened and Endangered Species Issues 32 33 Comment: The creation of Summer Station and its companion generating plant, Fairfield 34 Pumped Storage Facility, have provided an environment which has been conducive to the 35 expansion of the bald eagle population. (SU-J-2) 36 37 Comment: This survey found no evidence of threatened or endangered species on the plant 38 site or the transmission corridors. (SU-J-5) 39 40 Comment: The creation of the Summer Station and its companion generating plant, Fairfield 41 Pumped Storage Facility, have provided an environment which has been conducive to the 42 expansion of the bald eagle population. (SU-R-2) 43

Scoping Comment Report 18 V.C. Summer January 2003 1

Comment: This survey found no evidence of threatened or endangered species on the plant 2

site or the transmission corridors, with the exception of the eagles that are not nesting on the 3

site now, but they do come onto the site. (SU-R-7) 4 5

Response: The comments are noted. Threatened and endangered species issues were 6

evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 2 issue. Information regarding 7

threatened and endangered species will be examined on a site-specific basis in Chapters 2 and 8

4 of the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal.

9 10

9. Comments Concerning Water Resources Issues 11 12 Comment:...its just very important for me to know that were protecting those lakes, because 13 at some point, that may be the only source of drinking water were going to have. So water is 14 just a very important element to each of our lives. (SU-E-1) 15 16 Response: The comment is noted. Water resources were evaluated in the GEIS and 17 determined to be a Category 1 issue. Information regarding water resources will be discussed 18 in Chapters 2 and 4 of the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal. The 19 comment provides no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

20 21

10. Comments Concerning Issues Outside Scope of License Renewal: Operational 22 Safety, Aging Management, Need for Power, and Other Issues 23 24 Comment: And will the aging issues be site-specific? (SU-C-5) 25 26 Comment: Does environmental review consider aging? (SU-C-6) 27 28 Comment: There is what's referred to as aging management programs underway. They're not 29 preventing failures. In my estimation, aging management programs fix things before they break.

30 (SU-C-15) 31 32 Response: The comments are noted. Safety matters related to aging are outside the scope of 33 the NRCs environmental review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal period is 34 conducted separately. The comments provide no new information and do not pertain to the 35 scope of license renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore, the comments 36 will not be evaluated further.

37 38 Although this topic may not be within the scope of the environmental review for license renewal, 39 the NRC is always concerned with protecting health and safety. Any matter potentially affecting 40 safety can be addressed under processes currently available for existing operating license in 41

19 January 2003 V.C. Summer the absence of a license renewal application. Therefore, a copy of these comments will be 1

provided to the project manager who currently oversees current operating and licensing 2

activities for consideration.

3 4

Comment: the limits set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as low as reasonably 5

achievable is based on the financial expenditure of the industry to reduce the millirem exposure 6

to limits that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers acceptable. So if you will confirm 7

that that ALARA is based on a cost-benefit [analysis] by the industry. (SU-C-7) 8 9

Response: The comment is noted. The regulatory standards for radiological emissions and 10 effluents from nuclear power plants have been established to protect workers and the public 11 from the harmful effects of radiation on humans. Economics and costs of implementation were 12 not considered in the establishment of these standards. The radiation exposure standards and 13 dose limits set by the NRC are addressed in 10 CFR Part 20.

14 15 The requirement for keeping doses as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) is found in 10 16 CFR 20.1101. There are a number of factors related to maintaining exposures as far below the 17 dose limits as practical, and economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public 18 health and safety is one of the considerations. Regulatory Guide 8.8, Information Relevant to 19 Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations Will Be As Low As 20 Is Reasonably Achievable and Regulatory Guide 8.10, Operating Philosophy for Maintaining 21 Occupational Radiation Exposures As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable provides information 22 to licensees on attaining the goals and objectives for ALARA.

23 24 The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

25 26 Comment: Santee Cooper has a one-third non-operating interest in the Summer Nuclear 27 Station. (SU-S-1) 28 29 Response: The comments are noted. Ownership of V.C. Summer Station is outside the scope 30 of the NRCs environmental review. However, socioeconomic issues were evaluated in the 31 GEIS. Information regarding socioeconomics will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the 32 supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal. The comments provide no new 33 information and, do not pertain to the scope of license renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 34 and Part 54. Therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

35 36 Comment: I have found the operation of Summer Station to be found on a strong safety 37 culture. (SU-S-2) 38 39 Response: The comments are noted. Operational safety matters are outside the scope of the 40 NRCs environmental review. An NRC safety review for license renewal period is conducted 41 separately. The comments provide no new information and do not pertain to the scope of 42 license renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore, the comments will not be 43 evaluated further.

44

Scoping Comment Report 20 V.C. Summer January 2003 Although this topic may not be within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is 1

always concerned with protecting health and safety. Any matter potentially affecting safety can 2

be addressed under processes currently available for existing operating license in the absence 3

of a license renewal application. Therefore, a copy of these comments will be provided to the 4

project manager who currently oversees current operating and licensing activities for 5

consideration.

6 7

Comment: We want something to happen on this western side of Fairfield County other then 8

McCrorys, and we support that. I have asked long ago for a civic center on this side of Fairfield 9

County. (SU-U-2) 10 11 Response: The comments are noted. Use of taxes generated by the county for services is 12 outside the scope of the NRCs environmental review. However, socioeconomic issues were 13 evaluated in the GEIS. Information regarding socioeconomics will be discussed in chapters 2 14 and 4 of the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal. The comments provide 15 no new information and do not pertain to the scope of license renewal as set forth in 10 CFR 16 Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

17 18 Comment: So I am very concerned about the fact that they are meeting the guidelines that 19 need to be to protected because of nuclear power. (SU-E-7) 20 21 Comment: I think that there needs to be a consciousness, always a level of consciousness for 22 the responsibility of all of the regulatory agencies need to be there, because we need to protect 23 people from what they don't know is happening to them. (SU-G-1) 24 25 Response: The comment is noted. Operational safety matters and regulatory agency roles are 26 outside the scope of the NRCs environmental review. An NRC safety review for license 27 renewal period is conducted separately. The comments provide no new information and do not 28 pertain to the scope of license renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore, 29 the comments will not be evaluated further.

30 31 Although this topic may not be within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is 32 always concerned with protecting health and safety. Any matter potentially affecting safety can 33 be addressed under processes currently available for existing operating license in the absence 34 of a license renewal application. Therefore, a copy of these comments will be provided to the 35 project manager who currently oversees current operating and licensing activities for 36 consideration.

37 38 Comment: Maybe with the vision of SCE&G, we will not have to live through a brownout, 39 because that was not a good night. (SU-E-2) 40 41

21 January 2003 V.C. Summer Comment: South Carolina is a state that derives much benefit from nuclear. And while the 1

United States derives 21 percent of electrical needs from nuclear, South Carolina is almost 60 2

percent power from nuclear. (SU-I-3) 3 4

Comment: So when you combine all of the facilities currently, we're in excess of 1,550 5

megawatts of generated power right here in Fairfield County. The largest, obviously, is V.C.

6 Summer. We're just over 1,000 megawatts. (SU-I-4) 7 8

Comment: This state, South Carolina, is a very nuclear-rich state, derives a lot of benefit from 9

nuclear power. (SU-Q-3) 10 11 Comment: Those seven plants provide 60 percent of power that South Carolinians use.

12 (SU-Q-4) 13 14 Comment: When you combine the 15 megawatts at Parr hydro with the 525 megawatts that 15 we get from the lake that we built, plus the 1,000 megawatts from the V.C. Summer Plant, 16 you've got over 1,500 megawatts of power generated from this one location in Fairfield County.

17 (SU-Q-5) 18 19 Comment: We make enough power for about 650,000 homes. (SU-Q-6) 20 21 Response: The comments are noted. The need for power is specifically directed to be outside 22 the scope of license renewal in 10 CFR 51.95( c)(2). The comments provide no new information 23 and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.

24 25 Comment: As many of you are likely aware, we operate the station not only for ourselves, but 26 we own two-thirds of the V.C. Summer Station. But the state actually owns one-third of the V.C.

27 Summer Station through the South Carolina Public Service Authority, and Robin White is going 28 to talk about that relationship in a few minutes. We have operated V.C. Summer safely for the 29 past 20 years. (SU-Q-1) 30 31 Comment: Thus from both daily observation and the Nuclear Safety Review Committee review 32 audits, I have found the operation of Summer Station to be found in a strong safety culture.

33 (SU-K-1) 34 35 Response: The comments are noted. Operational safety matters are outside the scope of the 36 NRCs environmental review. An NRC safety review for license renewal period is conducted 37 separately. The comments provide no new information and do not pertain to the scope of 38 license renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore, the comments will not be 39 evaluated further.

40 41 Although this topic may not be within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is 42 always concerned with protecting health and safety. Any matter potentially affecting safety can 43

Scoping Comment Report 22 V.C. Summer January 2003 be addressed under processes currently available for existing operating license in the absence 1

of a license renewal application. Therefore, a copy of these comments will be provided to the 2

project manager who currently oversees current operating and licensing activities for 3

consideration.

4 5

Comment: The security at the V.C. Summer plant, when it went into effect when I was the 6

intervenor, they had to be able to withstand the -- to repulse the assault of 12 dedicated 7

terrorists, and they were tested by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Well, they were failing -

8

- not just them, but across the board, nuclear reactors were not measuring up to the security 9

limits that were imposed by the NRC. So, in 1998, they did away with the test. (SU-C-18) 10 11 Comment: The power company just got permission to put more spent fuel rods in than it was 12 designed for, and its in a metal building, and you can blow that up, and you can take out, oh, a 13 huge -- were talking hundreds and hundreds of miles and hundreds of thousands of people, 14 and its not even an impregnable building. (SU-C-20) 15 16 Response: The comments are noted. Each nuclear plant must have approved emergency and 17 safeguards contingency plans in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, that are revised periodically.

18 Emergency and safeguards planning, which includes responses to threats of terrorism and 19 sabotage, are part of the current operating license and are outside the scope of the 20 environmental analysis for license renewal. Any required changes to emergency and 21 safeguards contingency plans related to terrorism and sabotage will be incorporated and 22 reviewed under the operating license. The comments provide no new information and do not 23 pertain to the scope of license renewal as set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore, 24 the comments will not be evaluated further.

25 26 Although this topic is not within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is always 27 concerned with protecting health and safety. Any matter potentially affecting safety can be 28 addressed under processes currently available for existing operating license in the absence of a 29 license renewal application. Therefore, a copy of these comments will be provided to the project 30 manager who currently oversees current operating and licensing activities for consideration.

31 32 Comment: We have always taken security very seriously at this station. Long before 33 September 11th, weve had security officers, weapons and plans, as well as deterring measures 34 for things like bombs. (SU-Q-15) 35 36 Comment: We are occasionally tested by the NRC. In fact, the SWAT team leader from 37 Fairfield County spent two weeks in the plant prior to the evaluation, just trying to figure out how 38 he was going to penetrate our security forces, and we passed our last evaluation with flying 39 colors. (SU-Q-16) 40 41

23 January 2003 V.C. Summer Comment: September 11th changed a lot of things, but it didnt change security at the nuclear 1

power plants. We have Wackenhut being tested by the power company, and we know that 2

one of Al Queda's targets they talked about was a nuclear reactor. (SU-C-19) 3 4

Comment: Since September 11th, we have enhanced our security plans. We have added 5

equipment, we have added security officers, and we have moved our defensive perimeter 6

further back. (SU-Q-17) 7 8

Comment: In fact, we had a drill last month that involved a terrorist attack in combination with 9

SLED, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, and Fairfield County Sheriff's Office. When 10 we debriefed that drill, we got favorable comments from both Fairfield County Sheriff and from 11 SLED. They were very comfortable that we have a very safe facility, and they are not concerned 12 with us. (SU-Q-18) 13 14 Response: The comment is noted. Each nuclear plant must have approved emergency and 15 safeguards contingency plans, per 10 CFR Part 50, that are revised periodically. Emergency 16 and safeguards planning, which includes responses to threats of terrorism and sabotage, are 17 part of the current operating license and are outside the scope of the environmental analysis for 18 license renewal. Any required changes to emergency and safeguards contingency plans related 19 to terrorism and sabotage will be incorporated and reviewed under the operating license.

20 21 Although this topic is not within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is always 22 concerned with protecting health and safety. Any matter potentially effecting safety can be 23 addressed under processes currently available for existing operating license absent a license 24 renewal application. Although the comment does not pertain to the scope of license renewal as 25 set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 and Part 54, it will be provided to the project manager who oversees 26 current operating and licensing activities for consideration.

27 28 Comment: Who will monitor the plant environmentally, safely after it's closed down? Will you 29 all continue to monitor the plant? (SU-D-1) 30 31 Comment: But after it's decommissioned, is anybody riding herd over it during that time period 32 to ensure the public that it's safe? I mean, after it's decommissioned, are there people that 33 come periodically to ensure the safety? (SU-D-2) 34 35 Response: The comments are noted. Decommissioning matters are outside the scope of the 36 NRCs environmental review. An NRC environmental review for decommissioning is conducted 37 separately. The process of decommissioning will remove the radiological hazard of the facility.

38 When the license is terminated, the site will be safe for unrestricted use, and NRCs oversight 39 of the facility is also terminated. More information is available in the GEIS for 40 Decommissioning. The comments provide no new and significant information; therefore, will not 41 be evaluated further.

42 43

Scoping Comment Report 24 V.C. Summer January 2003 1

Comment: SCE&G has funded scientific research into striped bass population dynamics in the 2

Santee River drainage and will fund a study if avian vacuolar myelinopathy, a disease that 3

affects bald eagles -- and I challenge any of you to say that -- on Lake Murray. (SU-R-4) 4 5

Comment: SCE&G is a member of the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee, which is 6

an organization dedicated to recovery of a rare fish which is found only in Georgia and the 7

Carolinas. (SU-R-5) 8 9

Response: The comments are noted. The comments address aquatic ecology issues and 10 research. The comment does not pertain to the scope of the license renewal as set forth in 10 11 CFR Part 51 and Part 54. Therefore, the comments will not be evaluated further.

12 13

11. Comments Concerning Process Issues 14 15 Comment: Im disappointed at the crowd, because Im sure they dont know more than I did.

16 Thats the reason theyre not here. Evidently, there was something wrong with the way you 17 published this meeting. (SU-A-1) 18 19 Comment: Thats why were asking for you all to give the community a little bit of input in what 20 SCE&G is doing for us. (SU-A-2) 21 22 Comment: If it was on a Saturday, more at a public facility, you might have more participation.

23 So I would encourage that. There needs to be some more input from the citizens in this 24 community, in this serious, serious decision that you are making. (SU-B-2) 25 26 Comment: I would ask the Regulatory Commission if you could find it to be possible to hold 27 another committee meeting to give the constituency an opportunity to ask questions, to 28 participate, and I will go out in the community and make sure that the churches and other 29 constituencies is informed that youre having this hearing, if you would. (SU-B-5) 30 31 Comment: I was askedto ask for another public hearing, where folks can actually 32 participate. (SU-B-7) 33 34 Comment: How many people are here that don't work for the power company? (SU-C-2) 35 36 Response: The comments are noted. The comments address the license renewal processes at 37 V.C. Summer with regard to public involvement. The license renewal review process is being 38 conducted under NRCs environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which includes 39 the format for the public participation process. Public Service Announcements were submitted 40

25 January 2003 V.C. Summer to local radio and television stations. Advertisements were placed in three local newspapers 1

and flyers were distributed throughout the community.

2 3

Although this topic may not be within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is 4

always concerned with improving the license renewal process with regard to public involvement.

5 Therefore, a copy of these comments will be provided to the NRC manager responsible for the 6

overall license renewal review process for consideration.

7 8

Comment: What youre doing in this process is a site-specific supplement to a generic 9

environmental impact statement; is that correct? (SU-C-3) 10 11 Comment: The only thing that will be considered thats site-specific will be in this portion of the 12 process? Are there other parts of the process reviewing the licensing that will be site-specific?

13 (SU-C-4) 14 15 Response: The comments are noted. The comments address the scope of the supplement to 16 the GEIS for V.C. Summer license renewal as it relates to generic and site-specific issues. Both 17 the environmental review and safety portions of the license renewal process examine site-18 specific issues.

19 20 Comment: The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control funded the 21 renewal of the licensing? (SU-C-8) 22 23 Comment: And absent DHECs standing as a formal intervenor, there will be no public 24 hearings on the final EIS; correct? (SU-C-9) 25 26 Response: The comments are noted. The comments address the role of the State of South 27 Carolina in the NRC environmental review for the supplement to the GEIS for V.C. Summer 28 license renewal. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, the comments will 29 not be evaluated further.

30 31 Comment: I guess I would ask the question, how many folks are here from Jenkinsville.

32 Three? Four?... My only concern is that we are in a county that we have a 47-percent illiteracy 33 rate, and I think getting this information out to the public, as Ms. Pearson has just indicated, is 34 crucial. (SU-B-1) 35 36 Comment: I want to know how many people are here that arent paid to be here today. Five 37 out of 54, let the record reflect. (SU-C-11) 38 39 Response: The comments are noted. The comments address the license renewal processes at 40 V.C. Summer with regard to public involvement. The license renewal review process is being 41 conducted under NRCs environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which includes 42 the format for the public participation process. Public Service Announcements were submitted 43

Scoping Comment Report 26 V.C. Summer January 2003 to local radio and television stations. Advertisements were placed in three local newspapers 1

and flyers were distributed throughout the community.

2 3

Although this topic may not be within the scope of review for license renewal, the NRC is 4

always concerned with improving the license renewal process with regard to public involvement.

5 Therefore, a copy of these comments will be provided to the NRC manager responsible for the 6

overall license renewal review process for consideration.

7 8

Comment: Are 20 years up already for the first part of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Plant?

9 (SU-O-1) 10 11 Response: The comment is noted. The comment addresses the timing of the license renewal 12 process related to the existing operating license. SCE&G submitted its application for License 13 Renewal on August 6, 2002, which was at the 20-year mark for its original license.

14 15 16 Summary 17 18 The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (called a SEIS) for V.C. Summer 19 will take into account all the relevant environmental issues raised during the scoping process 20 that are described above. The draft SEIS will be made available for public comment.

21 Interested Federal, State, and local government agencies, local organizations, and members of 22 the public will be given the opportunity to provide comments to be considered during the 23 development of the final SEIS. Concerns identified that are outside the scope of the staffs 24 environmental review have been or will be forwarded to the appropriate NRC program manager 25 for consideration.

26 27