ML15217A200

Environ Impact Statement Scoping Process, Summary Rept

ML15217A200
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	01/31/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML15217A199	List: ML15217A198 ML15217A200
References
NUDOCS 9901260312
Download: ML15217A200 (20)

Text

Distri98.txt Distribution Sheet Priority: Normal From: Stefanie Fountain Action Recipients:

Copies:

Internal Recipients:

RidsRgn2MailCenter 0

OK FILE CENTER 01 1

Paper Copy External Recipients:

Total Copies:

Item: ADAMS Document Library: MLADAMSAHQNTAD01 ID: 003692531

Subject:

EPA COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT 2 TO THE GEIS FOR THE LICENSE REN EWAL OF NUCLER PLANTS, REGARDING OCONEE NULCEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2 AN D3 Body:

ADAMS DISTRIBUTION NOTIFICATION.

Electronic Recipients can RIGHT CLICK and OPEN the first Attachment to View the Document in ADAMS. The Document may also be viewed by searching for Accession Number ML003692531.

DFX2 - Direct Flow Distribution: 50 Docket - Entire Document CF Avail Docket: 05000269 Docket: 05000270 Docket: 05000287 Page 1

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 15, 2000 Heinz J. Mueller, Chief Office of Environmental Assessment Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

SUBJECT:

EPA COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SUPPLEMENT 2 TO THE GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE LICENSE RENEWAL OF NUCLEAR PLANTS, REGARDING OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND3

Dear Mr. Mueller:

We have received your letter dated January 21, 2000, on the NRC's Final Supplement 2 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal regarding Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3. We did follow up with Ramona McConney of your staff to better appreciate your regional process for dealing with final environmental impact statements (EISs). As background, the NRC established the environmental review requirements for license renewal in the mid-1990s. The NRC chose to conduct a generic environmental review of those issues that applied to a large number of plants and codified its regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 so that, of the 92 environmental issues considered, 68 were designated as Category 1 issues and were generically dispositioned by rule and in the GEIS. The remaining 24 issues, designated as being in Category 2, must be evaluated individually for each plant and the results presented in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. This regulatory framework required considerable interaction with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality to ensure that the NRC licensing process complies with the National Environmental Policy Act. In your letter, you stated that you continue to have environmental concerns about potential impacts of the project, particularly regarding offsite radiological impacts, and went on to advise that potential impacts should be discussed in more detail during the license renewal process.

The NRC issued its draft supplement to the GEIS for Oconee (DSEIS) to support a decision to complete the license renewal process for the Oconee plant; the decision is expected later this year. The DSEIS was filed with EPA and was issued for public comment on May 20, 1999.

The NRC staff considered all comments and explicitly addressed each, including your comments that were offered in EPA's letter of August 16, 1999, on the DSEIS. The environmental review under NRC's license renewal process involves outreach efforts during scoping and during the comment period on the DSEIS to assure that the public is aware of the scheme established to consider the 92 environmental issues associated with license renewal.

1V 9-

H. Mueller

-2 We believe that our process has adequately addressed offsite radiological impacts. For example, one of the 68 issues designated as a Category 1 issue is "Radiation exposures to the public (license renewal term)." The NRC found that "[R]adiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with normal operations." This issue, its category and the NRC's finding are codified in Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51; therefore, the issue is generically dispositioned unless there is new and significant information that is revealed during the environmental review process. In codifying the finding, the NRC relied upon the conclusion in Section 4.6 of the GEIS, "Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation," where the NRC concluded that "[R]adiation doses to members of the public from current operation of nuclear power plants have been examined from a variety of perspectives and the impacts were found to be well within the design objectives and regulations in each instance. No effect of aging that would significantly affect the radioactive effluents has been identified." Furthermore, The NRC outlined the technical bases that were considered in determining the scope of radiological impacts for license renewal and for all plants covered by the rule in Appendix E to the GEIS, "Radiation Protection Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal." In Section 4.3 of the final supplement to the GEIS for Oconee, the NRC relied upon the findings of the GEIS and provided the bases for its conclusion that it "...

has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of the Duke E[nvironmental] R[eport], the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of public comments on the draft S[upplemental] EIS, or its evaluation of other available information."

The final supplement to the GEIS for Oconee was the first of several that the NRC expects to prepare within the next several years in your region. We have had discussions with EPA Headquarters regarding the ambitious schedule for upcoming renewals. We would be willing to conduct a similar meeting with you to discuss our expected schedule for upcoming license renewal projects and to familiarize you with the license renewal process with particular emphasis on the environmental review. If you have any further questions in this matter, please contact Jim Wilson, of my staff, at (301) 415-1108.

Sincerely, Cy hia A. Carpenter, Chief Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial, and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287

H. Mueller

-2 We believe that our process has adequately addressed offsite radiological impacts. For example, one of the 68 issues designated as a Category 1 issue is "Radiation exposures to the public (license renewal term)." The NRC found that "[R]adiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with normal operations." This issue, its category and the NRC's finding are codified in Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51; therefore, the issue is generically dispositioned unless there is new and significant information that is revealed during the environmental review process. In codifying the finding, the NRC relied upon the conclusion in Section 4.6 of the GEIS, "Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation," where the NRC concluded that "[R]adiation doses to members of the public from current operation of nuclear power plants have been examined from a variety of perspectives and the impacts were found to be well within the design objectives and regulations in each instance. No effect of aging that would significantly affect the radioactive effluents has been identified." Furthermore, The NRC outlined the technical bases that were considered in determining the scope of radiological impacts for license renewal and for all plants covered by the rule in Appendix E to the GEIS, "Radiation Protection Considerations for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal." In Section 4.3 of the final supplement to the GEIS for Oconee, the NRC relied upon the findings of the GEIS and provided the bases for its conclusion that it "..

has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of the Duke E[nvironmental] R[eport], the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of public comments on the draft S[upplemental] EIS, or its evaluation of other available information."

The final supplement to the GEIS for Oconee was the first of several that the NRC expects to prepare within the next several years in your region. We have had discussions with EPA Headquarters regarding the ambitious schedule for upcoming renewals. We would be willing to conduct a similar meeting with you to discuss our expected schedule for upcoming license renewal projects and to familiarize you with the license renewal process with particular emphasis on the environmental review. If you have any further questions in this matter, please contact Jim Wilson, of my staff, at (301) 415-1108.

Sincerely, ACCESSION mL003692531 TEMPLATE NRR-056 Cynthia A. Carpenter, Chief Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial, and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 DISTRIBUTION:

/Docket File RGEB R/F DMatthews/SNewberry CCarpenter BZalcman CSochor DLaBarge CGrimes JSebrosky JHWilson JMoore Document Name:g:\\jhwl\\EPA letter - response

• see previous concurrence OFFICE RGE OGC C:RGEB NAME JWilson:3w BZ Aran JMoore*

CCarpent6 DATE 3/ 1/00 3/

/00 3/ 7 /00 3/j I./00

Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3 Oconee County, South Carolina January 1999 REG&

0 4*,

o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville Maryland 9901260312 990120 PDR ADOCK 05000269 p

PDRl)

INTRODUCTION On July 7, 1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application for renewal of the operating licenses of Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2 and 3. The ONS units are located in Oconee County, South Carolina. As part of the application, Duke Energy Corporation (the applicant) submitted an environmental report (ER) prepared in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. This regulation contains the NRC requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Requirements for preparation and submittal of environmental reports to the NRC are outlined in 10 CFR Section 51.53.

Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii) codifies the findings documented in NUREG-1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants" (GEIS). The GEIS, which identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, was issued for public comment and 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 generic at all nuclear power plants. These were given the designation of 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 in the GEIS to be inaccurate. Category 2 impacts are those impacts which have been determined to be plant-specific and are required to be addressed in the applicant's environmental report (ER). Additionally, the Commission determined that the NRC should play no role in energy planning decision-making and that State regulators and utility officials were more appropriate in that role. 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 storage of spent fuel for the facility. This determination was based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and the Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR Section 51.23.

On September 21, 1998, the NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (63 FR 50257). The notice of intent notified the public of the staff's intent to prepare a plant specific supplement to the GEIS for the renewal of the ONS operating licenses. The plant specific supplement to the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA, CEQ guidance, and 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated a scoping process. The NRC invited the applicant, Federal, State and local government agencies, local organizations, and individuals to participate in the scoping process. Interested parties had an opportunity to provide oral comments at a public scoping meeting held on October 19, 1998, in Clemson, South Carolina, or submit written comments no later than November 19, 1998. In addition to a Federal Register Notice issuance, the meetings were advertised in the Greenville News newspaper; press releases and public service announcements were distributed.. Flyers were posted locally. Approximately 62 members of the public attended the meetings, not including NRC and Duke Energy personnel. Each session began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the license renewal process including the NEPA process. Following the overview made by NRC staff, the meetings were opened for public comments. Ten attendees provided either oral comments or asked questions which were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. See Table 1 for a list of these ten attendees. The meeting transcripts 1

were supplemented by materials submitted by the speakers. The meeting transcripts were made available on the NRC Internet website at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/LR/oconee.

html.

In addition to the comments provided during the public meetings, six comment letters were received by the NRC in response to the Notice of Intent. See Table 1 for a list of the six commentors.

The scoping process provided 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:

1)

Define the proposed action

2)

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

3)

Identify and eliminate peripheral issues

4)

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

5)

Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements

6)

Indicate the schedule for preparation of the supplement to the GEIS

7)

Identify any cooperating agencies

8)

Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared.

At the conclusion of.the scoping period, the transcripts and all written material received were reviewed by the NRC staff and its contractor, and individual comments were identified.

Comments and suggestions received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were examined. The staff assigned an identification number to each commentor to facilitate tracking back to the transcripts or written comments. Table 1 identifies the individuals providing comments. The individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at the meetings or provided written comments. Comments were then 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 contractors determined the appropriate action for the comment. A determination on each comment was made in the following manner:

1)

Comment is actually a request for information and introduces no new information. No further evaluation is required.

2)

Comment is not within the scope of license renewal. No further evaluation is required.

2

3)

Comment is either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general (or specifically for ONS) or it makes a general statement about the license renewal process. It may make only a general statement regarding Category 1 and Category 2 issues. In addition, it provides no new information and does not pertain to a specific safety issue arising pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. No further evaluation is required.

4)

Comment on Category 1 issue a)

Comment provides no new information, GEIS analysis remains valid and bounding - no further evaluation is required.

b)

Comment provides new information - will be evaluated during the review and addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS.

5)

Comment on Category 2 issue a)

New information is not provided - no further evaluation is required.

b)

New information is provided - will be evaluated during review and addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS.

6)

Comment raises an issue not addressed in the GEIS - new information is provided -will be evaluated during review and addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS.

7)

Comment on issue pertaining to 10 CFR Part 54 - will be addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report.

The preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will take into account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping process. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will address both Category 1 and 2 issues, along with any new information identified as a result of scoping. Absent any new and significant information, the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will rely on conclusions as amplified by the supporting information in the GEIS for Category 1 issues and will include the analysis of the Category 2 issues. In addition, any new information regarding Category 1 and 2 issues will be analyzed. The draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS will be 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 NRC's environmental review process. The comments received on the draft supplement to the GEIS will be considered in the preparation of the final supplement to the GEIS. The supplement to the GEIS, along with the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER), will provide the basis for the NRC's decision on the ONS license renewal.

The following summary report identifies the comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping process, and specifies disposition of the comments and suggestions. The identifying number for the individual who provided the comment, from Table 1, is in brackets after the comment. General comments are listed first, then comments related to specified issues are grouped and listed.

3

TABLE 1-Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period Commentor Commentors Name Commentor's Affiliation (if Stated)

Number Afternoon Session of Public Scoping Meeting 1

Mike Tuckman - spoke at Executive Vice President for Nuclear Generation, both afternoon and evening Duke Energy Company sessions 2

Carrie Todd - spoke at both Environmental Manager, Oconee Nuclear Site afternoon and evening sessions 3

Buck Vanderwheel Vice President, Friends of Lake Keowee Society 4

Angie Howard - spoke at Senior Vice President Nuclear Energy Institute both afternoon and evening sessions 5

David Waymire Professional engineer 6

Bill Sounders Resident Lake Keowee 7

Francis Plotnik Resident, Six Mile

___________Evening Session of Public Scoping Meeting 8

Lance Howard private citizen 9

Butch Clay Chattooga River Watershed Coalition (CRWC) 10 Buzz Williams Executive Director, Chattooga River Watershed Coalition Letters Received in Comment Period following Scoping Meeting 11 Rob Keck Executive Vice President, Chief Executive Office, National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) 12 Robert R. Nash Chairman, Board of Directors, Appalachian Council of Governments (ACOG) 13 Angela Viney Executive Director, South Carolina Wildlife Federation (SCWF) 14 Dennis Bauknight District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 15 Claude Gilbert, Jr.

private citizen 16 Mary Bunch Wildlife Diversity, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) 4

Oconee Nuclear Station - Public Scoping Meeting and Comment Letters Comments and Responses Each comment is followed by the commentor number listed in Table 1. In addition, the location of the comment in the transcript or written correspondence is listed next. If the comment appears twice in the transcript because it was made in both the afternoon and evening sessions, the second reference is listed after the first reference in parentheses.

General Statements in Support of License Renewal Comment: License renewal offers three major benefits to our nation. First it allows the United States to maintain economic electric generating capacity that does not produce greenhouse gases or other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulates. Second, license renewal will preserve good jobs for Americans and substantial tax revenues for the communities where these plants are located. And third, the renewal of a nuclear power plant's license is a cheaper form of building and supplying electricity than building new generating capacity. [4<NEI>] 46/13 (102/1)

Response: The comment is noted. The comment is supportive of license renewal in general.

This comment makes only general statements. It provides no new information and does not pertain to a specific safety issue arising pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

General Statements in Opposition to License Renewal Comment: A nuclear phase out is necessary, not relicensing these white elephants.

Subsidizing a failed industry will not help America.

[15<Gilbert>] Line 4 Response: The comment is noted. The comment is in opposition to license renewal. The comment makes only a general statement and provides no new information and does not pertain to a specific safety issue arising pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

General Statements in Support of License Renewal for the Oconee Nuclear Station Comment: Oconee has been a very reliable safe and economical source of electrical generation, which has allowed our electric rates in the southeast to be among the best in the nation. [1<MT>] 31/2 Comment: The station has been a safe, economical and reliable source of electrical generation. [1 <Duke Energy-Tuckman>] 32/14 (88/4)

Comment: License renewal is a very viable thing to go forward with. Oconee can be as good or better in the future than it has been in the past. [1 <Duke Energy-Tuckman>] 32/18 5

Comment: There will be no significant environmental impact as a result of renewing the license for the Oconee Nuclear Station, based on the existing data and input from a variety of subject matter experts. [1 <Duke Energy-Tuckman>] 39/15 (94/23)

Comment: Evaluation of historic data indicates no changes to water resources. No change is envisioned in the operation of the plant during license renewal. Thus, the same water quality will be maintained. [2<Duke Energy-Todd>]35/8 (90/20)

Comment: Current operations have not had any impact on any of the four State listed species that were identified within a one mile radius of the plant. License renewal will not adversely impact these plants based on operating history and continued operations. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service in Charleston and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources have reviewed the survey and they agree with this conclusion. [2<Duke Energy Todd>]35/12 (90/24)

Comment: For the twenty-five years of its operation, Oconee has not adversely affected the air quality. There are no plans associated with license renewal that would alter the air quality in any way. [2<Duke Energy-Todd>]36/7 (91/18)

Comment: License renewal will not require additional land usage and activities will remain on the existing site boundary. A consultation with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office to identify any other historic properties in the area indicated that there are no other properties identified. Thus, renewal of the Oconee license will not impact historic, archaeological or land resources in the community. [2<Duke Energy-Todd>]37/6 (92/17, 22 and 25)

Comment: The Oconee Nuclear sites will keep jobs in the community, which helps maintain a strong local economy. The annual payroll of eighty-four million dollars helps support local business and industry.[2<Duke Energy-Todd>] 38/5 (93/16)

Comment: Friends of Lake Keowee Society fully support Duke Energy's license renewal request based on Duke Energy's environmental stewardship of the lake and its water shed.

[3<FOLKS>] 40/18 Comment: Duke's partnership with the local community and organizations is outstanding.

[3<FOLKS>] 42/21 Comment: Duke Energy is a friend of Lake Keowee in every sense of the word, and the Friends of Lake Keowee Society wholeheartedly supports Duke Energy's license request.

[3<FOLKS>] 43/9 Comment: Angie Howard made a comment that she is encouraged and excited at the prospect of Oconee continuing to provide safe and reliable electric power. [4<NEI>] 43/24 (100/2)

Comment: NWTF@ and Duke Energy have worked together for many years to protect and enhance wildlife habitats associated with Duke properties. In 1992, the parties expanded their joint efforts and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to work cooperatively for the 6

betterment of the wild turkey, other game and non-game wildlife and for conservation education for our youth. That MOU, in a renewed and expanded form, continues today. Cooperative efforts involving Duke and its ONS area facilities have produced quality results for the wild turkey, wildlife in general, and for conservation-education; [11 <NWTF>] Page 1, Paragraph 3, Line 1 Comment: Duke Energy is an excellent example of a corporate steward of wildlife and its habitats, both in its transmission right-of-way corridors and its surplus lands around ONS and other power plants. We have had great success working together, and in partnership with other organizations, and look forward to continuing our relationship at ONS and other locations in the Duke system. [11<NWTF>] Page 2, Paragraph 2, Line 1 Comment: The Oconee Nuclear Power Station provides tremendous benefit to Oconee County and the South Carolina Appalachian Region through the production of high quality electricity, employment of a large, highly skilled work force, and payment of significant property taxes. [12<ACOG>} Page 2, Paragraph 3 Comment: The Oconee Nuclear Power Station complements and enhances development in Oconee County. [12<ACOG>] Page 2, Paragraph 5.

Comment: ACOG supports the renewal of the license held by Duke Energy Corporation for the operation of the Oconee Nuclear Power Station [12<ACOG>] Page 2, Paragraph 7 Comment: Duke's efforts related to environmental stewardship have also been recognized through numerous awards.[13<SCWF>]Page 2, Paragraph 4, Line 1 Comment: SCWF considers Duke's people and their programs as industrial models in environmental stewardship and looks forward to continuing a successful partnership toward the protection and enhancement of South Carolina's natural resources at its ONS site, its transmission right-of-way corridors, and throughout its South Carolina service area.

[13<SCWF>]Page 2, Paragraph 5, Line 1 Comment: NRCS has partnered with Duke Energy in planning, implementing and promoting environmental stewardship. A leading example is the cooperative work to prevent and control soil erosion at work sites in the South Carolina mountains and foothills. [14<NRCS>] Page 1, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3 Comment: Duke's role as a resource partner and as a leading industry in natural resource management has been recognized through a series of awards.[14<NRCS>] Page 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 Comment: The Keowee Nuclear Site has developed trails, wildlife related demonstration areas, and nest box programs which have benefitted certain wildlife species and Duke Energy employees and other visitors. [1 6<SCDNR>]

Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal for the Oconee Nuclear Station. The comments that address Category 1 or Category 2 issues are 7

general in nature. They provide no new information and do not pertain to a specific safety issue arising pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

General Statements in Opposition to License Renewal for the Oconee Nuclear Station Comment: Duke Power's request to relicense Oconee Nuclear Station should be denied.

[15<Gilbert>] Page 1, Paragraph 1 - Line 1 Response: The comment is noted. The comment is in opposition to license renewal for the Oconee Nuclear Station. The comment is general in nature. It provides no new information and does not pertain to a specific safety issue arising pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

Comments in Support of the License Renewal Process Comment: Mike Tuckman of Duke Energy believes that the license renewal process is thorough. He believes the various aspects of it, the technical and safety review, the environmental review, and the opportunity for the public to provide input to the NRC on what things should be considered in its review are very valuable. [1 <Duke Energy-Tuckman>] 88/11 Comment: Angie Howard of NEI commends the NRC for developing a generic environmental impact statement for license renewal. The GEIS goes a long way to making the review process efficient and is of benefit to the industry as well as to the public. She emphasized that the NRC did not develop the Generic Environmental Impact Statement unilaterally; rather, it was and is an extremely open process. Participation included State governments, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, members of the public, critics of the nuclear energy industry and the industry itself. A number of changes were made in the process on the way... the same is true for the more technical part of the renewal application. The NRC's license renewal rule is a product of several years of hard work and numerous rounds of public comment. [4<NEI>] 45/10 (101/10)

Comment: Angie Howard of NEI believes that the Environmental Statement must be clear and informative to the public and decision makers regarding both the environmental impacts of operating this generating station as well as the potential impacts if it does not continue to provide electricity. [4<NEI>] 47/1 (102/13)

Comment: The NRC has laid the ground work for a fair, efficient and effective process to evaluate license renewal applications. [4<NEI>] 48/15 (103/22)

Response: The comments in support of the current license renewal process are noted. The comments provide no new information and will not be evaluated further.

8

Comment in Opposition to the License Renewal Process Comment: Buzz Williams of the Chatooga River Watershed Coalition likened the license renewal process to a shell game. The shells correspond to NRC's compartmentalized review processes with the pea representing important issues at stake. He expressed his view that during the environmental scoping process, comments are listened to, but that the public has no "standing" to do anything about some issues. He complained of the "very short period of time" available for an opportunity to "expand this procedure" {the scoping process} to hear these other issues.

[10<CRWC-Williams>]

Response

The NRC is responsible for regulating the civilian uses of nuclear materials in the United States to protect public health and safety, and to protect the environment. The NRC's statutory authority is contained in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. In discharging its statutory duties, the NRC is responsible for regulatory oversight, inspection, and enforcement with respect to the use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the NRC also prepares environmental impact statements and environmental assessments for the construction, licensing, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and nuclear materials and uranium fuel cycle facilities. The NRC makes determinations on these matters when granting, suspending, revoking, or amending any license or construction permit. The Commission's regulations provide processes to include public input into these NRC determinations. These processes include informal methods such as the environmental scoping process discussed below, as well as formal hearings.

Section 189 of the AEA mandates that the NRC provide an opportunity for a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding on a license. The NRC discharges this responsibility in the context of power reactor licensing and license renewal by providing for an opportunity for a formal hearing in which both safety and environmental issues may be considered. However, in order to achieve the expeditious completion of adjudicatory proceedings while still ensuring that hearings are fair and produce an adequate record for decision, the NRC's Rules of Practice for such hearings impose certain requirements on a person seeking to participate as a party in them. A person who desires to be a party to a proceeding must satisfy these requirements, or they will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Pursuant to the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which govern environmental reviews, the NRC provides an informal avenue for any member of the public to contribute to the information-gathering process for the NRC's environmental review (called the "scoping process'). A scoping meeting, however, is not a formal hearing. While persons seeking to participate in the scoping process have no procedural requirements.to meet (other than conveying their comments), the scoping process does not address safety issues. With respect to license renewal, environmental impacts associated with license renewal are addressed in NUREG-1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants." In evaluating a particular application, under the rule, a plant-specific supplement to the GElS is issued to address only those issues identified as Category 2 issues in Appendix B to Part 51 and any new and significant information relevant to the application.

9

The scoping process is just the first stage in the preparation of the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS at which the public may comment. There will be an opportunity for public comment on the draft plant-specific supplement to the GEIS for license renewal, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.73. The NRC believes the schedule for the scoping process regarding ONS allows a reasonable amount of time for members of the public to provide comments.

With respect to the safety aspects of license renewal, the NRC's review is confined to matters relevant to the extended period of operation requested by the applicant. The safety review is limited to the plant systems, structures, and components (as delineated in 10 CFR Section 54.4) that will require an aging management review for the period of extended operation or are subject to an evaluation of time-limited aging analyses. 'As defined in 10 CFR Part 54 (the license renewal rule), the current licensing basis (CLB) is the set of NRC requirements applicable to a specific plant and a licensee's written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis that are docketed and in effect. A licensee's obligations with respect to the CLB, however, have already been determined by the NRC and are not within the scope of the license renewal review.

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 effecting safety can be addressed under processes currently available for any existing operating license absent a license renewal application. Furthermore, any person may, at any time, file a petition pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.206 requesting the NRC to institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a nuclear power plant operating license, or take any other action deemed appropriate.

The comment makes general statements about the license renewal process and provides no new information. Therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

Scoping Meeting Agenda Comment: Lance Howard questioned how the final decision will be made regarding the renewal of the license for the Oconee Nuclear Station. He questioned how participation in the scoping process was going to be used, and if the NRC really cared about what the public thought. [8<Howard>] 79/12 Response: The Commission will make its decision on the application to renew the ONS licenses based on the results of the environmental review as well as the safety review. The staff will document its environmental review in a supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and its safety review in a Safety Evaluation Report currently being prepared.

The staff that is writing these reports considers the comments made by the public during the scoping period, including those made during the public meetings and those that are sent in writing to the NRC. This Summary Report summarizes the issues and concerns that were raised at both of the public meetings and during the 60-day comment period, but does not address the substance of those issues and concerns. The scoping summary report will indicate whether or not the comments will be addressed in the draft supplement to the GElS or in the SER. The NRC has a variety of ways to provide information to interested members of the public, as well as formal and informal ways to respond to public concerns and comments. The NRC values public comments and concerns, but this comment does not provide any new information that needs to be evaluated in the Oconee environmental review for license renewal.

10

Comment: Buzz Williams of the Chatooga River Watershed Coalition expressed his view that there are a million issues that are not being considered that are actually being excluded from this process. [10<CRWC-Williams>] 97/15 Response: The objective of the scoping process is to identify the scope of the environmental review and identify new issues that should be considered for further evaluation. Broad issues such as the final disposition of spent nuclear fuel are outside the scope of the environmental review for license renewal. Issues specific to the Oconee Nuclear Station and its impacts on the surrounding area including Lake Keowee will be a part of this environmental analysis.

Alternatives to license renewal are also considered as part of this analysis. The NRC has concluded that certain issues are "generic" (Category 1) issues, based on the similarity of the issue for each plant and its resulting impact. These issues have been evaluated in NRC's GEIS for License Renewal. The Commission has previously assessed the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts associated with renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant in the GEIS and concludes that none of the Category 1 impacts would be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. However, any Category 2 issue specific to Oconee Nuclear Station and any new and significant information regarding any Category 1 issue will be evaluated in the draft supplement to the GElS. The comment provides no new information and will not be evaluated further.

Environmental Concerns Comment: Mary Bunch at SCDNR read the botanical survey report performed by L.L. Gaddy for the site and saw no immediate threat to rare species on that site. However, the commentor had concerns over sites within other Duke Energy properties. Specifically, one, site harbors a Federally listed, endangered plant and a threatened turtle. [1 6<SCDNR>]

Response: The Supplement to the GEIS will include those areas that were discussed in the original EIS for the Oconee Nuclear Station. This includes the area surrounding the Oconee Nuclear Station as well as the transmission line right-of-way corridors.

The analysis of impacts from the maintenance and use of the transmission corridors is generally limited to those transmission line rights-of-way that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the nuclear station to the transmission system grid. These corridors are considered by the licensee to be within the site boundary of the Oconee Nuclear Station.

However, the original FES specified approximately 330 miles of transmission line corridors even though these transmission lines were also constructed to connect the Keowee-Toxaway Project plants to the transmission system. As a result, the scoping process and the Supplemental EIS that will be developed by the NRC will consider the 330 miles of transmission line corridors that were discussed in the original FES and will consider the potential for impacts to Federally listed threatened and endangered species that occur within the transmission line rights-of-way.

This comment provides what may potentially be new information related to the possibility that a Federally listed endangered plant and/or threatened turtle may occur in areas traversed by the, transmission line corridors specified in the original FES. The potential for these species to 11

occur within the 330 miles of transmission right-of-way corridors specified in the original FES will be further investigated.

General Safety Issues Comment: Results of preparing the license renewal application showed us that the plant can operate safely and reliably for an additional twenty years.[1 <Duke Energy-Tuckman>] 89/9 Comment: The plants were well designed. The equipment was over-designed. The plants are going to be quite acceptable for future operation. [5<Waymire>] 49/10 Comment: I feel quite confident of its safety and I feel hopefully quite confident of getting all the electricity that I want to use in the future. [5<Waymire>] 49/18 Comment: The Oconee Nuclear Power Station has established an outstanding reputation for operating in a safe and environmentally conscious manner. [1 2<ACOG>] Page 2, Paragraph 4 Response: These comments support the general safety of the plant with respect to its ability to operate during the license renewal period. These comments are outside the scope of the environmental review. The safe operation of the plant for the period of extended operation will be addressed in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER). However, these comments are too general in nature to warrant a specific answer in the SER.

Specific Safety Issues - Embrittlement Comment: Buzz Williams of the Chatooga River Watershed Coalition submitted that the issue of "embrittlement of that containment vessel" is an extremely important issue and the public should know more about the process of embrittlement, how much it has affected the "containment vessel" and how it can affect the public as an environmental issue.[10<Williams>]

96/4, 97/17 Response: The staff interprets Mr. William's comment to be a concern about embrittlement of the reactor vessel which has been an issue previously raised. This comment is not in the scope of the environmental review and will not be addressed in the draft supplement to the GElS.

However, the NRC is aware of the issue of reactor vessel embrittlement and is evaluating this issue as part of its safety review for renewal under 10 CFR Part 54 in the staffs SER.

Safety Issues versus Environmental Issues Comment: Butch Clay of Chatooga River Watershed Coalition requested clarification of the relationship between the safety issues (notably embrittlement of the "containment vessels" and the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel) and human health as an environmental impact. The commentor understood that they were dealt within separate formats but didn't understand how the crossover was handled. [9<CRWC-Clyborne>] 82/6 12

Response: The safety evaluation and the environmental review are parallel reviews. The safety evaluation covers safety aspects of the plant and the effects of aging on systems, structures, and components. The environmental review addresses the impact the continued operation of the facility has on the surrounding environment, including human health effects due to occupational and public radiation exposures.

In some cases, management of the effects of aging on systems, structures, and components evaluated in the safety review could lead to human health effects that would be evaluated in the environmental review. For example, containment failure is a safety issue. However, the impact of a postulated accident caused by containment failure would be considered in the environmental review. The onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel is outside the scope of both the safety evaluation for license renewal and the environmental review, as it does not involve structures or components within the scope of license renewal. It has been addressed as a separate licensing action.

Accidents and Evaluations Comment: Buzz Williams of the Chatooga River Watershed Coalition read an NRC notice of violation for Oconee and was concerned that calculations Duke had made concerning the volume in the containment sump were wrong.

He said that this could easily have meant that a valve could have been turned on at the wrong time, resulting in a fairly severe accident.

[1O<CRWC-Williams>] 98/3 Response: The Commission has developed an enforcement program and Enforcement Policy to support the NRC's overall safety mission in protecting the public and the environment.

Consistent with that purpose, enforcement action is used as a deterrent to emphasize the importance of compliance with regulatory requirements, and to encourage prompt identification and prompt, comprehensive correction of violations. There are three primary enforcement sanctions available: Notices of Violation, civil penalties, and orders. The NRC recognizes that nuclear operating reactors are complex and that regulations are stringent and technically demanding. Inevitably, with such an elaborate regulatory program, violations of requirements occur. However, hot all violations are equally significant. Severity Levels range from Severity Level I, for the most significant violations, to Severity Level IV for those of more than minor concern. Minor violations are not subject to formal enforcement action.

The enforcement action related to the containment sump capacity is an example of the process used in all operating plants, whether or not they are engaged in the license renewal process. It does not raise any environmental concerns for renewal of the operating license.

Seismic concerns Comment: There is a fault that runs very close to the Oconee Station, within ten miles. It is not active. The likelihood of that fault moving and causing a problem is highly unlikely, but it is not being considered [1 0<CRWC-Williams>] 97/11 13

Response: The Brevard fault zone, which passes 11 miles northwest of the site was identified in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) written for the Oconee plant in 1972. The design criteria for the Oconee Nuclear Station are based upon 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," which took into account this fault zone. This comment does not provide any new information.

Economics of License Renewal Comment: Oconee will still provide electricity at about one half of the cost of any alternative replacement power, taking into consideration the costs of construction, operation and maintenance, and license renewal. [1 <Duke Energy-Tuckman>] 31/5 (86/15)

Response: The cost of renewal is a business decision that NRC does not control. The economic decision of whether to apply for a renewed license is not within the scope of review for license renewal.

Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Comment: Francis Plotnick questioned whether NRC had written material addressing the storage of spent fuel rods. [7<Plotnik>] 51/4 Response: The NRC has brochures addressing the storage of spent fuel that were givento Ms. Plotnick along with Department of Energy literature related to the Yucca Mountain project.

This comment was a question that provided no new information.

Comment: With no solution for nuclear waste except to throw it in the ground, now is the time to stop the operation of this money pit. [15<Gilbert>] Line 3 Comment: The spent fuel facilities are almost full and there is no where to take the spent fuel.

[10<CRWC-Williams>] 96/7 Response: The siting and construction of a national waste repository are the responsibility of the Department of Energy. The Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within the first quarter of the twenty-first century (10 CFR Part 51.23). In the interim, onsite spent fuel storage in pools and in dry cask storage facilities continues in accordance with NRC regulations. The Commission has determined that onsite spent fuel can be stored safely for 30 years after the current operating license or a renewed license expires. No new information was provided by the comment, therefore, the conclusion contained in the GElS and the rule remains valid and no further evaluation of the issue is required.

Alternative Energy Sources Comment: Alternatives for generating electricity, other than license renewal of a nuclear facility such as solar, wind power, photovoltaic cells, hydroelectric, and conventional generation 14

were considered. When compared with production of electricity generated at the Oconee Nuclear Station, these alternatives were not chosen. Either they are high in land use, environmental impacts, or cost; or have inadequate electrical output. License renewal for the Oconee Nuclear Station makes the most sense for the environment and for customers.

[1 <Duke Energy-Tuckman>] 39/3 (94/13)

Comment: As an emission-free energy source, nuclear power plants already help limit the amount of greenhouse gases and control air pollutants emitted through electricity generation.

In fact, nuclear generating stations have been contributing to Clean Air Act compliance in each State in which'they are located precisely because they can satisfy the need for electricity without adding to pollution levels in the ambient air. South Carolina is one of these non attainment States, and the Oconee Station and its continued emission-free portfolio contributes greatly to the State. [4<NEI>] 47/25 (103/7)

Comment: Lance Howard indicated that nuclear power looks good when you compare it to burning coal or oil. However, he questioned whether the EIS would consider the alternative of doing nothing, or just shutting the plant down and leaving it vacant, rather than being concerned about how the electricity would be produced by some other type of plant. [7<Howard>] 109/22 Response: The plant-specific supplement to the GElS will include an analysis of reasonable alternative energy sources and the option of shutting the plant down and decommissioning the facility. The GEIS included an extensive discussion of alternatives. This information will be considered in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS.

Miscellaneous Remarks Comment: Bill Sounders inquired as to whether Germany is actually doing away with nuclear power plants and requested more information on this topic. [6<Sounders>] 50/10 Response: This issue is outside the scope of license renewal and will not be evaluated further.

Comment: MOX fuel is not the answer, reprocessing contaminates the environment and produces more waste. The commentor recommended that the health and well being of everyone on the planet be considered and that the situation in France (La Hague) and also in England (BNFL) be investigated to see what reprocessing does. [15<Gilbert>] Postscript Response: This issue is outside the scope of license renewal and will not be evaluated further.

15