ML15253A344
| ML15253A344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1998 |
| From: | Joshua Wilson NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811170143 | |
| Download: ML15253A344 (36) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 5, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO:
Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
James H. Wilson, Senior Project Manage Generic Issues and Environmental Projects ranch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION (ONS)
ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING MEETINGS TO SUPPORT REVIEW OF THE LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION On October 19, 1998, members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held public environmental scoping meetings in Clemson, South Carolina, in support of the staffs review of the ONS license renewal application. Two sessions were held to allow maximum public participation. The formal presentations made by NRC staff, Chris Grimes and Jim Wilson, were identical at each session. Chris Grimes' presentation is included as Attachment 1, Jim Wilson's presentation is included as Attachment 2 and a copy of the slides used in their presentations are included as Attachment 3. Attachment 4 is a list of attendees for both the 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm sessions.
The purpose of the meetings was to provide the public an opportunity to participate in the environmental scoping process by providing comments on any issues the public thought the NRC staff should consider in preparing a plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants," for Oconee Nuclear Station. The staff presentations outlined the overall license renewal process and provided a detailed description of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process; the requirements of NRC's regulations, as outlined in 10 CFR Part 51; and how and when these requirements would be met in the ONS license renewal review.
After the formal presentations given by NRC staff, Duke Energy officials were given the opportunity to address the audience and provide brief presentations focusing on the environmental report that was submitted as part of the license renewal application. Next, members of the public were invited to provide comments. Approximately 62 members of the public attended the two sessions with 8 persons making comments. Attendees included industry representatives, special interest groups, state and local government officials and university students. Oral comments were generally positive regarding ONS license renewal.
Negative comments focused on the NRC limiting the scope of the environmental and safety reviews of the license renewal applications including embrittlement and high-level waste storage issues, and a claim that the NRC was unwilling to have a meaningful public participation process. Due to the length of the transcript, a copy is not attached; however, a PDR ADOCK 05000D269 P
P~DR I
2 dopy of the transcript will be placed on the external NRC web page, will be available at the Local Public Document Room located at Oconee County Library, 501 West South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina, and at the Commission's Public Document Room located in the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
Attachments: As stated Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287
2 cbpy of the transcript will be placed on the external NRC web page, will be available at the Local Public Document Room located at Oconee County Library, 501 West South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina, and at the Commission's Public Document Room located in the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
Attachments: As stated Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 Distribution: w/out attachments, see next page DOCUMENT NAME: g:\\oconee\\meeting\\summary.wpd OFFICE PGEB PM:PGEB (A)SC:PGEB (A)BC:PGEB BC:PDLR NAME CSochoQ5 JWilson RArchitz TEssig CGrime DATE 11/5/98 11/5/98 11/5/98 11/4 /98 11//98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION: Oconee Nuclear Station meeting summary dated Nov. 5, 1998 Hard copy FPUBLIC cDocket File-,
PDLR RF M. EI-Zeftawy, ACRS E-mail:
F. Miraglia J. Roe D. Matthews C. Grimes T. Essig G. Lainas J. Strosnider G. Bagchi H. Brammer T. Hiltz G. Holahan S. Newberry C. Gratton L. Spessard R. Correia R. Latta J. Moore R. Weisman M. Zobler E. Hackett A. Murphy T. Martin D. Martin, OIG W. McDowell S. Droggitis C. Craig R. Jolly PDLR Staff H. Berkow D. LaBarge L. Plisco C. Ogle R. Trojanowski M. Scott C. Julian R. Architzel J. Wilson C. Sochor R. Gill, Duke D. Walters, NEI
EIS Scoping Meeting Introduction Slide 3: My name is Chris Grimes. I am the director of the NRC's License Renewal Project branch at the NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. I will broadly describe the NRC's statutory responsibilities and the license renewal process. Following my general description of the NRC's license renewal process, Jim Wilson, who is the Senior Environmental Project Manager for the Oconee license renewal application, will describe the particular purpose of today's meeting -
the scoping of environmental impact concerns related to the proposed renewal of the operating licenses for Duke Energy's Oconee plants.
Slide 4: The NRC's mission is to regulate the civilian use of nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment. The NRC's authority and responsibilities are derived from principally from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as well as amendments to those acts and other legislation involving protection of the environment, security, waste and energy policies. The NRC's regulations are issued under Title 10 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, which we will refer to as 10 CFR.
For commercial power reactors, the NRC's regulatory functions include licensing, inspection and enforcement. A reactor license is based on a set of established regulatory requirements to ensure that the design, construction and proposed operation are safe. NRC conducts routine inspections to ensure that the plant design and operation conform to the license requirements, and enforcement actions are taken in the event that the license requirements are not being satisfied.
Slide 5: The Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations limit commercial power reactor licenses to 40 years, but also permit the renewal of such licenses for up to an additional 20-year period. The 40-year term was originally selected on the basis of economic and ATTACHMENT 1
antitrust considerations, not technical limitations, but once selected, the design of several system and structural components were engineered on the basis of arn expected 40-year service life. The requirements for the initial 40-year license are contained in 10 CFR Part 50.
When the first reactors were co6nstructed, major components were expected to last at least 40 years. Operating experience has demonstrated that the expectation was unrealistic for some major plant components such as the steam generator in a pressurized water reactor. However, research over the past decade has concluded that there are no technical limitations to plant life, since major components and structures can be replaced or refurbished. Thus, the plant life is determined primarily on economic factors which would estimate the extent of maintenance and refurbishment the plant systems, structures and components needed for any period of future plant operation.
To clearly identify the requirements needed for extended plant operation, the NRC developed 10 CFR Part 54 for license renewal. The rule, which was initially issued in 1991 and amended in 1995, provides that the basis on which a plant was originally licensed remains valid after 40 years and can be carried over into a 20-year period of extended operation. A new license can be granted upon a finding by the Commission that the licensee has adequately demonstrated that plausible aging effects will be adequaiely managed for a defined scope of passive, long-lived systems, structures and components. In addition, the rule requires that certain time-dependent design analyses be identified and evaluated.
The application submitted by Duke Energy for its Oconee plants is the second for license renewal. The first license renewal application for the two Calvert Cliffs units was received in April 1998. Although the licenses for both applicants do not expire until 2013 or later, many utilities are interested in license renewal today, to ensure that they clearly understand what conditions will be necessary for an extended license, to aid in their future financial planning. Many other reactor licensees are also interested in license renewal because the licenses for about 40 of the 104 plants now operating in the Urited States will expire by 2015.
The decision on whether to renew a license to operate a power reactor rests primarily with the licensee. The utility must make a business decision as to whether the costs involved in continued operation can be economically justified. For some licensees, it may make more sense to shut the plant down at the end of its 40-year license than seek license renewal. Others, like Calvert Cliffs and Oconee, would like to continue plant operation. Because planning decisions need to be made, the NRC established a process for license renewal based on rigorous safety requirements that must be satisfied through the period of extended plant operation.
Slide 6: The licensing process for license renewal consists of parallel technical and environmental reviews which will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report for the aging management aspects of the renewal application, as well as a Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the environmental impact review. The overall renewal process and decision on the renewal application is expected to take from two to three years. The aging management findings will be verified by NRC inspections, and reviewed by the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, in accordance with the usual practices for issuance of a power reactor license.
The public can formally participate in the license renewal process in the same way that public participation was provided in the original licensing process. Toward that end, a Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing was published in the Federal Register on August 11, 1998 [62 FR 42885] which provides that any person whose interest may be affected by the license renewal, and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding, may file a written request for a hearing and petition to intervene in the formal legal proceedings. A petition to inteivene in the Oconee license renewal proceeding was submitted by the Chattooga River Watershed Coalition.
Today's meeting is not a formal hearing, but a opportunity to gather information about potential concerns about the environmental impacts of this licensing action in accordance with the NRC's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act, as Mr. Wilson will described in more detail. The NRC staff will continue to conduct informal public meetings to gather additional information concerning the safety and environmental aspects of the proposed license renewal and to provide means for interested members of the public to be further informed about the license renewal process.
The NRC's license renewal review will address a specific scope of aging management programs for passive systems, structures and components, time-dependent design analyses, and environmental impacts. There are other safety and environmental matters that are of interest and concern to the public. In particular, there are separate NRC programs that continue to address technical issues and public concerns related to the safety of nuclear waste disposal, spent-fuel storage, integrity of the reactor vessel and other components that are relied upon to prevent and mitigate the release of radioactive materials. The public can participate in these programs in similar ways depending on whether those efforts involve rule changes, amendments to the existing licenses, or other kinds of licensing; for example, the licensing of spent fuel storage containers.
The public can also participate in the rulemaking that establishes the regulatory requirements. That process was used to establish the requirements in Part 54 for renewal and Part 51 for the environmental impacts. Those rule changes are noticed in the Federal Register to provide the public with an opportunity to comment.
Improvements in the rulemaking process now provide those notices and comment opportunities on the Internet.
In some cases, changes in the regulatory requirements result directly from legislation activities; for example, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Nuclear Wate Policy Amendments Act of 1987 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
All of these programs are important to the NRC's mission, but are managed as separate processes to ensure the most effective use of the NRC's resources and procedures, or as directed by the Congress.
Before Mr. Wilson describes the environmental scoping process, do you have any questions about any of the general information I have covered?
Prepared Remarks for Environmental Scoping Meeting Related to Application by Duke Energy for Renewal of the Operating Licenses for Oconee, Units 1. 2, and 3 October 19, 1998 Ramada Inn, Clemson, South Carolina My name is Jim Wilson. I am the Environmental Project Manager for the Oconee license renewal project. I work in the Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at NRC.
May I have Slide 7, please?
7 I would like to briefly take you through the National Environmental Policy Act process, the so called NEPA process, and then I will describe how that process translates into the regulations at the NRC and how those regulations apply to the Oconee license renewal application.
First of all, NEPA was enacted in 1969. It requires that all Federal agencies use a systematic approach to consider environmental impacts during their decision-making.
The NEPA process is one of the tools that we use in decision-making. Although it is not the only one that we as a Federal Agency use in making a decision on a proposed action, it is one of the significant ones.
It is a disclosure tool that involves the public. It invokes a process whereby information is gathered to enable Federal agencies to make better decisions and then documents that information and invites public participation to evaluate it.
The NEPA process results in a number of different kinds of documents -- chief among them are environmental impact statements (also called EIS's), which are rigorous and detailed excercises to evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposed action, and environmental assessments, which are more limited examinations of environmental impacts.
There are a couple of variations in the types of environmental impact statements that can be prepared, depending on the nature of the proposed action. These include generic environmental impact statements (also called G-E-1-Ss, or GEISs), which address generic impacts common to a number of similar proposed actions, and supplemental environmental impact statements, where an environmental impact statement has already been issued and then additional information or issues arise that need to be considered and disclosed in a supplement.
NEPA requires that an environmental impact statement be prepared.for all major Federal actions.
License renewal is considered to be a major Federal action. Therefore, we are going to go through the NEPA process and will prepare an environmental impact statement for license renewal.
May I have the next slide, please, Number 8?
ATTACHMENT 2
8 As far as the NEPA process goes, there are certain steps that we at NRC are required to follow, and these steps are consistent for all EISs prepared by all Federal agencies for any proposed major Federal action.
The first step is the notice of intent, that is published in the Federal Register that lets the public know that we're going to issue an EIS.
We issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Statement and Conduct Environmental Scoping Process in the Federal Register on September 21, 1998. That notice outlined what the process is going to be, invited participants to come and participate, announced this public meeting and designated a contact at the NRC for more information.
So, that was the first step in the NEPA process for the action now before us on license renewal for Oconee... the Notice of Intent.
The next step is the scoping process, which we are engaged in right now. Scoping, as Chip and Chris have already indicated, is the process whereby we identify issues that we are going to address in the environmental impact statement. The scoping period for Oconee began on September 21, it includes this public meeting, and ends on November 19, 1998.
We are soliciting input from State, local, other Federal agencies, and the public in order to determine the issues that will determine the size, shape, and complexity of the environmental impact statement that we are going to prepare. I will go into more detail regarding the scoping process and what we want to accomplish here today in another slide.
Regarding the environmental review that we will be conducting, the NEPA process conducted by all Federal agencies considers the same things. It looks at the impacts of the proposed ;ction, it looks at alternatives to the proposed action and the impacts that could result from those alternatives, and it also looks at mitigation measures, things that can be done that would decrease the environmental impact of the proposed action.
Next slide, please.
9 After an agency has conducted its environmental review, it issues what is called a draft environmental impact statement (or draft EIS) for public comment. All Federal agencies issue these draft ElSs for public comment. In some instances, they conduct public meetings to gather comments. The minimum comment period required by NEPA is 45 days.
After the agency gathers the comments and evaluates them. It may change portions of the EIS based on those comments, and then it issues a final EIS.
2
So, thisis the process that we're going to be going through for the environmental portion of a license renewal application review. I will go into more detail on how these steps will be implemented for Oconee in another slide.
Next slide, please.
10 So, why are we all here today? Well, we're here to concuct a scoping meeting, and the next two slides lay out why we do scoping and the things that we, as a Federal agency, would like to get out of the scoping process.
We would like to define the proposed action. We would like to determine the scope of the EIS by getting issues and items from the public and from other agencies. During scoping, we would also identify and eliminate peripheral issues that will not be covered by the EIS or which may be outside the scope of the proposed action.
We also use the scoping process to identify other environmental assessments or environmental impact statements that may be in the process of being prepared by other Federal agencies in the area. One might like to think that all the Federal agencies know what the others are doing.
Sometimes they don't, and this scoping process helps us work with other Federal agencies and other government agencies to cooperate on related actions and understand what everybody is doing.
Next slide, please.
11 Some other things that we would like to get out of the scoping process is that we would identify other review and consultation processes.
In addition to the statute of NEPA that we need to meet, Federal agencies also have several dozen other environmental statutes to comply with, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and various other acts such as the Migratory Bird Act and the ever-popular Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. Each of these Federal statutes has its own requirments for compliance. What we need to do, in our EIS, is to gather all the other consultation and review activities together so that they are all located in one document. This makes it easy for us to evaluate them in terms of the licensing action being contemplated and it also discloses what we are doing to the public.
Otherwise, we would have the endangered and threatened species report here and the coastal zone management report somewhere else. And without a systematic process to follow, it would be easy to miss something. So, we try to compile all of our other environmental regulatory activities into one document, the environmental impact statement, and scoping will help us work with those other Federal agencies to identify the necessary interactions.
The scoping process also indicates the schedule that we will be following in order to go through each of the activites in the NEPA process.
It also identifies cooperating agencies. Cooperating agencies are other Federal agencies who have specific jurisdiction in the same area and whose authorities overlap.
It also describes the environmental impact statement process. Later, I will be summarizing the EIS process and how we're going to prepare the EIS and the schedule for the different milestones in the environmental review associated with the application for license renewal at Oconee.
So, hopefully, today we are going to begin the process to that will enable us to address all the items on Slides 10 and 11.
Next slide, please.
12 This slide is a schematic flow chart of the activies in the NEPA environmental impact statement process just discussed, and as you can see, we are in the scoping process now. This week, we are also conducting the environmental review site visit at the Oconee site. We are in the process of developing requests for additional information that we wish to have included in te environmental report. In the middle of next year, we will issue a draft EIS for public comment.
And then issue a final EIS in early 2000.
Next slide, please.
13 So, now we have gone through the requirements imposed by NEPA -- and again, NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, is a statute that all Federal agencies are required to comply with. NRC's implementing regulations for carrying out NEPA, our environmental protection regulations, are located in Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations - what we call 10 CFR Part 51.
10 CFR 51 contains the requirements that determine how the NEPA process is implemented at NRC. It determines when we prepare an environmental assessment or when we must prepare an environmental impact statement. It outlines the contents of those environmental impact statements and the process that the NRC will use in order to meet the requirements of NEPA.
Early on in the license renewal process, it was recognized that the original environmental impact statements that were written for the plants before they received their operating licenses would need to be updated to address any refurbishment activities and an additional 20 years of operation.
4
So, the NRC undertook a rulemaking effort to modify Part 51 and to amend it to address license renewal. environmental impacts. This was done separately from the rulemaking efforts on Part 54 to address the safety issues involved with license renewal.
As part of the rulemaking effort on Part 51, the staff developed a generic environmental impact statement, the G-E-1-S, or GEIS, which took a systematic look at the thousand hours of operating experience at of all the nuclear power plants to help us identify the environmental impacts. The GEIS was published as NUREG-1437 and was issued as a final document in 1996, after having been issued previously for public comment. The GEIS formed the basis for the rule revisions in Part 51. There are copies of the GEIS outside in the lobby for your examination, and the GEIS is also available in the public document rooms, from the Government Printing Office, and on the Internet on the NRC license renewal home page.
The NRC worked with the states, the CEQ (the Council on Environmental Quality), the EPA (the Environmental Protection Agency), and a number of other groups and held a series of public workshops to develop the final GEIS. Based on the extensive interactions that took place, we decided that it was appropriate to limit the scope of what we were going to consider in the license renewal arena.
We identified and categorized impacts that were specific to license renewal, both the refurbishment period and also the additional 20 years of operation. We identified a total of 92 potential environmental impacts that could result from license renewal, and we evaluated their impacts in that GEIS.
Then we amended Part 51 to address the process that we would go through for license renewal applications.
Next slide, please.
14 When we looked at the 92 issues identified in the GEIS, we found that some of those were generic - that is, were common to all plants, regardless of their design or where they were sited.
We wanted to somehow separate those from the ones that would have to be evaluated on a plant-specific basis. We chose to designate these generic impacts as being in Category 1.
So, three criteria were developed, and if an impact met all three of those criteria, it would be considered a Category 1 impact and it would be addressed on a generic basis in the GEIS.
The first criterion for an impact being in Category 1 was that the impact had to apply to all plants or, for some issues to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic. The second criterion was a single significance level -- it couldn't be a small impact at one site and a large impact at another site, it had to be a small or a moderate or a large impact at all the sites. The third criterion was that mitigation measures for adverse impacts had been considered in the analysis. As part of the GEIS, we looked at mitigation measures, and if there were no other mitigation measures that could be taken on a plant-specific basis that were sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation, it could be considered a Category 1 issue.
5
An example of a Category 1 issue is transmission line right-of-way impacts. We considered that those impacts apply to all plants. All plants have transmission line corridors; the significance level of the impact was the same at all the plants; and there were no further mitigation measures that could be taken on a plant-specific basis.
'There were 68 Category 1 issues identified and assessed in the final GEIS. These 68 issues are identified in 10 CFR Part 51 as not requiring additional plant-specific analysis. Of the remaining 24 issues, 22 are considered Category 2 and will need to be addressed on a plant-specific basis.
Because the executive order on environmental justice had just been issued at the time the GEIS was issued and did the 10 CFR Part 51 rule revision, the staff concluded that it didn't have enough information to categorize it one way or the other. However, the final rule determined that environmental justice will be addressed on a plant-specific basis.
The other uncategorized issue was electro-magnetic frequency (EMF). Because conflicting research results existed and there were no clear conclusions regarding impact. Therefore, Commission decided to wait until there was clear scientific concensus on the issue before deciding on whether it is a Category 1 or 2 issue.
Next slide, please.
15 The Category 1 and 2 issues are all codified in 10 CFR Part 51, copies of which are available out in the lobby. There is a table containing all 92 of them, Table B-1, along with their designation as either a Category 1 or Category 2 issue. Licensees or applicants for license renewal are required to address and evaluate the Category 2 issues, the plant-specific ones.
Applicants must inform the NRC whether there is any new and significant information regarding the Category 1 issues. If not, the generic conclusions from the GEIS may-be adopted. During the staff's review, we will evaluate the licensee's program new and significant information.
The NRC will use the Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP), NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, to perform its review of an applicant's environmental report that is a required part of an application for license renewal. The ESRP provides guidance to the staff on how to conduct its review.
Next slide, please.
16 Okay. So, now we have have summarized the requirements of NEPA as contained in Part 51.
Now we will focus on the proposed action being considered. Specifically, NRC's review of the application by Duke Energy for renewal of the operating licenses for the 3 units at Oconee.
6
As you probably know, the application was received on July 7, 1998. We issued separate F'ederal Register notices identifying the receipt of the application and then the acceptance of the application to begin the review.
The Oconee license renewal application consists of 4 volumes. The first three volumes are the safety volumes containing information required to meet Part 54 of the regulations, and the 4th volume is the environmental report, which is what we're here for today.
Next slide, please.
17 As far as what the NRC is going to do in its review, we're going to issue a supplement to the GEIS, that is plant-specific to Oconee. That supplement will address the Category 1 issues, the Category 2 issues, and any new and significant information that may be identified throughout the review process.
Next slide, please.
18 Our review will also examine alternatives. As part of the NEPA process, we are required to look at alternatives. The alternative that we are currently considering is the no-action alternative, which would mean shutting down and decommissioning the plant upon expiration of the operating license. As part of that alternative, to replace the generating capacity, we would look at the environmental impacts of alternative generating sources.
I would like to note here that, although the GEIS did consider a wide range of alternatives, evaluating them and their impacts, no conclusions regarding the acceptability or unacceptability of alternatives was reached. Therefore, the alternatives issue must be examined during the review of each plant-specific license renewal application.
Next slide, please.
19 Remember, as part of the scoping. process, one of the things that we need to do is identify other environmental assessments or environmental impact statements that are being developed.
At this time, we're not aware of any, but the scoping process. should bring those to light if there are any going on that we don't know about.
7
Regarding the consultation process with other government agencies -- we are working with other Federal agencies to address threatened and endangered species issues. We are talking with, the State on the Historic Preservation Act and on water and wildlife resources. So, we're working with other agencies to complete the other review requirements that are appropriate.
We have contracted with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to support us on this effort.
We have a team out at the site this week to conduct the environmental review site visit. We will be out, walking around the site, reviewing the monitoring programs, reviewing documentation, talking to Duke Energy about the environmental issues associated with their license renewal application and consulting with the State resource agencies.
Next slide, please.
20 As far as the decision that the Commission needs to make, the Oconee-specific supplement to the GEIS will contain the NRC staffs recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the license renewal action. However, the environmental review is just one piece of the overall process of reaching a decision whether to authorze license renewal.
I have described why we're here and how we're going to do our review. Now, I will tell you how we are going to conduct our review.
Next slide, Number 21.
21 So, the staff has already started its review of Duke Energy's Oconee license renewal application.
As far as the environmental review schedule goes, the notice of intent was issued September 21, 1998. We are conducting the scoping meeting today. The written comment period to provide us with writtcn scoping issues closes November 19th.
At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC will issue a scoping summary report which will be a summary of the scoping activities, include a description of this meeting, and also a list of all of the issues that the public has identified throughout the scoping period.
The draft supplement to the generic environmental impact statement is scheduled for issuance in June 1999. We will issue that draft document for public comment for a period of 75 days and we will conduct a transcribed public meeting, similar to this one today, where we will gather comments from the public. We will accept oral comments at the meeting, like we will today. We will also accept written comments, and then we will go back and review them and modify the EIS if we need to.
8
In the final Oconee-specific supplement to the GEIS, scheduled for February 2000, we will identify the public comments that were received on the draft and document how they were dispositioned. So, the final document will contain a listing of comments and where they are addressed in the supplement to the GEIS, so that they won't be lost in the process.
Next slide, please.
22 Public participation is key to the NEPA process. So, we are looking for comments from you all today. The NEPA process provides a number of opportunities for the public to participate in the environmental review for license renewal at Oconee. There is the meeting today; there is opportunity ot provide written comments by November 19; then there is also the opportunity to provide written or oral comments following the issuance of the draft supplement to the GEIS.
Next slide, please.
23 I have been designated as the point of contact within NRC for the environmental portion of the license renewal review.
There are a number of ways that you can provide your comments to me -- orally over the telephone, via e-mail, or via written mail. There is a point of contact sheet out on the table in the lobby containing information on my e-mail and street address and phone number, so feel free to take that with you and then contact me if you have any questions about the staff's review or if you wish to provide any comments.
We have a number of large documents out in the lobby for you to examine and a number of smaller handouts that you may wish to take with you.
All of the documents related to Duke Energy's application for license renewal, including the application, the GEIS, any future meeting summaries, meeting notices, etcetera, will all be placed in the public document room and the local public document room up in Walhalla.
Slides 24 and 25, please.
9
24,25 Slides 24 and 25 have been provided in your slide package to give you an idea of the comprehensiveness of the scope and the range of issues that will be considered during the staff's review and will be included in the Oconee-specific supplement to the GEIS for license renewal.
And now I would like to go back to the flow chart, Slide 6 in your package.
6 In summary, today's meeting is part of the scoping process associated with the the staffs review of the environmental portion of Duke Energy's application for renewal of the operating licenses for Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3. It is a significant part of the overall license renewal process.
It is important that you participate. We want your participation. We encourage your participation.
I think it makes a better process if you do participate, and remember, the Oconee license renewal process has just begun. This is really the first step in many to get to the final end point represented by a decision on license renewal.
I would like to thank you for your attention.
Now I would like to offer you the opportunity to ask any clarifying questions that you might have about the material that I have presented.
10
Oconee Environmental Scoping Meeting Scoping Meeting Agenda
- Welcome and overview of meeting Environmental Scopin g \\Icctir2 10 minutes (F.X. Cameron)
- Overview of !!cense renewal process 15 minutes (C.I. Grimes)
- Overview of environmental review process License Renewal Application 30 minutes (J.H. Wilson)
October 19, 1998
- Public comment - 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (F.X. Cameron) resentation license Renewal Process
- Statutory background
- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process
- License renewal environmental process
- Oconee license renewal review
- Future See last page/or larger/low chart NRC %lission H hat Is License Renewal?
- NRC governed by:
- Atomic Energy Act 40 year license to operate
- Energy Reorganization Act
- National Environmental Policy Act
- Other Statutes 0 License Renewal (10 CFR Par 54)
- Msson taemet:-
Oprat up to 20 vears beyond original license term Mission statement:
Health and safety protection
- Environmental protection ci ion Common defense and seculrso o
ATTACHMENT 3
Oconee Environmental Scoping Meeting NEIA Process NE 1A Pracess
- NEPA requires Federal agencies to use a 0 Notice of Intent-notifies public of systematic approach to consider preparationof EIS environmental impacts e Scoping Process-identifies scope of EIS
- Environmental impact Statement (EIS) and solicits public input required for major federal actions a Review - evaluates environmental impacts, 0 icense renewal considered major fe*deral alternatives mitigation measures actionp n
NL1.\\1roceiC Putrpose of ScopHILg
- Issue draft EIS for public comment e Define the proposed action Issue final EIS r Determine the scope of the EIS e Identify and eliminate peripheral issues
- Ldentifyr other revie a
or consultation process
\\p Indicate scheduleD r
t o
eIdentify cooperating aorcits
- Descibe IS preparation r
I nS!
/ r large'r flo chart
Oconee Environmental Scoping Meeting Part 51 License Renewal Process Part 51 License Renewal Process
- NRC rules governing environmental
- Category I impacts met criteria and protection found in 10 CFR Part 51 considered generic (68 impacts)
- Generic Environmental Impact Statement
- Category 2 impacts considered plant (GEIS). NUREG-1437. formed basis for specific (22 impacts) 1996 rule revision
.2 impacts unassigned
- GEIS identified and categorized impacts of license renewal; limited scope of review GECS categorized 92 impactsa o
i c
e ia Part 51 License Rene al Process iat
- Applicant for license renewal must evaluate 0 Application received on July, 1998 and present impacts in environmental report 0 Federal Register Notice regarding (ER) application receipt and acceptance
- Category 2 issues plus new and significant 0 Application consists ofsafety and
- information environmental portions
- NRC will use Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP), NUREG-1555, Supplement I NRC Review NRC Review
- Proposed Action-license renewal for 20 0 Consideration of Alternatives years for all three units of the Oconee
-Noaction"alterative-shutdown and nuclear power plant decommission plant at end ofoperation
- Scope of supplement to GEIS Alternative electric generation sources
- Category t issues
- Category 2 issues
- New and significant information
Oconee Environmental Scoping Meeting NRC Review.
Oconee Review
- Identification of other related environmental Supplement to GElS to contain NRC staffs assessments or impact statements recommendation regarding the
- Consultation process with other government environmental acceptability of the license agencies renewal acticn
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory contracted to support NRC Public Participation in Sc iedt e Environmental Review
- Notice of Intent-September 21, 1998 e Public participation at several points:
- Scoping comment period ends
- Public invited to participate in scoping (this meeting and written comments)
November 19, 1998
- Public invited to comment on draft supplement
- Draft supplement to GEIS-scheduled for to the GEIS when available June 1999
- Final supplement to GEIS-scheduled for February 2000 Point o. Contact Environmental Impact 1-leadings
- Agency point of contact: Mr. Jim Wilson e Surface water quality, hydrology, and use
- Documents located at Public Document
- Aquatic ecology Room and Local Public Document Room
- Ground-water use and quality
- Provide comments: by mail. in person. or
- Threatened or endangered species e-mail
- Air quality
- Land Use 4
Oconee Environmental Scoping Meeting Env ironmental Impact Headings
- Human health
- Socioeconomics
- Postulated accidents
- Uranium fuel cycle and waste management
- Decommissioning
- Environmental justice License Renewal Process No lc" xie
%'0,
-4 Apuicatii n(ifa request Accorjdrc \\\\ith Supplement tor heanng is Pto GEI5 granted)
.~
1)ra3 uplnen F u~ic Actiities to GiEIS
-r 5
Oconee Environmental Scoping Meeting Environmental License Renewal Process P~~t rGoc eS 4ppitationaotic Subm ied I o Env tS "nta R
S o
12
Oconee Environmental Scoping Meeting Environmental Impact Headings fwranued
- IlIuman Ihead
- >ochCconomHarng
- Po mtlated aciden
- L runium ue C\\ ce and \\ wast manaicmcnt
- 1)eco miIsonin
- 0I. nl irofnmentaI ;usticc License Renewal Process Ainiqution ACRS Rov GEI i
t5 foleii ng i 5
Oconee Environmental Scoping Meeting Environmental License Renewal Process Applic tion Request for FEn ro m na
.Additional S ee e [sit In orm ation
-IN 6
2 PM Attendees Angelina Howard *SPEAKER NEI
- 2.
Dorothy Vander Weele 12 Skipper Ln.
Salem, S.C. 29676 Folks
- 3.
Virgil R. Autry 2600 Bull St.
Columbia, S.C. 29201
- 4.
Mitchell Ross 700 Unnerle Blvd.
- 5.
Henry Porter 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 SC Department of Health and Env Control Division of Radioactive Work Management
- 6.
Buck Vander Weele *SPEAKER 12 Skipper land Salem, SC 29676 FOLKS
- 7.
Micheal Gandy 260 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 SCDHEC
- 8.
Ben Rodill 14722 Boyces Cove Drive Virginia Power
- 9.
William N. Ketsler P.O. Box 469 Gilbert, SC 29054 NUMIC Corp. ASME Sec XI ATTACHMENT 4
- 10.
Wayne Jenk 1220 Wild Asalea Point Seneca, SC 29672
- 11.
Marge Spearman 104 Clemson, SC
- 12.
Jim Davis 5137 Weatherford Drive Birminham, AL 35242 Southern Nuclear
- 13.
Bill Keisler NUMIC
- 14.
Ann Souders 4 Beacon Drive Salem, SC 29676
- 15.
Bill Sounders *Comment 4 Beacon Drive Salem, SC 29676
- 16.
Chris Kempton 135 Oakwood Street Six Mile, SC 29682 Sierra Club, SC Forest Watch
- 17.
James Conroy 231 Northwood Drive Wahalla, SC 29691
- 18.
Margaret Thompson P.O. Box 498 Pendleton, SC 29670 Jocassee Gorges Coalition
- 19.
Henry Porter
- 20.
Dana Baughman Clemson University student
- 21.
David Wehmeyer *SPEAKER I Frigate Drive Salem, SC 29676
- 22.
Francis Plotnik *COMMENT-send off-site spent fuel storage info to her 211 Bluebird Lane Central, SC 29630 NRC
- 1.
Jim Wilson
- 2.
Steve Hoffman
- 3.
Barry Zaclman
- 4.
Tom Essig
- 5.
Kim Campbell
- 6.
Bob Weisman
- 7.
Joe Sebrosky
- 8.
Rob Jolly
- 9.
Cynthia Sochor
- 10.
Ralph Artchitzel
- 11.
Claudia Criag
- 12.
- 13.
Chris Grimes
- 14.
Chip Cameron DUKE
- 1.
Steve Cromer
- 2.
Andrea Beam
- 3.
Geuyna Savage
- 4.
Paul Newton
- 5.
Anne Cottingham
- 6.
David Repka
- 7.
Sandra Magee
- 8.
Robert Gill
- 9.
Bryant Kenney
- 10.
Bill Miller
- 11.
Bob Van Namen
- 12.
Mary Bond
- 13.
Lisa Vaughn
- 14.
John Geir Jr.
- 15.
Debra Ramsey
- 16.
W.G. Rixon
- 17.
Mike Tuckman *.Speaker
- 18.
Carrie Todd *Speaker
- 1.
Rebekah Harty
- 2.
Van Ramsdell
- 3.
Susan Blanton
- 4.
Mike Scott
- 5.
Lance Vail
- 6.
Paul Hendrickson
- 7.
Charlie Brandt
- 8.
- 9.
Duane Neitzel
- 10.
Mike Sackschewsky
- 11.
Paul Nickens 7:00 Attendees
- 1.
Jeffrey Hekking 102 Hominey Hills Six Mile, SC 29682 Duke employee
- 2.
Kim Ford Clemson University
- 3.
W.S. Lesan P.O. Box 66 Long Creek, SC 29658 CRWC
- 4.
Buzz Williams *SPEAKER Chattanooga River Watershed Coaition P.O. Box 2006 Clayton, GA 30525
- 5.
John Shannon Keys 250 Elm Street Clemson, SC 29631 Clemson University student
- 6.
Judith Strickland P.O. Box 1030 North, SC 29112
- 7.
Kitsiri Kaewpipat 743 Issaqueena Trail #14 Central, SC 29630
Clemson student
- 8.
Pat Suwanathada 743 Issaqueena Trail #23 Central, SC 29630 Clemson University student
- 9.
Butch Clay *Comment P.O. Box 657 Westminster, SC 29693 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition
- 10.
Allison Swords
- 11.
Sarah Lynch P.O. Box 6938 Clemson, SC 29632 Clemson student
- 12.
Amy Ringberg 4 Grouse Way Greenville, SC 29617 Clemson student
- 13.
Demarrias Rock 119 Ragin Street Santee, SC 29142 Clemson student
- 14.
Emily Figart P.O. Box 7309 Cemson, SC 29632
- 15.
Lindsey Widerman P.O. Box 8362 Clemson, SC 29632
- 16.
Sharon Davis 17, Shelton Steele P.O. Box 3928 Clemson, SC 29632
- 18.
Bartlee Akers 155 Anderson Highway 932
Clemson, SC 29631
- 19.
Susan Parker 155 Anderson Highway Clemson, SC 29631
- 20.
Kristin Fulkerson
- 21.
M. Grabarczyk 404 E. Springwood Drive Seneca, SC 29672
- 22.
Lindsay Knudsen 100 Regency Drive #100 Central, SC 29630 Clemson student
- 23.
Krista Shurtz 512 Evans Street Anderson, SC 29621 Clemson student
- 24.
Kip Walker P.O. Box 7600 Clemson, SC 29632-7600
- 25.
Wilson Glesslie P.O. Box 2814 Clemson, SC Clemson student
- 26.
Heather Land 2207 Wade Hampton Blvd.
Apt. D202 Clemson, SC 29615
- 27.
Amy Richards P.O. Box 9625 Clemson, SC 29632 student
- 28.
Chris Von Ing Clemson
- 29.
William Summerville
Clemson
- 30.
Christopher Crotwell
- 31.
Jennifer Wethington 1 Northway Drive Taylor, SC 29687 Clemson
- 32.
Jenifer Maddox 103 Bethany Drive Pelzer, SC 29669
- 33.
Catherine Scuggs Clemson.
- 34.
Tim DeVol 342 Computer Ct Anderson, SC 29625
- 35.
Lance Howard *Comment?
- 36.
Janette Hamilton 118 Karen Drive
- 37.
Christine Veith
- 38.
Greg Solarek
- 39.
Carl Cox Clemson University
- 40.
Angie Howard *SPEAKER NRC
- 1.
Jim Wilson
- 2.
Steve Hoffman
- 3.
Barry Zaclman
- 4.
Tom Essig
- 5.
Kim Campbell
- 6.
Bob Weisman
- 7.
Joe Sebrosky
- 8.
Rob Jolly
- 9.
Cynthia Sochor
- 10.
Ralph Artchitzel
- 11.
Claudia Criag
- 12.
- 13.
Chris Grimes
- 14.
Chip Cameron DUKE
- 1.
Paul Colaianni
- 2.
Ed Bunfield
- 3.
Lee Keller
- 4.
Jeff Thomas
- 5.
Rounette Nader
- 6.
Steve Nader
- 7.
Michael Semmier
- 8.
D.E.M. Sullivan
- 9.
Bill Miller
- 10.
Greg Robinson
- 11.
Brant Elrod
- 12.
William McCollum
- 13.
Robert Gill
- 14.
Bryant Kenney
- 15.
Mike Tuckman *Speaker
- 16.
Carrie Todd *Speaker PNNL
- 1.
Rebekah Harty
- 2.
Van Ramsdell
- 3.
Susan Blanton
- 4.
Mike Scott
- 5.
Lance Vail
- 6.
Paul Hendrickson
- 7.
Charlie Brandt
- 8.
- 9.
Duane Neitzel
- 10.
Mike Sackschewsky
- 11.
Paul Nickens
Oconee Nuclear Station (Lense Renewal) cc:
Paul R. Newton, Esquire Duke Energy Corporation Mr. J. E. Burchfield 422 Scyth Church Street Compliance Manager Mail Stop PB-05E Duke Energy Corporation Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Oconee Nuclear Site P. 0. Box 1439 J. Michael McGarry, Ill, Esquire Seneca, South Carolina 29679 Anne W. Cottingham, Esquire Winston and Strawn Ms. Karen E. Long 1400 L Street, NW.
Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20005 North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Mr. Rick N. Edwards Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Framatome Technologies Suite 525 L. A. Keller 1700 Rockville Pike Manager - Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Rockville, Maryland 20852-1631 Duke Energy Corporation 526 South Church Street Manager, LIS Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 NUS Corporation 2650 McCormick Drive, 3rd Floor Mr. Richard M. Fry, Director Clearwater, Florida 34619-1035 Division of Radiation Protection North Carolina Department of Senior Resident Inspector Environment, Health, and U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Natural Resources 7812B Rochester Highway 3825 Barrett Drive Seneca, South Carolina 29672 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Regional Administrator, Region II Gregory D. Robison U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Duke Energy Corporation Atlanta Federal Center Mail Stop EC-12R 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 P. 0. Box 1006 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Virgil R. Autry, Director Robert L. Gill, Jr.
Division of Radioactive Waste Management Duke Energy Corporation Bureau of Land and Waste Management Mail Stop EC-12R Department of Health and P. 0. Box 1006 Environmental Control Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 2600 Bull Street RLGILL@DUKE-ENERGY.COM Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 Douglas J. Walters County Supervisor of Oconee County Nuclear Energy Institute Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 1776 I Street, NW Suite 400 W. R. McCollum, Jr., Vice President Washington, DC 20006-3708 Oconee Site DJW@NEI.ORG Duke Energy Corporation P. 0. Box 1439 Chattooga River Watershed Coalition Seneca, SC 29679 P. O. Box 2006 Clayton, GA 30525