ML21357A089

Subsequent License Renewal Environmental Scoping Report

ML21357A089
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	01/31/2022
From:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS/ERMB
To:	Duke Energy Carolinas
Rakovan L,REFS/NMSS/ERLB
Shared Package
ML21357A040	List: ML21357A069 ML21357A089
References
Download: ML21357A089 (8)

Text

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report

Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3 Seneca, SC

January 2022

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland

Introduction

By letter dated June 7, 2021, (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Package No. ML21158A193), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) submitted an application for subsequent license renewal of Rene wed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for Oconee Nuclear Station, Uni ts 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to Sectio n 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Part 54 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

Requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear pow er plants.

Oconee is located in Seneca, SC, about 30 miles west of Greenvi lle, SC. In its application, Duke Energy requests subsequent license renewal for a period of 20 years beyond the dates when the current renewed facility operating licenses expire. I f the NRC approves the subsequent licenses, the new expiration dates would be: Februa ry 6, 2053, for Oconee, Unit 1; October 6, 2053, for Oconee, Unit 2; and July 19, 2054, for Oco nee, Unit 3.

The purpose of this report1 is to provide a concise summary of the determination of the sc ope of the NRC staffs environmental review of this application, incorporating stakeholder inputs. This report will briefly summarize the issues identified by the scop ing process associated with the NRC staffs review of Duke Energys subsequent license renewal application.

This report is structured in four sections:

A. The Oconee Public Scoping Period B. List of Commenters C. Summary of Comments Provided D. Significant Issues Identified E. Determinations and Conclusions

A. The Oconee Public Scoping Period

=

Background===

The Duke Energy application and all other public documents rele vant to the Oconee subsequent license renewal are available in the NRCs Web-based ADAMS, which is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who encounter problems in accessing documents in ADAMS should contact the NRCs Public Document Roo m (PDR) reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

For additional information, the NRC staff has made available a Web site with specific information about the Oconee subsequent license renewal applica tion at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applic ations/oconee-subsequent.html.

This Web site includes application information, the licensing r eview schedule, opportunities for public involvement, project manager information, and other rele vant information. In addition,

1 The NRCs requirements for conducting the scoping process and for preparing a scoping summary report are found at 10 CFR 51.29, Scoping-environmental impact statement and supplement to environmental impact statement.

important documents are availabl e at the Federal rulemaking Web site, https://www.regulations.gov/, under Docket ID NRC-2021-0146.

As part of its application, Duk e Energy submitted an environmen tal report (ER) to the NRC, available at ADAMS Package Accession No. ML21158A193. Duke Energy prepared the ER in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental protection regul ations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions, which contains NRCs requirements for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 2

Renewal of a power reactor operating license requires preparati on of a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), which is a supplement to the NRCs NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). The GEIS is available in two main volumes at ADAMS Accession Nos. M L13106A241 and ML13106A242 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023).

In the GEIS, the NRC staff identified and evaluated the environ mental impacts associated with license renewal of nuclear power plants. The NRC determined th at several environmental issues were generic to all nuclear power plants (or, in some ca ses, to a distinct subset of plants that have specific characteristics, such as a type of cooling s ystem). These generic issues were designated as Category 1 issues. An applicant for license re newal may adopt the conclusions contained in the GEIS for Category 1 issues without further eva luation unless there is new and significant information that may cause the conclusions for its plant to differ from those of the GEIS. Other issues that were not determined generically, and t hat require a site-specific review, were designated as Category 2 issues. They are requi red to be evaluated in the applicants ER and SEIS.

Scoping Process and Objectives

The first step in developing an SEIS is to conduct a public sco ping process. On August 10, 2021, the NRC published a Federal Register (FR) notice describing the scoping process for the Oconee subsequent license renewal application environmental review (86 FR 43684). This notice notified stakeholders abou t the NRC staffs intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and provided the public with an opportunity to part icipate in the environmental scoping process. The notice invited members of the public to s ubmit written comments by September 9, 2021. In addition to written comments, oral comme nts were recorded at the public meeting held on August 25, 2021, via Webinar. All comme nts, both written and oral, were considered in the agencys scoping process.

The scoping process provided an opportunity for members of the public to propose environmental issues to be addressed in the SEIS and to highlig ht public concerns and issues.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29(b), this scoping summary report provides a concise summary of the determinations and conclusions reached as a result of th e scoping process. The NRCs objectives of the scoping process were to:

• Define the proposed action, which is to be the subject of the supplement to the GEIS.

• Gather data on the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and ide ntify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth.

2 The NRCs requirements for an environmental report supporting a license renewal application are found at 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3).

• Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that a re peripheral or are not significant or were covered by prior environmental review.

• Identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements (EISs) that are being or will be prepared that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the supplement to the GEIS.

• Identify other environmental review and consultation requireme nts related to the proposed action.

• Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparatio n of the environmental analyses and the Commissions tentative planning and decisionma king schedule.

• Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocat e assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the supplement to the GEIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies.

• Describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared, incl uding any contractor assistance to be used.

The NRC staffs determinations and conclusions regarding the ab ove objectives are provided in Section D below.

B. List of Commenters

The NRC received comment submissions from six individuals. Tab le B-1 provides a list of commenters who provided comment submissions (i.e., non-form let ter submissions) identified by name, affiliation (if stated), the correspondence identifica tion (ID) number, the comment source, and the ADAMS Accession Number of the source. The staf f reviewed the scoping meeting transcript and all written material received to identif y individual comments. Each comment was marked with a correspondence ID, a unique identifie r consisting of the comment source and a comment number (specified in Table B-1). For exam ple, Comment 3-1 would refer to the first comment from the third comment source. This unique identifier allows each comment to be traced back to the source where the comment was i dentified.

Table B-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Comment Period

Comment ADAMS Commenter Affiliation (if stated) Correspondence ID Source Accession Number

Acker, Serita Clemson University 2-3 Meeting Transcript ML21279A103

Alexander, SC House of Thomas Representatives 2-1 Meeting Transcript ML21279A103

Broome, Darryl 2-4 Meeting Transcript ML21279A103

Johnson, Elizabeth SC Department of Archives & History 3 Email ML21264A016

Roper, Ken Pickens County South Carolina 1 Email ML21257A296

Snider, Steve Oconee Nuclear Station 2-2 Meeting Transcript ML21279A103

Comments were consolidated and categorized according to a resou rce area or topic. Table B-2 identifies the distribution of comments received by resource ar ea or topic.

Table B-2. Distribution of Comments by Resource Area or Topic Resource Area/Topic Number of Comments Received Historic and Cultural Resources 5 License Renewal Process 3 Support of License Renewal 21

C. Summary of Comments Provided

During the scoping period (86 FR 43684), the NRC received comme nts that provided input for the SEIS. A summary of those comments is provided in this sect ion. Comments were grouped based on being in scope or out of scope, and comments with simi lar themes were further subgrouped to capture the resources concerned. Each comment su bmittal was uniquely identified and when a submittal addressed multiple issues, the submittal was further divided into separate comments with tracking identifiers.

C.1 Comments on the Resource Areas

C.1.1 Historic and Cultural Resources

Comment Summary: The NRC received comments related to historic and cultural r esources from one consulting party in response to the NRC'sletter initi ating National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation and its environmental scopi ng. The South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that consulting w ith the SHPO is not a substitute for consulting with other stakeholders including the Tribal His toric Preservation Offices and other Native American tribes.They also recommended that an ev aluation of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places be conducted for Oconee Nu clear Station as part of the license renewal process.

Comments: (3-1) (3-2)

Comment Summary: A commenter requested that the NRC include impacts to sites o f historical significance within a 6-mile radius surrounding the Oconee Nuclear Station site in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) rather t han limiting the analysis to the Oconee Nuclear Station site.In addition, the commenter wo uld like to know how best to advocate for important cultural and historic sites.

Comments: (1-2) (1-3) (1-6)

C.2 Non-Technical and Comments Outside the Scope of the Environ mental Review

C.2.1 Support of License Renewal

Comment Summary:Several commenters expressed general support for nuclear power including license renewal of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.The commenters indicate that Oconee Nuclear Station and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (a) is a good neighbor,

(b) provides positive socioeconom ic impact, (c) is recognized f or safe operations, (d) is a good steward of the environment, and(e) provides for a lower carbon emission option.

Comments: (1-1) (2-1-1) (2-1-2) (2-1-3) (2-1-4) (2-1-5) (2-1-6) (2-2-1) (2-2-2) (2-2-3) (2-2-4) (2-2-5) (2-2-6) (2-3-1) (2-3-2) (2-3-3) (2-3-4) (2-4-1) (2-4-2) (2 3) (2-4-4)

C.2.2 License Renewal Process

Comment Summary: A commenter expressed concerns related to public participatio n for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Scoping Meeting.Com ments stated that there were date inconsistencies in notifications and lack of notifications to some stakeholders.

Comments: (1-4) (1-5) (1-7)

D. Significant Issues Identified After the NRC staff delineated and grouped comments according t o resource area/topic, the NRC staff determined the significant issues identified during t he scoping period which bear on the proposed action or its impacts, in accordance with 10 CFR 5 1.29. A summary of the significant issues, including each commenter unique identifier, are provided below.

Historic and Cultural Resources:

• A commenter requested that the NRC include impacts to sites of historical significance within a 6-mile radius surrounding the Oconee Nuclear Station s ite in the SEIS) rather than limiting the analysis to the Oconee Nuclear Station site. (Comments 1-2 and 1-3)

• The South Carolina SHPO indicated that consulting with the SHP O is not a substitute for consulting with other stakeholders, including the Tribal Histor ic Preservation Offices and other Native American tribes.(Comment 3-1)

• Commenters recommended that an evaluation of eligibility for t he National Register of Historic Places be conducted for Oconee Nuclear Station as part of the license renewal process.(Comment 3-2)

E. Determinations and Conclusions

Issues to be Analyzed in the SEIS

The significant issues identified in Section D will be consider ed in the development of the SEIS.

The NRC staff will identify and describe historic and cultural resources that may be impacted by subsequent license renewal in Chapter 3 of the SEIS. The SEIS will discuss cultural resource surveys that have been conducted within the Oconee site boundar y. Furthermore, the NRC is conducting Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Ac t of 1966 (NHPA) consultation through NEPA in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c). The regulatio ns in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of historic properties establish the requirements for the NRC to consult with any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by a proposed action/undertaking. The NRC will describ e its ongoing Section 106 consultation for the Oconee subsequent license renewal in Chapt er 3 of the SEIS. The SEIS will also include a description of the historic and cultural resourc es identified within the area of potential effects in Chapter 3 of the SEIS.

In addition, the NRC staff received a number of comments that w ere either general in nature or otherwise beyond the scope of the subsequent license renewal en vironmental review. These

included comments from organizations and individuals in support of the Oconee subsequent license renewal. However, the NRC staff will describe in Chapter 3 of the SEIS the following topics generally mentioned in these comments: impacts to greenh ouse gases and the effects of climate change, and the socioeconomic impacts as a result of re newing the Oconee licenses.

Comments related to the license renewal process also expressed concerns regarding public participation for the Oconee public scoping meeting and date in consistencies in notifications regarding the public meeting. However, the NRC will not consid er or evaluate any issues in the SEIS which do not pertain to the staffs environmental evaluati on or are beyond the scope of the subsequent license renewal review.

Define the Proposed Action

The NRCs proposed action in this instance is to determine whet her to renew the Oconee operating licenses for an additional 20 years.

Identification of Related Environmental Assessments and Other Environmental Impact Statements

The NRC staff did not identify any environmental assessments un der preparation or soon to be prepared, which relate to, but are not within the scope of, the SEIS. Previously completed EISs will be used in the preparation of the Oconee subsequent licens e renewal SEIS, as appropriate, including the GEIS and the SEIS for the initial license renewal of Oconee (ADAMS Accession No. ML003670518).

Other Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements

Concurrent with its NEPA review, the NRC staff is consulting wi th the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to evaluate the potential impacts of the operation of Oconee for an additional 20 years on endangered and threatened species and their critical habitat. Consistent with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the staff is also consulting with affected Indian Tribes and the South Carolina S HPO to fulfill its Section 106 obligations under the NHPA. Notably, the NRC has initiated consultation with five Federally recognized American Indian Tribes and one State recognized Trib e.

Timing of Agency Action and How the SEIS Will Be Prepared

Upon completion of the scoping process and site audits, complet ion of its review of Oconees ER and related documents, and completion of its independent eva luations, the NRC staff will compile its findings in a draft SEIS. The staff will make the draft SEIS available for public comment. Based on the information gathered during this public comment period, the staff will amend the draft SEIS findings, as necessary, and will then publ ish the final SEIS. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.102 and 10 CFR 51.103 requirements, t he NRC will prepare and provide a Record of Decision. Concurrent with, but separate fr om this environmental review, the staff will document its safety review in a safety evaluatio n report (SER). The findings in the SEIS and the SER will be considerations in the NRCs decision t o issue or deny the subsequent license renewal.

The NRC staff is currently schedul ed to reach a decision on the subsequent license renewal by January 2023. The draft and final SEIS will be prepared by the NRC staff with contractor support for document editing and for managing the processing of public comments.

Identification of Cooperating Agencies

No other Federal agencies are participating in the environmenta l review as a cooperating agency.

Future Opportunities for Public Participation

The NRC staff plans to issue a draft SEIS (DSEIS) for public co mment in May 2022. The DSEIS comment period will offer an opportunity for participants, such as the applicant; interested Federal, State, and local government agencies; Triba l governments; local organizations; and members of the public to provide further inp ut to the agencys environmental review process. The DSEIS comments will be considered in the p reparation of the final SEIS (FSEIS). Together, the FSEIS and the SER will identify the inf ormation considered and the evaluations that the staff performed, and they will provide the basis for the NRCs decision on Duke Energys application for subsequent renewal of the Oconee operating licenses.