ML20034D495

Forwards 920929 Petition Filed by Latourette on Behalf of Lake County Board of Commissioners Requesting Immediate Action Re Plant

ML20034D495
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/14/1992
From:	Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20034D496	List: ML20034D495 ML20035B172
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9211240311
Download: ML20034D495 (2)

Text

n-

.~

5

n

'o UNITED STATES -

,.' ~.

• [

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

g,

,j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i

\\*****/

i OCT 141992 j

i MEMORANDUM FOR:

Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Jack R..Goldberg Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement

SUBJECT:

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company :-

Perry Facility Enclosed is a copy of a Petition dated September 29, 1992, filed by

}

Steven LaTourette on behalf of the Lake County Board of.

Commissioners, requesting that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, take immediate action with regard to the' Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

Mr. LaTourette requests that: (1) a public hearing be held prior to construction of an on-site, low-level radioactive waste stori te facility; and (2)' the construction of the i

storage facility be s-mended until (a) the'NRC or the licensee produces an environment m impact statement on the risks due to'on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste and (b) the' NRC promulgates regulations regarding storage of low-lever radioactive j

wastes at nuclear power plant sites.

The Petitioner asserts.as bases for these requests'that: the temporary storage'will.have to; be extended beyond the current five year limit for temporary storage, necessitating licensing approval under 10 CFR Part 30, thus triggering the need for an environmental impact statement and a public hearing; the risk of low-level radioactive waste storage on site was not envisioned in the. original environmental impact

-i statement; and the construction of a storage ~ facility is a i

fundamental change in the operating license of the plant and a more

.significant change than anticipated by the 10 CFR 50.59 procedures.

t I have' enclosed drafts of a letter of acknowledgement to the Petitioner for your signature and a Notice of Receipt of the Petition for publication in the Federal Feaister.

If you want the licensee to respond.regarding these matters, we will assist your

'I staff in drafting an appropriate letter.

The Petitioner requests that the NRC promulgate regulations regarding storage of low-level radioactive wastes at nuclear power plant sites.

Such a request is a petition for rulemaking governed i

by 10 CFR 2. 802, not 10 CFR 2. 2 06.

Accordingly, the attached draft acknowledgement letter refers the Petitioner to 10 CFR 2.802 for

[

guidance on the content of a proper petition for rulemaking.

t CONTACT:

Mary Wagner 492-4976

~

.~

g h 303//-W9M3 4

I

t. >

i..

a

,1 l^

-Please inform my staff of the technical staff contact who will be involved in preparing a response to the Petition.

.Please ensure I

that I am provided copies of all correspondence related.to the j

L Petition and that I am asked to concur on all staf correspondence.

i I

l-i I

>,e J

k R. Goldberg Deputy-Assistant General Counsel:

l for Enforcement

Enclosures:

1.

Copy of Petition

'I 2.

Draft Letter of Acknowledgementz 3.

Draf t Federal Recrister Notice j

cc:

w/ encl:

J.Scinto, OGC l

L.

Chandler, OGC J.Lieberman, OE A.B. Davis, RIII 1

B.Berson, RIII 1

1

.l L

I l

i

[

I

~

.~'

-- o f-Steven C. LaTourette

,a q.

Lake County Prosecudng Attorney September 29, 1992 James Partlow Assoc. Director of Four Projects 11555 Rockville Pike One White Flint North Building Rockville, MD 20852 In the Matter of:

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant)

Docket No. 50-440 2.206 Petition

Dear Mr. Partlow:

Enclosed please find three copies of our 2.206 Petition on the-above-captioned case.

Please file said document with the Commission and return one stamped copy to this office.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Very truly yours, STEVEN C.

LaTOURETTE PR SECUTING ATTORNEY S

Kimberly A.

hanef Assistant Prosecuting Attorney KAM/kk Enclosures EDO -- 008130

-f Y A - 6 l) 7 4 -)

et

/

• COURTHOUSE e P.O. BOX 490

• PAINESVILLE, OHIO 44077 e (216)428-7581 e 357-2683

• 946-2829 Madison Painesville West End

y

~. * '

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L

Before.the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations l

In the Matter of

)-

)

l THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING

)

l COMPANY, ET AL.

)

Docket No. 50-440

.)

2.206 Petition (Perry Nuclear Power Plant)

)

)

i l

PETITION FOR ACTION TO RELIEVE THE UNDUE RISK POSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITE AT THE PERRY PLANT i

I.

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, the Lake County Board of County l

Commissioners (" Lake County") by and through its attorney the Lake County Prosecutor's Office, hereby petitions the Director, Office l

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to take action to relieve all undue risks to the public health and safety posed by the' construction of the low level radioactive waste site at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

Lake County reserves the right to reply to any and all responses to this petition which the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company may submit and to have such replies considered by the Director before a decision is rendered on this Petition.

II.

DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONER Petitioner, Lake County Board of County Commissioners, is the policy - determining body of the County, organized pursuant to-Article X, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

The Board consists of three Commissioners who are elected by the 1

1 I T

\\

7..

registered' voters of Lake County for four year terms.

Two of the

~

three County Commissioners live within twenty miles of the Perry Plant.

III. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ("CEI") contends it has the authority to build a low level radioactive waste storage site pursuant to its existing license under 10 CFR 50.

CEI contends that the only requirements it must meet are those specified in 10 CFR 50.59 and Generic Letter No. 81-38, because this is only a temporary storage facility set up to store waste no longer than five (5) years.

On the surface this appears to be a simple solution to a complex problem.

However, it is Lake County's contention that a deeper look yields problems not dealt with by CEI or the NRC.

The first and most pervasive problem is that' the temporary storage' facility will definitely have to be extended beyond the five (5) year limit for temporary storage.

The Amendment's Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. S2021(e)) set up milestones for states in the development of permanent disposal facilities.

Ohio l

is part of the Midwest Compact and presently the new host site for j

the first regional permanent disposal facility, since Michigan left-l the Compact in 1991.

The departure of the state of Michigan from 1

l the Midwest Compact has delayed the process of establishing a i

regional permanent disposal site by approximately four (4) to six-j (6) years.

In those states that have abided by the 42 U.S.C.

S 2

i-

'2021(e) milestones, without such delays, only four have reached the

~

~

license application stage (California, Nebraska, Illinois, and Texas).

The milestone set by 42 U.S.C.

S 2021 to begin operating

{

l-these permanent facilities was January 1,

1993.

Even in. states

!~

that acted without delay, the seven (7) year period is not enough.

The State of Ohio has not even begun to enact enabling legislation.

If the State of' Ohio began formal action today, it would not be l

reasonable, or even conceivable, to expect that a permanent 1

L facility could be operating in the State of Ohio within less than seven (7) years.

With this in mind, there is no evidence that the state has begun the process or will continue it in years to come.

l In generic letter 81-38, the NRC staff establishes l

guidelines for the storage of low-level radioactive waste at power reactor sites.

It first provides that the licensee must evaluate this option under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and the letter l

then proceeds to list guidance in this area to the licensee.

In specific, the guidelines state that storage should be equipped with l-a five (5) year storage capacity.

It further states, " Storage of 1

waste in excess of the quantities and duration described herein i

requires Part 30 licensing approval."

Part 30 licensing approval l

would require an environmental impact statement and an opportunity l

for a public hearing.

Since it is inevitable that a permanent 1

disposal facility will not be operating in five (5) years, and part l

30 licensing approval will be required, it is in the public's best interest to conduct the hearing prior to construction of the site.

Additionally, the environmental impact statement should be prepared 3

i-l L

~

i i

now to evaluate the risks due to long term storage, before the l

risks cannot be avoided.

There is another pressing reason to request an j

environmental impact statement on storage of low-level radioactive l

waste.

In Safety Evaluation Number 91-0139, pursuant to the 50.59 recently filed by the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, it states that "the original design of the plant did not anticipate the changes l

that have occurred in the area of low level radioactive waste, most j

specifically, the potential need to store low level radioactive i

waste on site. " Accordingly if on-site storage was not anticipated in the original design, the risk of low level radioactive waste storage on-site was certainly not envisioned in the original j

environmental impact statement (NUREG - 0884).

The original environmental impact statement assumes low level waste will be l

shipped offsite shortly after processing.

Therefore prior to j

constructing the site facility, the NRC should be' required to do a l

generic environmental impact statement concerning storage of low level radioactive waste for up to and beyond five (5) years.

Furthermore, the licensee (Perry Plant) is required to evaluate the construction of the facility to ensure it does not pose an "unreviewed safety question" under 10 CFR 50.59.

If the original design did not anticipate the potential need to store greater quantities of radioactive waste on-site, and it wasn't envisioned in the original environmental impact statement (NUREG -

'l 0884),-then how can that question be accurately answered?

It is j

unacceptable to proceed to store low-level radioactive waste at the 4

i t

l l

4 capacity the Perry Plant seeks to do, without first fully investigating and evaluating the risks and precautions that should l

l be taken.

The limit of five (5) years for temporary storage is I

regulatory guidance put in place by the NRC staff in Generic Letter 81-38.

This guideline is not mandatory and is subject to change at

{

i any time by the NRC staff without public input.

There are no NRC t

regulations in existence at this time for temporary or long term f

l storage.

Since the Barnwell site has agreed to continue to accept this waste until June of 1994, Lake County would request that

{

construction of this facility be suspended until NRC regulations can be established.

Over and above the fact that CEI seeks to construct a site that will unquestionably extend to long term storage with an f

incomplete environmental impact statement and absolutely no NRC regulations in effect, there has been no evaluation conducted i

pursuant to 10 CFR 61.50.

While Lake County is aware that this i

section specifies the minimum required characteristics for acceptable disposal site locations, the fact that long term storage 1

is inevitable demands an evaluation presently pursuant to 10 CFR 61.50.

The Perry Plant is located on the shores of Lake Erie, a part of the largest freshwater system in the world, source of i

potable water for millions, and one of the most precious resources in Ohio.

The area is also subject to severe erosion and earthquakes, as evidenced by the January 1986 earthquake that l

registered a 5.0 on the Richter scale.

There is presently 5

I I

\\

{

l contradictory evidence as to the likelihood of a

recurrent earthquake.

The July 19, 1983 final safety analysis report (FSAR) i prepared for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant indicates at page 2.5-151 that earthquakes such as that experienced in 1986 will not occur.

However, in documents previously submitted to the Commission, to-wit:

Seismicity and Tectonic Structure in Northeastern Ohio:

Inclications for Earthauake Hazard to the Perry i

Nuclear Power Plant, Y.P. Aggarwal, March 1987, indicate that the FSAR may be flawed in its failure to contemplate the real danger of seismic activity near the Perry Plant location, and, the FSAR acknowledges an " offshore fault intersecting the cooling water

{

tunnels..."

(FSAR at page 2.5-3)

Also, 10 CFR 61 clearly requires the Commission and the Utility to consider potential impact upon l

the

. site's groundwater.

Again, quoting from the

FSAR, j

i

" observations made in the test borings at the Perry site indicated i

i groundwater levels usually ranging from three to five feet below j

the ground surface in the main plant area..."

(FSAR at page 2.5-151) and "In the vicinity of the Perry site, many residential users i

obtain their water supplies from shallow wells...used for drinking i

and other domestic purposes.

An inventory of users within a two mile radius of the Plant site, compiled by abstracting data from drillers' logs and from interviewing residents, produce two hundred i

ninety-five water wells".

(FSAR at page 2.4-58)

These factors alone necessitate the need for an evaluation under 10 CFR 61.50.

[

i While Lake County does not fault CEI for the present lack of s

permanent disposal sites, it will also not tolerate the attitude of i

6 I

F 4

"we'll deal with it when that day arrives" in the face of certain long term storage.

The fact remains that although 10 CFR 50.59 enables a licensee to make changes and tests necessary to the continued daily operation of the plant, the construction of a building to store low level radioactive waste amounts to a fundamental change in the operating license for the Perry Plant.

This significant a change was not anticipated by 10 CFR 50.59.

Instead the premise that a low level radioactive waste storage site r

could be considered a change under 10 CFR 50.59 was developed by i

the NRC staff in Generic Letter 81-38 in the face of reduced waste r

disposal availability.

The purpose was to " permit necessary operational flexibility by its licensees."

In other words, there was a need to avoid the license amendment process for which there is an opportunity for public hearing.

Once more, this guidance is l

i not mandatory.

The notion that construction of a building storing i

l low level radioactive waste should be encompassed under 10 CFR 50.59 is absurd.

This structure will expand the storage of the t

waste, in addition to expanding the physical location and site of l

t the waste.

This storage facility, when it extends beyond the five f

(5) year period will require Part 30 licensing approval according

. to Generic Letter 81-38.

The only reason this fundamental change

[

is not subject to Part 30 licensing approval right now is that the l

NRC staff wants to ensure that no " deliberate action" is taken "to l

hinder the establishment of addi ional disposal capacity."

But I

for, the NRC guidelines in generic letter 81-38, this change would P

be considered a license amendment.

It is Lake County's contention 7

1

7-

.a i

~

l

^

that it should be considered a license amendment and the public hearing be mandated.

IV.

CONCLUSION On September 10, 1813, in a more western area of Lake Erie, Oliver Hazzard Perry (for whom Perry Township is named), at the Battle of Lake Erie has been quoted as saying "We have met the j

enemy and they are ours".

Following the War of 1812, Lake Erie has represented a lifeline to the citizens of not only Ohio but also of all other Great Lake states.

Commerce carried by ship; sport I

fishing that has seen a resurgence in recent years; and an inexhaustible supply of fresh drinking water are all benefits to be i

gleaned from living near thin Great Lake.

Unlike Admiral Perry, who, although outnumbered, was able to control his own destiny, the Lake County Commissioners must turn to the Commission for relief.

t

[

In asking for relief, Lake County does not ascribe fault to the operators of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant for making provisions for onsite storage when other lawmaking bodies have been slow t

afoot.

However, requesting relief that would require the relatively noncumbersome steps of an updated environmental impact statement and NRC regulations for storage of low level radioactive waste, seems little to ask in light of the grave potential of risk to the life and property of Lake Countians.

Lake County has continued to be a good host to this nuclear power plant, despite-1 the fact that the lions share of personal property tax revenues s

have been distributed to outlying areas, and all that is being e

8 l

l c

.o Y

t requested is a full and complete analysis and then a ' full and

~!

t complete hearing to ensure that Lake County will not suffer risk r

needlessly.

i V.

RELIEF REQUESTED Because the construction of the low level radioactive i

storage site raises substantial health and safety issues (see f

i Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

(Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), CLI-78-7, 7 NRC 4 28, 433 (1978), af f'd sub nom.

Porter County Chaoter v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir.1979), the granting i

i of relief is appropriate.

Lake County requests:

1.

A public hearing be held prior to construction of the storage

site, because the construction of the storage facility is a fundamental change in the operating license of the Perry Plant.

I l

2.

The construction of the storage facility be suspended until the NRC or CEI produces an environmental impact statement on the risks due to storage of low level radioactive waste.

l l

.i t

i 9

1

.k i

r

h F

.~

' k[

~

3.-

The construction-of.the-storage facility b'e suspended until j

the'NRC institutes regulations regarding storage ' of radioactive waste.

Respectfully submitted,

/

, -fsf [I

-Q-Q yv 4

i Steven C..LaTourette-Lake County Prosecutor j

Reg. No. 0004871 Attorney for Lake. County Commrs.

l Courthouse

+

P.O.

Box 490 Painesville, Ohio 44077 (216) 357-2683

\\

Kimberly A. Mahaney-AssistantPr6secuting-Athorney Reg. No. d058522 Attoeney for Lake County commrs.-

Courthouse P.O.

Box 490 Painesville, Ohio 44077-l (216) 357-2683 KAM/kk i

i l

- i i

l i

i 1

10 j

1,

' ' ^

v e

4 Docket No. 50-440 (10 C.F.R. S 2.206)

Steven C.

LaTourette, Esq.

Lake County Prosecuting Attorney Courthouse, PO Box 490 Painesville, Ohio 44077

Dear Mr. LaTourette:

This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your Petition dated September 29, 1992, on behalf of the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, in which you request that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, take immediate action with regard to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

Your Petition requests that: (1) a public hearing be held prior to construction of an on-site, low-level radioactive waste storage facility; and (2) the construction of the storage facility be suspended until (a) the NRC or the licensee produces an environmental impact statement on the risks due to on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste, and (b) the NRC promulgate regulations regarding storage of low-level radioactive waste at nuclear power plant sites.

You assert as grounds for your request that the temporary storage will have to be extended beyond the current five year limit for temporary storage, necessitating licensing' approval under 10 C.F.R. Part 30, thus-triggering the need for an environmental impact statement and a public hearing; the risk of low-level radioactive waste storage on site was not envisioned in the original environmental impact statement; and the construction of a storage facility is a

. -fh 5~

i

1

.i j

.. a

~

fundamental change -in the operating license of the plant and a more l

significant change than anticipated by. the 10 C.F.R. 50.59:

procedures.

1 Your Petition has been referred to the staff for action i

~

pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

S 2.206 of the Commission's regulations..As I

provided by section 2.206, action will be taken on your request

.{

within a reasonable time.

I have enclosed for your information a d

copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the i

7 Federal Register for publication.

i

'I With respect to your request that the NRC promulgate regulations regarding the storage of low-level radioactive wastes f

4 at nuclear power plant sites, you should refer to 3 0. CFR 2.802 i

(attached) for the Commission's requirements for a proper petition j

'l for rulemaking.

j

-i Sincerely, j

l Thomas E. Murley, Director-

,i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

.l f

r

Enclosure:

as stated

.I I

cc:

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company i

1

f I

F-a.

l 1

[7590-01]

j U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. 50-440 i

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company i

(License No.

)

RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 4 2.206 f

i Notice is hereby given that by Petition dated September 29,

.l 1992, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners requested that i

the Director, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, take immediate

{

t action with regard to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company with regard to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

The Petition requests that: (1) a public hearing be held prior to construction of an on-site, low-level radioactive waste storage facility; and i

i (2) the construction of the storage facility be suspended until (a)

{

i the NRC or the licensee produces an environmental impact statement l

on the risks due to on-site storage of low-level radioactive waste and (b) the NRC promulgate regulations regarding storage of low-I level radioactive wastes at nuclear power plant sites.

The Petition asserts as grounds for this request that the temporary i

storage will have to be extended beyond the current five year limit

[

for temporary storage, necessitating licensing approval under 10

[

C.F.R.

Part 30, thus triggering the need for an environmental t

impact statement and a public hearing; the risk of low-level i

radioactive waste storage on site was not envisioned in the j

original environmental impact statement; and the construction of a j

storage facility is a fundamental change in the operating license l

g -f 8 N T~"

t j

l r

of the plant and a more significant change than anticipated by the i

10 C.F.R. 50.59 procedures.

4.

l 1

The request is being treated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.206 of l

the Commission's regulations.

As provided by section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this request within a reasonable time.

A copy of this Petition is available for inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W.

(Lower Level), Washington, D.C.

20555.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of

, 1992.

i i

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGUIJiTORY COMMISSION i

Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

I I

o i

[

i.i L

l I

n p

3 b

i:

October 21, 1992 Docket No. 50-440 DISTRIBUTION (10 C.F.R. f 2.206)

Docket File (50-440) PKreutzer NRC & Local PDRs phall.

i Steven C. LaTourette, Esq.

ED0fo07130 OPA ~

Lake County Prosecuting Attorney TMurley/FMiraglia OCA _

Courthouse, PO Box 490 JPartlow

'JGoldberg,0GC Painesville, Ohio 44077 JRoe Region III,DRP.

JZwolinski PD3-3 Gray

Dear Mr. LaTourette:

JHannon

-PD3-3 Reading NRR Mail Room 12-G-18 I am writing to acknowledge receiving your Petition of September 29,1992, on behalf of the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, in which you request 1

that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, take immediate action on the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

In your Petition you request that (1):a l

public hearing be held before the licensee constructs an onsite, low-level

~

radioactive waste storage facility; and (2) the construction of the storage facility be suspended until (a) the NRC or the licensee produces an environmental impact statement on the risks caused by the onsite storage of low-i level radioactive waste, and (b) the NRC promulgates regulations.for-storing.

low-level radioactive waste at nuclear power plant sites. You assert as grounds'.

i for your request that the temporary storage will have to be extended beyond the current 5-year limit for temporary storage, necessitating licensing approval under 10 CFR Part 30, thus needing an environmental impact statement and a public hearing; the risk of storing low-level radioactive waste on site was not discussed in the original environmental impact statement; and the construction of a storage facility is a fundamental change in the operating license of the plant and a more significant change than anticipated by the 10 CFR'50.59 procedures.

Your Petition has been referred to the staff for action pursuant to 10 CFR l

5 2.206 of the Commission's regu'.ations. As provided by_section 2.206, action I

will be u ken on your request within a reasonable time.

I have enclosed for j

your informai. ion a copy of the notice that is being filed with'the Office of the i

Federal Register for publicuion.

Concerning your request that the NRC promulgate regulations for storing low-level radioactive wastes at nuclear power plant sites,.you should refer to 10 i

CFR 2.802 (enclosed) for the Commission's requirements for a proper petition.for i

rulemaking.

{

Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGG!D BY:

Thomas E. Murley, Director

{

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As~ stated i

cc:

Cleveland Electric Illuminating C pany

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PD3-3:LA:DRPW PD3-3:PM:DRPW.

PDI

PD:DRPW TECH ED AD-fo//f/92[CH D %/92 10/19/92 to /d /92 PKreutzerg/

JRHall/bj JHannon

• JMain JZwolinski (0/ /f/92 D\\. PW ADP.

hj i

J. e JPartlow ur y i

g % c/92 9/d/92 hY

/92 7

. (L2/@2-7-0$ff j

h Perry Nuclear Power Plant Cleveland Elcctric Illuminating Company Unit Nos. I and 2 cc:

Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

Mr. James W. Harris, Director Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Division of Power Generation 2300 N Street, N.W.

Ohio Department of Industrial Relations Washington, D.C.

20037 P. O. Box B25 Columbus, Ohio 43216 Mary E. O'Reilly Centerior Energy Corporation The Honorable Lawrence Logan 300 Madison Avenue Mayor, Village of Perry Toledo, Ohio 43652 4203 Harper Street Perry, Ohio 44081 Resident Inspector's Office The Honorable Robert V. Orosz U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mayor, Village of North Perry Parmly at Center Road North Perry Village Hall Ferry, Ohio 44081 4778 Lockwood Road North Perry Village, Ohio 44081 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attorney General 799 Roosevelt Road Department of Attorney General Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 30 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Frank P. Weiss, Esq.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Radiological Health Program 105 Main Street Ohio Department of Health Lake County Administration Center Post Office Box 118 Painesville, Ohio 44077 Colukbus, Ohio 43266-0118 Ms. Sue Hiatt Ohio Environmental Protection Agency DCRE Interim Representative DERR--Compliance Unit 8275 Munson ATTN: Zack A. Clayton Mentor, Ohio 44060 P. O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

618 N. Michigan Street, Suite 105 Mr. Phillip S. Haskell, Chairman Toledo, Ohio 43624 Perry Township Board of Trustees 4171 Main Street, Box 65 John G. Cardinal, Esq.

Perry, Ohio 44081 Prosecuting Attorney Ashtabula County Courthouse State of Ohio i

Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Public Utilities Comission East Broad Street Mr. Kevin P. Donovan Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Mr. Robert A. Stratman Perry Nuclear Power Plant Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 97, E-210 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Perry, Ohio 44081 Post Office Box 97, SB306 Perry, Ohio 44081 Mr. Michael D. Lyster, Vice President Nuclear - Perry The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 10 Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081

r 7590-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-440 RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 6 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by Petition of September 29, 1992, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners requested that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, take immediate action on the Perry Nuclear Power Plant operated by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. The Petitioners -

request that (1) a public hearing be held before the licensee constructs an onsite, low-level radioactive waste storage facility; and (2) the construction of the storage facility be suspended until (a) the NRC or the licensee produces an environmental impact statement on the risks caused by the onsite storage of low-level radioactive waste, and (b) the NRC promulgates regulations for storing low-level radioactive wastes at nuclear power plant sites.

The Petition assert. as grounds for this request that the temporary storage will have to be extended beyond the current 5-year limit for temporary storage, necessitating licensing approval under 10 CFR Part 30, thus needing an environmental impact statement and a public hearing; the risk of low-level radioactive waste storage on site was not discussed in the original environmental impact statement; and the construction of a storage facility is a fundamental change in the operating license of the plant and a more significant change than anticipated by the 10 CFR 50.59 procedures.

a

~

f 4

The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this request within a reasonable time.

A copy of this Petition is available for inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W. (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.

20555.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of October

, 1992.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORIQURAL SIGNED BY:

Thomas E. Murley, Director i

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

L t

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

)

PD3-3:LA:t'PW PD3-3:PM:DRPW PDh-3:PD:DRPWTECH ED AD PKreutzer JRHall/bj tg JHannon

• JMain JZwo inski

/ /92

/o//9 /92 pf/92 10/19/92 p /g /92 i

D:DRPW ADP d 'm.t RRdriey JRoe JPartlow

\\e /S /92 P/d/92

1. /Q/92 DOCUMENT NAME:

A:PER84692. PET i

.