ML20035H630
| ML20035H630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1993 |
| From: | Silberg J SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| CON-#293-13917 2.206, NUDOCS 9305060122 | |
| Download: ML20035H630 (2) | |
Text
Y39/7 m
- SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE4
_ _..._ m. _.
93 r 29 POPA McoEo,TO,,v, 2300 N STREET N.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037-1128 McLEAN. VIMOINIA 22102-S004 (202) 663-8000
'f FACSIMILE v 201 LIBERTY STREET. S W.
(202) 663-8007 LE.rssURG, VtRGINIA 22076-2721 DAVID R L.EWIS (202) 663 4474 April 30, 1993 i
i By Hand Delivery U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Att'n: Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Washington, D.C.
20555 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company
~
Re:
Director's Decision 93-05 (Perry Nuclear Power plant)
Docket No. 50-440 [ 2 2 o c.)
i
Dear Commissioners:
On March 28, 1993, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regula-i tion issued a decision denying a petition of the Lake County j
Board of Commissioners pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S.2.206.
Lake County's petition had sought suspension of and hearings on I
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company's (CEI) construction t*
of an on-site low level waste storage facility at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant.
The Director's Decision followed an NRC Staff review of CEI's 10 C.F.R. S 50.59 evaluation for the facil-l ity; two public meetings, one held by CEI in August 1992 and the other by the NRC in October 1992-; and consideration of Lake Coun-ty's petition and CEI's response.
The decision addressed each of the issues raised by Lake County, properly applied NRC regula-tions and policy, and provided a well-reasoned explanation of the i
denial.
=>
In'a letter dated April 21, 1993, Lake County now requests f
that the Commission review and reverse the Director's Decision.
This request should be_ denied because Lake County's letter pro-vides no. basis for review or reversal.
Lake County refers to the recently promulgated regulations regarding' storage of low level waste, but the Director's Decision addressed and is completely; consistent with tnose proposed regulations.
Lake County also suggests that the 10 CFR S 50.59 evaluation only considered the effect of the low level waste storage facility'on existing safety-related equipment in the plant, but Lake County is incor-rect.
Reviewing CEI's.10 C.F.R.
S 50.59 evaluation, the Director 9305060122 930430 PDR ADOCK 05000440
- 50 3 PDR g
~
b SHAW PITTMAN, POTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PA R Y hE D 5e**P shCLUDihG PROF f 5 8 sOhat c ompcpat sot s U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 30, 1993 Page 2 specifically found that facility design and controls will ensure that the radiological impact of normal operation and potential accidents will be kept within the guidelines specified in Generic Letter 81-38, and that these guidelines are bounded by the poten-tial impacts due to plant operation previously evaluated by the Staff.
DD-93-05 at 9.
The Director therefore correctly con-cluded that the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the safety analy-sis has not been created.
Id. at 9-10.
Lake County also asserts that it only seeks a public forum.
As noted above, two public meetings have been held.
These meet-ings provided ample opportunity for Lake County to present its views.
In sum, Lake County has not identified any issue not prop-erly addressed by the Director, or any error in the reasoning or conclusions of the Director's decision.
CEI further notes that the NRC's rules of practice allow no petition or other request for Commission review of a Director's Decision.
10 C.F.R.
S 2.206(c).
For all these reasons, Lake County's request should not be entertained.
Sincerely, C_. lr Jay E.
- Silberg, P.C.
David R.
Lewis Counsel for The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company cc:
S.
LaTourette Lake County Prosecuting Attorney James R. Hall NRC Senior Project Manager Regional Administrator, NRC Region III Resident Inspector's Officer, PNPP
-