ML20040B549

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Recommends That Environ Statement Be Published,Leaving Environ Review of Perry-Hanna Transmission Line as Open Item.Line Required for Operation of Unit 2 Only.State Rejection of Line Will Require Addl Studies for Alternative
ML20040B549
Person / Time
Site: Perry  FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 01/20/1982
From: Davidson D
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To: Tedesco R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8201260180
Download: ML20040B549 (2)


Text

- _ - _

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY room._ . r . ~..n m o -o . mn.-~~ . - .mm musuc sou~

, T w li, st L o w ! a P iM 'in r

'[ \ .. -

Dalwyn H Dawbon iV

,,c .m in n ,. 4 v ., r o .v. , n + . .

January 20, 1982 \3

~

, .o=

l

, 1 l

(

G

l Mr. Rohert h. Tedesco Perry Nuclear Power Plantf Assistant Director of 1.i c en s i n g Docket Nos. 50 440; 50 44 ( j/

I,1 censing Branch No. 2 Envi rontr.ent al Review of \

II . S. Nuclear Regul at or y Conani ssion Transmission Line -

Washington, D. C. 20555 1

Dear Mr. 'l e d e s c o :

't h e NRC environmental r eview of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Operating License stage is nearing ( ompletion wi t h a f ew or n items remaining to be resolved. One of the open items involves a t r ansmi ssion line, the Perry-llanna Line, which is r equi red f or the operation of linit #2 in 198 7, and must he approved by the

, Ohio Pow"r Sitint, lloard (OPSB).

On .lanuar y 11, 19K2, the OPSil decided against granting a certiticate of environ-montal compatibility .uul puh11e need for our Perry-llanna Trancmissioa Line. This denial was based on their determination t hat because all routta proposed for the l i'e t r aver se<1 the Ohio Old Order Amish community in Geauga County, it could not he determined that any of these routes represent the minimum adverse environmental impact. In athli t i on , due to this detIclency, the OPSB could not determine that the Iine wti1 sei ve the puhlic interest, convenlence and necessity.

On the other hand, the OPSB did rule that except for the Amish issue, the Perry-llanna hine ( omplles with the governing statutes assuming we comply with irrtain OPSB conditions and we use the OPSB st af f recommended route.

the latter set of favorable rulings makes os helleve that a compromise routing is very likelv to a< h l eve approval at the Bo a r <1 Several corridors for such a route ai r availabit and d"velopment of any one of these is t ect nically a:ut ec onomic al l y t asibl". It should he noted that the route ultimately selected could he c,n e of the ones in the Amtsh arca it the OPSB finds that it represents the m i n i m:er impact when componed to ot her new rout es. Fr om a cost /henetit point of view, our obser-vation in that a numhtr of new routes exist that would not upset the cost /henefit

d. cision on the line or the Perry Plant, lloweve r , the studies needed to select the tinal Pe r r v-ilanna Line routing wil1 t aka additional time heyond that currently availabl. to the NRC statt to complete their environmental review.

In considerat!an of the above, w( suggest t hat the NRC publish their ES-OL leaving toe environmen:al review of the Pe r r y-llann a 1. i n e as an open item to he resolved with the licensing of linit #2. Wi will supply the NRC staff with the necessary environmental intoimation concerning this line after OPSB approval. The staff could then ptovide a supplement to the ES-OL at t er sattsfactory completion of their review.

COO /

S 8201260180 820120 PDR ADOCK 05000440 [O A PDR

A Mr. Robert L. Tedesco January 20, 1982 Finally, to again summarize the reasons why we rtquest that the Perry-lianna Line he left as an open item at this time are:

1. The recent OPSB rejection of our proposed line route will require additional studies of alternate routes that cannot be completed to support the current NRC environmental review e,chedule for both Perry units,
2. The 1ine is only required for the operation of Unit #2 in 1987,
3. The OPSB did rule that except for the Amish issue the line did comply wi th governing statutes, including that the line is necessary,
4. There are technically, environmentally and economically feasible alternates which will not change the Perry Plant cost / benefit analysis, and
5. There is adequate time for the NRC to complete their environmental review of the Perry-llanna Line to support the licensing of Perry Unit #2.

We are available to further discuss this situation as may be required by the NRC stat f.

Very truly yours,

/ /

$Af

~

4s . -12 Dalwyi[R.Davidson Vice Presid nt System Engineering and Construction DRD: dip cc M. D. llouston G. Charnoff, Esq.

NRC Resident inspector

.lohn Illibi sh , GAI