ML20094K668

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR51 Re Environ Review for Renewal of Operating Licenses & Requests That Perry Unit 2 Be Included within Scope of Proposed Rulemaking

ML20094K668
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	03/16/1992
From:	Silberg J SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-56FR47016, RULE-PR-51 56FR47016-00078, 56FR47016-78, NUDOCS 9203230124
Download: ML20094K668 (3)

Text

. . . . - ~ . - . -- - _ . - _ - - . - - - - . _ . _ . . - . . . . - - . -

s CCCM i. nt,1EER  !

6 /

OROPOSED RULE EO i;Lruil(s(, F& 476 t h t SHAW. PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBNOGE

• eamthe es .p iwetuo.wo peos s mano at commonanows F3ho N STRE E T. N W.

Wan6*iNGTON, D, C. 2003 7 If soi vet niv stat st. a w co= ramw entea omevs it t asumo vimoiwia sao.s

,,g,gg t'o31 ??? 0004 e g g ar, on O ksa tieCr#

1,=

vae o n.

• - ,g, .% ,. ,c.

~ ".c, ." ," ' ' , , " " i i

- t7cs) 777 i,no t'or er e.2e7 9 g ;,

e, c. a u t.c,. c.

March 16, 1992 (202) G63 8003 The Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Ret 10 C.F.R. Part 51 Proposed Rule, " Environmental Review for Renewal of Operating-Licenses" .

Gentlemen:

On September 17, 1991, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a proposed rule to amend 10 C.F.R. Part 51.

Tne proposed amendments would establish the environmental reviev ,

requirements for applications to renew nuclear power plant oper-ating licenses.

The following comments are submitted on behalf of The Cleve-land Electric Illuminating Company (CEI), which is authorized-by  ;

^

.NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-149 to construct the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2. CEI is also the operator of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1.

In general, CEI supports the comments filed with respect to the proposed revision to Part 51 by the Nuclear Mr.aagement and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC). CEI would also like to specif-l o ically address one of the questions posed by the Supplemental

! Information accompanying the proposed rule. That question asks i whether Perry Unit 2,-'and three other nuclear power plants whose-l' construction has also been suspended, should be excluded from

! secpe of the proposed rule. Without attempting to speak on

j. behalf of the other excluded units, we believe that Perry Unit 2 .

~

should-not be-excluded.-

The proposed rule'(at 551.53(c)(3)- and in the introductory 1 paragraph to proposed Appendix B to Subpart A to Part 51) identi-fies those nuclear power plants to which the proposed rule would 9203230124 920316 PDR

'51-56FR47016 PR

-PDR pijC

SHAW, PITTMAN. PoTTs & TROWBRIDGc

. .. m..~, m ro. .m % u..m. .

The Secretary of the Commission March 16, 1992

! Page Two t

apply. Included within its scope are all plants holding operat-ing licenses as of June 30, 1992 and five specifically identified 4

i units (Bellefonte Units 1 and 2, Comanche Peak, Unit 2 and Watts l Bar Units 1 and 2). This definition would exclude Perry Unit 2, '

as well as vmP Units 1 and 3 and Grand Gulf Unit 2. Thus, the proposed rule would include some plants that currently do not have NRC operating licenses, but exclude other units (including Perry Unit 2) which also do not have operating licenses. There is no principled reason to exclude these units.  ;

Construction of Perry Unit 2 was suspended in 1985. Since that time the unit has been maintained in a deferred state. CEI and its co-owners of Perry-Unit 2 are continuing to study the ,

options with respect to that unit. Those options include resump-tion of its construction, indefinite suspension of ccnstruction, and cancellation. On October 28, 1991, CEI submitted to the NRC a request to extend the construction completion date of the Unit 2 Construction Permit. ,

Notwithstanding its current deferred stutus, Perry Unit 2  ;

has already had a complete environmental review by the NRC staff in connection with its application for an operating license.

NUREG-0884, Final Environment Statement Related to the Operation of Perry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.(August 1982). The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) which supports the proposed rule already-considers Perry Unit 1, which is identical to, and _ ,

shares the'same site with Unit 2. See, e.a., NUREG-1437, Taole 2.1; App. A,fp. A-49, 1he only possible justifications for excluding Perry. Unit 2 while including other units not cur: ently licensed f or operation are-(1) the uncertainty 4 of Unit 2's eventual operation and subse-que -

l' ense renewal, and (2) the extended: time until a possible

. renewal term for Unit 2. Neither of these reasons justify excluding Unit-2. While Unit 2's operation and possible license renewal is wholly speculative at this time, so too is operation and-license renewal for the other non-operating-license units ,

specifically included by the rule. Indeed, license renewsl for any plant,--including-those operating today, is to a significant e degree speculative. No plant has applied for license renewal, and one one utility has publicly announced that it is even pre-paring such an application. However, as long as the NRC staff has'gone to the effort to prepare the GEIS, which covers-i t

n -mw y e ewe *w m Ew + , m- .,* .m+ se r w-r,%,w..,.,w.,,,",.iewt-..wge.-.mi-+ y ,.e-e-,-.r,- -,m--er.,-c, , .,-w-wm-,+-.,c,--.,--,r ..m ,,e- -me,-----.we.w---w-- c.;..,,-e.--

• i

.. j o- l l

1 SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & Tnowantocc j

- , m w . .mm o.3, m.c.m c o.--.c.

i The Secretary of the Commission l March 16, 1992 i Page Three i

essentially every site and almost all units, it makes little  !

sense to exclude the handful of plants which the Staff would set  ;

aside. This exclusion is particularly unsupportable where, as in  ;

the case of Perry Unit 2, a facility has had a full environmental '

review and shares a site (and, therefore, any potential environ-mental impacts) with an operating unit which is covered by the '

GEIS and the proponed rule.

The second possible justification for excluding Perry Unit 2, the' extended time frame, also fails to survive analysis. The Supplementary Information accompanying the proposed rule states that the Commission plans to periodically review the GEIS find-ings_and will,_under its existing regulations, receive and evalu-  ;

ate petitions to amend Part 51 or reopen environmental issues of sufficient new information warrants a reopening. Thus, the issue of how long the GEIS findings remain valid is one which the Com-mission has already addressed -- not by imposing an arbitrary expiration date to the rule, but by a commitment to periodically .

revisit the findings _to review their validity. As the Commission ,

has done in.the Waste Confidence Rule, for example, ve would urge that the Commission in promulgating the final rule adopt a spe-cific interval (perhaps five years) for reviewing the adequacy of the GEIS. This process, more than a defined list of plants, would better protect the adequacy.of the environmental review process for license renewa; applications.

For the reasons set forth above, we would respectfully request that Perry Unit 2 be included within the scope of the -

proposed Part 51 rulemaking. ,

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments, i

Ve ' truly yours, t/ l J g/E. Silberg-Counsel'for The eveland Electric Illuminating Ccmpany 0105s0180 C 92

- ~. . - . . . . . - - - _ - . . - - - . - - - - - . . - . . . . _ _ . - . - - . -