ML19339A665
| ML19339A665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1980 |
| From: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Sinderbrand C WISCONSIN, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011040490 | |
| Download: ML19339A665 (2) | |
Text
UNITE] STATES
[g g eg#%,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
f Of 8 j,p, '%
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566 i\\
/.s.
, c
- 'M October 30, 1980 s 4....#
. %~
s
.e
~.
i.-
~.
-Q
. g4 &'-?
/
x Carl A. Sinderbrand, Esq.
'f IhO 'g/
Assistant Attorney General The State of Wisconsin Department of Justice Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Re:
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach.
Unit 1), Docket No. 50-266 Nuclear Plant
Dear }&. Sinderbrand:
Your letter of October 3, 1980, expressing concern over the canner in which the NRC authorized resumption of operation at Unit 1 of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant this past August, has been referred to the Office of the General Counsel for response.
As you are aware, the question whether Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. 's request for an adjudicatory hearing will be granted is an issue now before an Atomic Safety & Licensing Board.
Since the Commission may be called upon to review the outcome of the decision in that proceeding, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to comment on the merits of granting a hearing.
F.owever, your letter also reflects a concern with the canner in which the NRC staff notified Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (UEPCO) of their approval of the results of certain tests required in July, 1980.
Perhaps describing the context for that approval will respond to that concern.
The April 4,1980 order issued to UEPCO required the licensee to shut down after 90 full power days of operation to perform certain steam generator-related tests.
Following submittal of the test results, the licensee was not persitted to restart the reactor absent written approval by the staff.
The format of that written approval was not specified in the order.
Although the approval of previous test results required by the November 30, 1979 letter had been included in the April 4, 1980 order, this inclusion was primarily for purposes of convenience, since it was necessary to issue the April order to impose additional conditions.
Rather than communicate the order and the accroval throuzh two seoarate docu=ents the staff utilized the ord'r to consolidate the 'equirement e
r of new conditions with the message that the test results were
[N SEs / a 8011040$D
//
h I
accectable.
Considerine the misunderstandinr that has resulted, in m'av have been core aborocriate fe: the Ao:11 4 ancroval to have been given by meanof"a separa:e letter.
"ev'e:theless, as s
discussed in the September 19, 1980 "?.C staff submittal, a copy of *./nich you say you received, WE?CC's authorization to operate l
Unit 1 had never been rescinded and remained in effect subject to i
the conditions described in the April 4 order.
Once WEPCO met those conditions and the NRC notified the licensee of its approval, there was no longer any legal restriction on resumption of plant operation under.the terms.of the April 4, 1980 order.
f j
I hope that this es:planation responds to the concerns vou expressed i
on behalf of the people of Uisconsin.
If you'uould like any further information, please do not hesitate to contact =e on this matter.
Sincerely,
't h,\\ t \\ _L-- )
r %
N, l
I.eonard Bickwit, Jr.
I General Counsel ec:
Parties of Record 1
I I
l 1
__.,.