ML20062J712
| ML20062J712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1982 |
| From: | Burstein S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208160446 | |
| Download: ML20062J712 (2) | |
Text
. - - _. -. _ _ _ _
I 00LKETED USNRC Wisconsin Electnc powca coursur
'82 AGO 13 P1 :10 231 W. MICillGirL P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE. We 53201 0FflCE'0F SECREinv 00CKEllNG & SER ACAugust 10, 1982 ERANCH Secretary of the Commission U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Section
Dear Sir:
NOTICE OF PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET 50-266 - July 6, 1982 On July 6, 1982, the Commission issued the above-captioned notice with respect to Wisconsin Electric Power Company's
(" Licensee") plan to replace the two steam generators in Unit i of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant.
The notice provided opportunity for members of the public to request a hearing and petition for l
leave to intervene not later.than August 11, 1982.
Licensee.' takes exception to the Commission's' determination to provide notice of opportunity for a hearing on the steam generatcr replacement.
Licensee informed the Commissicn, by letter from Mr. C. W. Fay dated May 27, 1982 to Mr. H.
R.
Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, of its plan to replace the Licensee stated that it had reviewed the repair ctccm generators.
progran pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 and determined that it does not require a change in the Technical Spec,ifications, does not involve an unreviewed safety question, and does not present significant l
hazards considerations.
In such: circumstances, prior NRC approval is not required.
Accordingly, we disagree with the NRC 's position stated in the July 6, 1982 letter of Robert A. Clark to Mr. Fay that an amendment of Facility Operating License DPR-24 is required.
Nothing in the C'ommission's regulations, including 10 CFR 2.10 5 (a) ( 3), requires a notice of opportunity for hearing in this matter.
The proposed activities will restore the design performance to that of the originally installed steam generaters, and do not involve a significant hazards consideration ~
The proposed repairs are similar to those conducted at the Surry Power 8208160446 820810 PDR ADOCK 05000266 PDR G
hSCd
Secretary of the Commission August 10, 1982 Station, Units 1 and 2, and Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4.
In both of those cases, after an opportunity for hearing was noticed, the NRC staff determined that the repairs would not present a nuclear safety hazard and would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
While it may not have been inappropriate to issue a notice of opportunity for hearing in those caces because they were the first of a kind, presumably we can learn from those experiences and the conclusions reached there.
Under these circumstances it does not seem consistent with administrative economy, or with the Commission's current efforts to reform the licensing process, to have noticed an opportunity for hearing in this matter.
Very truly yours, e-7 Execu ive Vice President Sol Burstein Copies to Messrs. Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner John F. Ahearne, Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Harold R. Denton Robert A. Clark
,