ML19351C969: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 20: Line 20:
Ell e jstate of j]isconsin 8                '
Ell e jstate of j]isconsin 8                '
Carl A. Sinderbrand Assistant Attorney General prpartment of 3ustice JEndison 53702 p            x sconson c. u ronert.
Carl A. Sinderbrand Assistant Attorney General prpartment of 3ustice JEndison 53702 p            x sconson c. u ronert.
Attorney General DesdJ Hanson
Attorney General DesdJ Hanson l
                                                                                                                        ;
I l
l I
I October 3, 1980                                o,puty stro,n,y a n ,,1 CCClET n
l I
October 3, 1980                                o,puty stro,n,y a n ,,1 CCClET n
                                                                     %            t*SN,Z g
                                                                     %            t*SN,Z g
                                                                                                                         \
                                                                                                                         \
Line 42: Line 40:


I i        ;
I i        ;
;
The Honorable John F. Ahearne, Chairgan Mr. Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Mr. ' Joseph M. Hendrie, Commissioner Mr. Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner Page 2 October 3, 1980 6
The Honorable John F. Ahearne, Chairgan Mr. Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Mr. ' Joseph M. Hendrie, Commissioner Mr. Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner Page 2 October 3, 1980 6
In this controversy, the State of Wisconsin has, to date, refrained from taking sides on the merits of the Commission's orders.      We do feel that the Decade has raised legitimate l                concerns over the safety of Point Beach 1, and believe that          <
In this controversy, the State of Wisconsin has, to date, refrained from taking sides on the merits of the Commission's orders.      We do feel that the Decade has raised legitimate l                concerns over the safety of Point Beach 1, and believe that          <
the only way to ensure public confidence in the Commission and j                its actions is to permit full scrutiny of those orders in a public forum.      The staff's cavalier attitude and resistence to l                public disclosure and scrutiny instill and accentuate an i                overall mistrust of the Commission and suspicion of . Its objectives.      We are thus finding it increasingly difficult to l
the only way to ensure public confidence in the Commission and j                its actions is to permit full scrutiny of those orders in a public forum.      The staff's cavalier attitude and resistence to l                public disclosure and scrutiny instill and accentuate an i                overall mistrust of the Commission and suspicion of . Its objectives.      We are thus finding it increasingly difficult to l
j                maintain a neutral stance on this and other issues.
j                maintain a neutral stance on this and other issues.
;
j                      By this letter, we strongly urge the Commission to grant i                the hearing which the Decade has requested.        If the Commission l                staff has acted reasonably with the objective of promoting j                safe operation of the plant, a public hearing can only serve
j                      By this letter, we strongly urge the Commission to grant i                the hearing which the Decade has requested.        If the Commission l                staff has acted reasonably with the objective of promoting j                safe operation of the plant, a public hearing can only serve
;                to reinstill that confidence in the Commission which is so noticeably      lacking.      If  the    Commission's  actions have compromised      the  safety    of  the  plant to maximize energy production, the public has a right to be apprised of this decision.      Only in a public forum can this controversy be finally resolved.
;                to reinstill that confidence in the Commission which is so noticeably      lacking.      If  the    Commission's  actions have compromised      the  safety    of  the  plant to maximize energy production, the public has a right to be apprised of this decision.      Only in a public forum can this controversy be finally resolved.

Latest revision as of 02:22, 18 February 2020

Expresses Concern by Wi DOJ Over NRC Handling of Authorization of Facility Power Resumption.Environ Decade 800826 Request for Hearing Should Be Granted
ML19351C969
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/03/1980
From: Sinderbrand C
WISCONSIN, STATE OF
To: Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8010080465
Download: ML19351C969 (2)


Text

.

4 I ,

Ell e jstate of j]isconsin 8 '

Carl A. Sinderbrand Assistant Attorney General prpartment of 3ustice JEndison 53702 p x sconson c. u ronert.

Attorney General DesdJ Hanson l

I l

I October 3, 1980 o,puty stro,n,y a n ,,1 CCClET n

% t*SN,Z g

\

DCT . 7 e The Honorable John F. Ahearne, Chairman '

  1. 0% *2 Mr. Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner 0 h p'*#' ry Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie, Commissioner 'Zr #.

Srs c Mr. Peter A. BradforC commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatorf Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 '

Re: Wis. Electric Power Co.

Docket No. 50-266 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant - Unit 1)

Gentlemen:

I am writing to you, on behalf of the State of Wisconsin, l to register our sentiments and concerns with respect to the resumption of full power operation at Point Beach 1, and particularly with respect to an exchange of correspondence surrounBing unis action.

On August 8, 1980, Mr. Edson Cane, of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, sent a letter to Mr. Sol Burstein, of Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO), authorizing resumption of operation at Point Beach 1. Thereafter, on August 26, 1980, Ms. Kathleen Falk, of Wisconsin's Environmental Decade (Decade), sent you a letter criticizing the form of this authorization and suggesting that its purpose was to subvert the opportunity for meaningful public participation which had been previously agreed upon between )

Decade and your staff. I have recently received the staff response to that letter, dated September 19, 1980, contesting Decade's assertions regarding the prorziety of the Case letter.

The State of Wisconsin is dismayed and discouraged by the manner in which the NRC chose to convey its authorization. i However, we are far more concerned with the tone of the J correspondence and attitude of the NRC staff. Throughout the j course of this controversy the staff has consistently resisted all efforts by the public to partic.pate in the -process. At this juncture, when the responsiveness of the NRC to public concerns is being called into question from all quarters, indeed from within its own ranks, the NRR and Commission staff should not be permitted to run rough-shod over legitimate public concerns. )

h U,,

8010080 *

'/ 6 6 G

I i  ;

The Honorable John F. Ahearne, Chairgan Mr. Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Mr. ' Joseph M. Hendrie, Commissioner Mr. Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner Page 2 October 3, 1980 6

In this controversy, the State of Wisconsin has, to date, refrained from taking sides on the merits of the Commission's orders. We do feel that the Decade has raised legitimate l concerns over the safety of Point Beach 1, and believe that <

the only way to ensure public confidence in the Commission and j its actions is to permit full scrutiny of those orders in a public forum. The staff's cavalier attitude and resistence to l public disclosure and scrutiny instill and accentuate an i overall mistrust of the Commission and suspicion of . Its objectives. We are thus finding it increasingly difficult to l

j maintain a neutral stance on this and other issues.

j By this letter, we strongly urge the Commission to grant i the hearing which the Decade has requested. If the Commission l staff has acted reasonably with the objective of promoting j safe operation of the plant, a public hearing can only serve

to reinstill that confidence in the Commission which is so noticeably lacking. If the Commission's actions have compromised the safety of the plant to maximize energy production, the public has a right to be apprised of this decision. Only in a public forum can this controversy be finally resolved.

Sincerely, Y Ww { -c.- L Carl A. Sinderbrand  !

Assistant Attorney General )

l CAS/cje cc: Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Ms. Karen D. Cyr, Esq.

Ms. Kathleen M. Falk, Esq.

Mr. Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Mr. Sol Burstein i