ML20034G747
| ML20034G747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1993 |
| From: | Marco C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13703 OL, NUDOCS 9303110136 | |
| Download: ML20034G747 (2) | |
Text
/3703 oocxernuusea PROD. & UTIL FAC.M'Y f[*"%,%,
UNITED STATES s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y'
g W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 q,
- y e
f
,ta
%,.....f
'93 11TR -9 P 2 :47 March 8, 1993 oI a v e '*. t, '
Samuel J.
Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Chilk:
It has come to my attention that there is an error in footnote five of the "NRC Staff's Reply to Citizens For Fair Utility Regulation's Request For Hearing and Leave to Intervene," dated March 3, 1993.
The corrected page is enclosed.
I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Sincerely, 9
CoJt>www a TTkaw' Catherine L. Marco Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
Enclosure as stated service list 9303110136 930308 PDR ADDCK 05000446 oq PDR C
s.
CFUR has only recently become aware of the " full extent of the Thermolag failures at Comanche Peak...." Petition at 4. However, the issues regarding Thermo-12g are not new and, therefore, do not constitute new information necessary to establish good cause.
Furthermore, CFUR has been aware of these issues for at least six months.
As early as August 12, 1992, CFUR joined in an addendum to a petition filed by the Nuclear Information and Resources Service (NIRS) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206, on July 21, 1992, alleging "a number of deficiencies with Thermo-12g material."
See " Holders of Operating Licenses or Construction Permits for Nuclear Power Plants; Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 Regarding the Use of Thermo-Lag 330 File Barrier Material," 57 Fed. Reg. 38702 (August 26,1992). The July 21,1992 petition and its addendum addressed all of the concerns regarding Thermo-Lag that CFUR now raises in the instant t
Petition: the failure of Thermo-Lag during testing, the nonconformance of Thermo-lag with NRC quality assurance and qualification test regulations, the combustibility of the material, ampacity concerns, and the inadequacy of fire watches.5 Id. The petitioners specifically requested the issuance of an order to stop the installation of Thermo-Lag at Comanche Peak Unit 2 or to suspend the facility's construction permit. Id.
In addition, numerous documer.ts were available to the public concerning Thermo-Lag.
Information notices, bulletins, and reports regarding Thermo-Lag issues have been available for 5
With respect to the concern over the adequacy of fire watches, the Commission determined as early as August 12,1992 that the fire watch violations do not constitute " newly discovered" information. See Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-92-12,36 NRC 62,71 (1992) (the Commission determined that the information provided'in the petitioners' motion, which contained allegations pertaining to fire watch violations, was not new).
[
.