ML20034G757
| ML20034G757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1993 |
| From: | Repka D PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, Kline J, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13682 OLA-2, NUDOCS 9303110156 | |
| Download: ML20034G757 (2) | |
Text
/ 3dfL WINSTON & STILMVN
. M -[.II.;
Dhi':C UWDEACK H. WNSTDN HBS31 Ban 1400 L STREET, N W.
0-fCAGO OmCE uAs H, s'nAww re9? 19%
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3502 35 WEST WrCKE4 DRWE
~93 tm -5 P4 ffM$721""
,cy.y,0 NEW Word DFFCE hf k!. '
f Cnt EP V U
wet 1E M S WSECT oratwuwerm MM i i m, ~ i, #f * '42'2' "* 2" (202) 371-5726
,tue March 4, 1993 BY FACSIMILE Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Frederick J.
Shon Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board t
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Jerry R.
Kline Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission Washington, DC 20555 I
Re:
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA. 50-323-OLAq(Construction Period Recapture)
Dear Administrative Judges:
Late yesterday we received by facsimile a copy of the
" San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Reply to PG&E's Preliminary Response and Motion for Protective Order"
(" Reply").
The Reply relates to PG&E's February 12, 1993 Motion.
PG&E notes that under the NRC's regulations, 10 C.F.R. 5 2.730(c), PG&E does not have a right to respond to the Reply, except as may be granted by the Licensing Board.
Accordingly, PG&E respectfully requests that the Licensing Board consider the following.
First, PG&E wishes to express some exasperation with the Mothers for Peace Reply.
While acknowledging in the Reply, at 4, that the Mothers for Peace "may not [in this proceeding] challenge the ' generic' wisdom of the type of compensatory measures chosen by NRC as an interim substitute for an effective fire barrier," the Reply seems to argue for just that.
The Mothers for Peace ignore that this issue has been previously resolved by the Licensing Board. See Memorandum and Order (Discovery and Hearing Schedules),
I 9303110156 930304
)
PDR ADOCK 0500 5
D c
, \\VIB;STON' de hVrltAVV37 i
March 4, 1993 i
Page 2 I
t February 9, 1993, at 2 ("the adequacy of the licensee's adherence to interim measures [is] all that [is] in issue").
I Second, PG&E wishes to clarify a factual misperception in i
the Mothers for Peace Reply.
In the Reply, at 2, the Mothers for Peace imply that PG&E will not allow the requested site visit to extend to the "five representative areas" selected by the Mothers for Peace.
This is not PG&E's position.
The five areas selected are indeed Thermo-Lag fire areas and may be the focus of the site visit.
PG&E's position is that in these areas, as in any other Thermo-Lag areas, the inspection is to be limited to implementation of the interim compensatory measures (i.e., fire watches).
PG&E had communicated this clarification directly to the Mothers' technical consultants, and mutual planning for the visit has been progressing.
Very truly yours, i
\\
\\
David A.
Repka Counsel for Pacific Gas &
Electric Company cc:
Service List i
l h