ML17258A668

Corrects Page 3 to 820311 Petition for Order to Show Cause

ML17258A668
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	03/25/1982
From:	Caplan R Sierra Club
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8203300163
Download: ML17258A668 (6)

Text

'REGULATORY I RMATION DISTRIBUTION SYS (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR; 8203300163 FAC IL>> 50~244 Robert t DOC ~ DATE! 82/(03/?5 Nuc l ear P 1 ant NOTARIZED: .

Uni<t 1 E Rochester NO, DOCKEt Erpme 0 anna P G 05000244 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR (AFFILIATION CAPLANE R ~ N. 'Si er r a Cl ub R E<C I P, NAME RECIPIENT AFFII.'IATION Of f ice of Nuclear Reactor 'Regul ationE

~

DENTONE H ~ Director

'petition f or'rder to

~ <

"SUBJECT! 'Cor'rects Page 3 tto 8203 1 1 shoe cause ~

DISTR)BUTIOE CODE; YESES .(COPIES 'RECEIVED:LTR, r',:E<<CL ~ SIIE:,"

TITLE: Request -for NRR Action (e.'g ~ 2.206 'Peti t7ons) 8 Related TCor r espondenc NOTES: 1 -'opy: SEP 'Sect. Ldr. 05000244 RECIPIENT SCOP IES REC IPIENT "COPIES ID CODE/NAME L'TTR ENCL ID "CODE/NAME LT'TR ENCL

.ORB ¹5 BC ORB '5 L(A LYONSE J ~ Oi INTERNAL~ EDO/ACB ELO ELD/RED NRR, DIR NR R /P PA'8 04 EXTERNAL: LPDR 03 NRC '<P DR 02 NSIC (05 NTIS (Q

TOTAL <<V<<DER OP COPIES REQUIRED: UTTR P5 "E<(<<CL

A 1

kt t Il Itk II A

II n

~l tffg r jj AWA A+

~ /j lkl I I I J jj)

Itkt lj I

SI ERRA .=~

CLUB 530 Bush Street San Francisco, California 94108 (415) 981-8634 Please reply Co: 278 Washington Blv Oswego, New York March 25, 1982 p>p C 4<iisg Harold Denton, Director MAR88 19'~ .,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation -" %It egg".,".~jj U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ..'e:

Washington, D.C. 20555 Docket No. 5 ~244

Dear Mr. Denton:

The Sierra Club wishes to correct an inadvertent omission from its Petition for Order Co Show Cause, which was submitted Co to on March ll, 1982. Page 3 of Che Petition should be corrected include 2.b. and should read as follows:

your'ffice

2. The adequacy of the steam generator Cube testing program should be evaluated and a determination made regarding the following issues:

a. Is the routine multi-frequency eddy current testing method being employed at Ginna the best available given current state-of-Che-art? If not, what Justification is there for not employing Che best available technology, in light of chronic Cube degredation problems at Ginna and at other PWR's and Che existence of techniques such as fiber optic examination?

b. Is Che frequency of required testing of tubes sufficient to prevent future tube rupture or other serious break'?

c. Does Che current testing program, which only tests a sample of Cubes and which does not test their full length, provide sufficient information Co prevent tube failure'? << ig3 s

" 8203300163 .820325

.>PDR, ADOCK 05000244,

-'PDR',; ", ',I,'...'.,"..

II ~ ~

~ II

~ ~

Ii V ~ 'I

~ ~ '

~ ~

Sierra Club, page 2 Ve are sorry for any inconvenience to your office due to this omission.

Very truly yours, Ruth N. Caplan, Chair Sierra Club National Energy Committee

0 4

~ t I.t, tt ~ t t ~ 4 ~ it

~

I ~

I.

t~

itta v,,t