ML19343D013
| ML19343D013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lewis M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104090060 | |
| Download: ML19343D013 (3) | |
Text
Y b&ftG fl$
fo - 5s~7
- pro Wuq'o, UNITED STATES
{.]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, / ~~
g
/f
\\
t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566 lg
]
(:
Mp<4kr 2 s
t S
S o
C-O
- ease C
n(p
/
9 VA,24 58 '
Ay Mr. Marvin I. Lewin 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149
Dear Mr. Lewis:
This is in response to ycur letter of February 16, 1981 in which you asked a number of questions and provided additional coments concerning concrete placement and curing.
Answers to your six direct questions are contained in the enclosure to this letter.
Your additional comments concerning concrete and p'ssible effects frca blast induced vibrations have been previously noted. As ir:dicated in earl-ier letters to you and Mr. Rema'no, we will consider this aspect in our safety review.
I would like to assure you that the quality control of nuclear plants is very much in the area of our interest and we appreciate your concern.
In pursuance of this matter the staff is requesting the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) to provide a record of blastings and concrete pours for Class I structures.
In addition they will be asked to correlate the data so that more precisc-information will be available to assist in an analysis of the effect of blasting on the quality of concrete. When this information is available appropriate actions will be taken if necessary.
Once again, I wish to express my appreciation for your continuous interest in this matter and assure you that it is receiving our keenest attention.
Sincerely, SLuu Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated 81040.90040
n' RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS QUESTION A Has an OL ever been denied to a licensee on a completed or partially completed reactor?
ANSWER No OL has been denied to a licensee on a completed or partially completed plant to date.
QUESTION B Will the public have access to the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) report and will the public be able to raise questions in a timely fashion?
By timely, I mean before the staff closes its review or will the public have to petition to question this PRA in hearings?
ANSWER The public will have access to the risk assessment report and +hus will be given an opportunity to provide comments during the course of the OL review.
QUESTION C
" Requirements cannot be backfitted."
(Yourstatement) This seems to say that plants cannot be made safer than originally approved. This statement contradicts many TMI lessons learned orders of the Commission.
Please explain this contradiction. Do Mr. Tedesco's letters carry more force than the Commission's Orders?
ANSWER The comment relative to "backfitting" in the letter of February 4, 1981 applies to the application of siting criteria to plants whose application for a construction permit are dated prior to October 1,1979. This is no way implies that design changes to the plant cannot be made to increase the safety of the facility, e.g., application of TMI lessons learned orders.
QUESTION D "PECo has stated that the criterion contained in Dr. Harold Lewis' report (will or) were considered and factored into the study. Where (reference) does PECo make this statement? Which criterion of the Lewis' report were considered and factored into study? All or just those that make Limerick look good? What criterion in the Lewis report will the staff require to be used in the PECo study, if any? How were the criterion factored in?
Specifics? Methodology?
i 2-ANSWER PECo indicated that ccmments code in the Lewis report had'been co sidered in the risk study during the technical meeting on Dececher 9,1981. The
- extent to which this is adequat?ly accomplished will be stucied in the staff review of the final report.
QUESTION E
" includes Class 9 accidents" (Your statement) Which class 9 accidents? All?
Those in WASH 1400 only? TMI#2 scenartoes only?
ANSWER 4
The coverage of Class 9 accidents will be an area of specific interest in our review of the risk report. The exact extent of coverage will not be known exact 13 until we receive the final report frco PEco.
QUESTION F The paragraph on Page 2 concerning concrete appears self-contradictory.
"This aspect (" concrete meets minimum strength requirements") will be considered and reviewed carefully in our (NRC) review of (PECo) study."
Yet the previous sentence states, "The (PECo).-isk study assumes that the concrete meecs these (ACI) ainimum strength requirements."
ANSWER The basis for the risk study rests on certain assumptions.
If these assump-tions prove to be in error as a result of "as built" conditions, then necessary corrective action must be taken by the applicant to correct the situation. The "as built" condition of the concrete will be considered and reviewed as we proceed with our review of the OL application.
i l
c I
e,
e a
_w.
,e~----
-,w-ng--
s.--.,
e y
r v
g