ML20037D000
| ML20037D000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Romano F AIR AND WATER POLLUTION PATROL |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104280145 | |
| Download: ML20037D000 (2) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ _
dp
- Y w w.~. c.
3 s
y g.
s
- h
,i" n u.
... u.,
8 M ' Ng\\r' -
@ ket Fis s a M. Service (w/inc)
.c T; gE 3 : IC81 Local PDR 81-1 07)
NRt, m S. Cavanaugh (NRR o
r NRR Reading E. Hughes (w/inc) y p
'E L3 2 File L. Berry f
(
H. Denton PPAS pp,
'[ Romano E. Case S. Hanauer
'd Chairman AWPP H. Berkow/W. Russell D. Ross 61 Forest Avenue D. Eisenhut T. Murley Anbler, Pennsylvania 19002 R. Tedesco B. Snyder R. Purple R. Vollmer
Dear Mr. Romano:
A. Schwencer D. Sells This is in response to your most recent letter to A. Schwencer dated February 20, 1 981. With respect to the blasting effect on the foundation bedrock, we have nothing further to add to what was said in the 25 July 1980 letter report from J. F. Devine, U. S. Geological Survey to R. E. Jackson, NRC. A copy of this letter report was attached to D. E. Eisenhut's letter to you dated October 9, 1980. In that letter Pr. Devine concludes, based on the USGS' assessment of the available infonsation, that the maxista explosive charge weight / time delay will not exceed 400 pounds, and the minimum possible distance of blasting to Class 1 structures is 2000 feet. Blasting with this relatively small charge and at a minimum distance of 2000 feet would not affect plant Class 1 structures.
The particle velocity achieved from the maximum explosive charge would equal 0.4 inches per second. This is one fifth of that allowed by the Pennsylvania State Blasting Code Criteria for safe ground motion, which equals 2 inches per second.
According to the Pennsylvania code, even higher values of ground motion are allowed if seismic recording instrumentation is used as is the case at Limerick.
The Pennsylvania code concerns ordinary structures that have no seismic design.
The Limerick plant is seismically designed.
Finally, as Mr. Devine points out, the Pottstown Trap Rock Quarry blasting is taking place within a rock horizon that is stratigraphically higher than the foundation rock at the plant.
On page 2 (last sentence of the third paragraph) of your letter, you state that Bechtel (9-3-74) indirectly described the cracks in the foundation rock as being of recent origin. However, in its summary on page 13 of that report Bechtel concludes that the faults are very ancient with the statement that the stresses that created the *ractures and joints have not existed for millions of years.
We regret to hear that you find the Philadelphia Electric Company report dated July 29,1980, "cnconvincing" although it attempts to answer one of the basic questions concerning effects of blasting on concrete by comparing the character and amplitude of blast generated seismic energy with those of the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) design spectra for the safety related structures at the Limerick site.
- " :o
- s. m
- m>
f.
j C F?iC! A L R EC O P.3 CO PY c 1 p 1 o 9 il \\ M i
~
a Mr. tranx x. Momano
-z-As Mr. D. Eisenhut pointed out in his letter dated March 10,1981, it is possible to correlate blasting activity at the Trap Rock Company with concrete pours and curing. In view of your continuous interest in this issue, we are requesting that PEco provide us with such a correlation which will be reviewed by the NRC staff. Furthermore, we believe that a direct discussion of the issue with you might serve to clarify your concerns. We propose to meet with you, at your convenience, in order to discuss this matter and to put it in better perspective and to reach an agreement on the necessary action to be taken in the future. I wish to assure you that you are not alone in your concerns and that the NRC staff is ready to take appropriate action to ensure that the safety of the public is assured.
Sincerely.
Original signed by Robert L. Tedesco Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing n
LB Dj/
OELDj
, AD/DL Lg L
.:,, m 0SfG, e AScfgencer CWoodhead
'Riedesco s..s.4
'.3/h,81 3/
91 3/'y 1 3/.'q/ 1
\\
C lCl? L. R EC C R O CO PY
.4 : ::
. 3 c 3:
.2 :. w:
=
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTE4 (PIDS) tCCESSION N3R: 8102260418 00C.DATE: 81/02/20 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET
- FACIL:50-352 Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1,
Philadelphia Ele 05000352 50-353 Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2, Philadelphia Ele 05000353 AUTd.NAME AUTHUR AFFILIATION ROMANO,F.R.
Air and Water Pollution Patrol RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION SchWENCER,A.
Licensing Scanch 2
SUBJECT:
Expresses concern re util 800729 rept, " Comparison of Near-Site luarry Blast Cnaracteristie.s to Seismic Design." Util has not met commitments made at 791218 meeting w/NRC.
Requests olastina test on subfouncation on rock faults.
DISTRI6UTION CODE: XE01S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR 1 ENCL.h SIZE:
TZTLE: Exec. Corresponaence (No Specific Okt. Trans. to Denton/ Case)
NOTES:
RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES 10 CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL 10 CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL k
INTERNAL 1
t J
pg BBBMR TOTAL NUMdER OF COPIES REuulRED: LTTR 1
ENCL
\\
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
February 20, 1931
- tr. Al Schuencer, Chief Licensing 3 ranch #2 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Linerick Generating Station Blasting Effects; Concretc Integrity
Reference:
Letter to liarold K. Denton of imC of 4/12/79 Letter to Harold K. Denton of ICC of 5/14/79 Letter to llarold K. Denton of NRC of 6/10/79 Letter to IIarold K. Denton of Imc of 3/1/79
Dear Str. Schwencer:
In ice July 29, 1980 report relative to Docket No 50-352 and 30-353, titled " Comparison of Mear-Site Quarry Blast Characteristics to the Seisnic Design at Linerick Generating Station", Philadelphia Electric's Eugene J.
Bradley ends his cover letter saying "The subnittal of J.is report con-pletes all of the connitments ande by us at the December 13, 1979 neeting with NRC representatives".
But Philadelphia Electric's re' port above does not address itself to, no answer the pertinent question which was the reason for--and subject of the December 19, 1979 neeting with NRC representatives at Limerick, Pa.
The question which our group posed uas: Has the already fractured, and vertically -cracked condition of the rock, (see Bechtel Power Co. re-port of 9/3/74) upon which the reactor buildings are constructed, as well as the foundations of the reactor building itself, been af fected by the Trap Rock Quarry's dynantting since construction began in 1974 to the pre-sent tine?
This dynaniting is, and has been taking place on the very came frac-tured rock upon which the reactor building containing the reactor core has been constructed (see Bechtel Pouer Co. report of 9/3/74).
This dynaniting has gone on during five years of concrete pouring without consideration of possibic adverse effect on the already cracked rock, as well as affect on concrete setting as it may be affected in loss of integrity and strength.
This potentially dangerous over-sight is porven by tests reported g
in P.E.'s July 29, 1980 report to Mr. A. Schuencer. That report proves the tests were perforned only after our group brought this ornission to i
the attention of the NRC in letters to Dr. Harold Denton on 4/12, 5/14, 6/10 and 3/1/79. The July ?), 1980 report verifies that tests which
/ O jf nosea04($'
AIR and WATER Pollution Patrol BROAD AXE, PA.
(2)
Subject:
Limerick Generating Station Blasting Effects contd.
should have been done before construction was started, were not done until five years af ter construction began, rather than before and during con-struction.
This is to inform you that the Pennsylvania Air and Water Pollution Patrol, a non-profit Pennsylvania Corporation, does net accept the July 29, 1980 report which alledges P. E. has cenpleted all ec=mitments to the
- NRC, Our cotraitments are to safeguard the health and lives of approxi-
=ately seven million people within 30 =11es of the Linetick reactor... a commitment that the P.E. tests, as per above report, have not addressed.
Further, the July 29, 1980 report, with =ethods, findings, and con-clusions are very unconvincing to us.
We feel, the report described was only a band-aid test on seiscie effects on a snall nu=ber of blasts in a small time interval, with conditions different than in 1974 The tests reported did not at all shed light on the effect, or lack of effect on the deep verticle cracks under the reactor building foundation... cracks indirectly described as of recent origin in the Bechtel Power report of 9/3/74.
Neither vere tests run, or reported, that addressed themselves to the integrity and strength of the concrete poured in all cases during the five years since construction of the reactor building began at Limerick, as corraborated in the letter of October 9,1930 to ne frem Darrell Eisen-hut, Director of Licensing.
In ny August 1,1980 letter to Dr. Denton, among other requests, I asked that records of blasting by the Trap Rock Co., and records of con-crete pours, by Philadelphia Electric Contractors, be subnitted to our group for study...but no such information has been forth-co=ning. (P. E.
aust be forced to produce these records. If not available, the integrity of the concrete at Limerick can not be proven adequate). We again re-quest blasting tests on the sub-foundation rock faults; blasting tesa on the concrete foundations and valls, and the records of blasting dates j
vs pouring dates referred to above, as per section 2.206 of 10 CFR.
Copies of this letter uill go to ny personal friends, Richard Sch-
'ielker, Sec. of Health and !!u=an Resources, and Congressnan Lawrence Coughlin, both fros ?tontgomery County, the county in which the reactor is planned, to apprise then of the unsatisfactorv handling, totally signify-l ing inadequate concern by P.E. for the hazzards the quarry blasting can pose to the Linerick reactor site and buildings...and ultimately to the people of P.ontgoterv County.
Ve ~ ~truly vou-I4 u,s m, m
P O
' Fran'v1. So=ano, Chairman ANPP fh d
61 Forest Ave.
FRR/jch
}Qd Ambler, Pa. 19002 i
l