ML19275A895
| ML19275A895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Conner T CONNER, MOORE & CORBER |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19275A881 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910220212 | |
| Download: ML19275A895 (2) | |
Text
a
[ p a aro,
v o
UNITED " RATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULAIORY COMMISSION 5.7 m L'"
WASHINGTO's D. C.20555
- 9. N
\\,,,,. #
October 9, 1979 Mr. Troy B. Conner, J r.
Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006
Dear Mr. Conner:
On August 22, 1979 you submitted a letter in behalf of the Philadelphia Elec-tric Company (PECO) with regard to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) decision to treat a letter by Mr. Frank Romano as a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206.
Mr. Romano asserted that blasting at a quarry adjacent to the Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2 would have a detrimental effect on the facility because the blasting is performed on the same rock formation as the facility.
Your letter concluded that the record clearly indicated that the facility wculd not be adversely affected by blasting at the Pottstcwn Trap Rock Quarry. As discussed below, we disagree with your conclusion.
While the subject of the blasting was covered during the preparation of the Safety Evaluation Report on the preliminary design, it is not clear that two particular issues were adequately treated. One issue is whether the design ground motion adopted for the Limerick plant is adequate to envelop the spectra of a motion that includes the effect of blasting. The seconc issue is the potential for displacement along the faults under the facility due to the blasting. Before we reaffirm our previous conclusion that tne nearby blasting would not have a detrimental effect on the facility, we must investi-gate these matters.
In our previous reviews of the faulting at the Limerick site we concluded (1) that the faults were not capable faults and (2) that the methods used to repair the fracture zones were acceptable. At this time, we find that we have no reason to alter these conclusions. However our review of the Limerick Final Safety Analysis Report will cover these areas.
We trust that the information provided above is responsive to your concerns.
7910220 O / h
g -.
t
. Mr. Troy B. Conner, J r.
10 CFR Enclosed for your information is a copy of the " Director's Decision unde 2.206" which is in response to Mr. Rcmano's request.
Sinc rely,
/-
v>.r
, Harold R. Den:cn, Director
/'
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206
^ _.
=
5