ML17276B108

Requests Feedback & Assurance Re Possibility of Addl Borings to Define Existence & Character of Inferred Fault & to Permit Deterministic Evaluation.Confirmatory Matls on All Resolved Geological Issues Will Be Submitted by mid-Mar

ML17276B108
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	02/26/1982
From:	Ferguson R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8203020503
Download: ML17276B108 (6)

Text

DOCKET 05000397 REGULATOR NFORHATION DI'STRIBUTION S EH (R IDS)

AGGESSION-'NBR'8203020503 DOC,DATE: 82/02/?6 NOTARI'ZED:

NO FACIL".50 397 WPPSS Nuclear Projects Uni<t 2g Washington Public Powe AUTH,NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION FERGUSONiR.L.

Washington.Public 'Power -Supply 'System RECIPDNANE RECIPIENT AF,FILIATION DENTONPH,R ~

.Office =of,Nucl ear Reactor

'Regul at'ionr Director:

SUBJECT:

Requests feedback L assur ance rxe.':posy/bi] i)typf addi bor ings to define existence 8 "character-of inferred.faulit 8

tO permit deterministic evaluation, <Conf it'mator y matls on al 1

resolved geological issues wil 1 be =submi,tted by mid"Har ~

DISTRIBUTION CODE:

B0010 COPIES RECEIVED'LTR

. ENCL 0 'IZE:

TITLE: PSAR/FSAR AHDTS and Related Conrespondence NOTES:2 copies.all matl;PM'5000397

.RECIPIENT IO CODE/NANE ACTION; A/0 LIGKNSNG LIC BR 02 LA SCOP IES LTTR.ENC 1

"RECIPIENT",>COPIES'D CODE/INAWEA

,i.'llTZ.ENCL I.IC BR e2 BC AUL'UGKER ~

01 1

INTERNAL: ELD

-IE/DEP/EPDB

'35 NPA NRR/DE/EQB 13 NRR/DE/HGEB 30 NRR/DE/NTEB 17 NRR/DE/SAB 20 NRR/DHFS/HFEBOO NRR/DHFS/OLB 34 NRR/DSI/AEB 26

.NRR/DSI/CPB 10 NRR/DSI/ETSB 12 NRR/OSI/PSB N

RSB 28-RES FZ oe EXTERNAL'o ACRS Al FERA-REP.DIV 39 NRG PDR 02 NTfS 16 1

1 1

IE 06 IE/OEP/EPL'B NRR/OE/CEB 11 NRR/OE/GB 28 NRR/DE/MEB 18 NRR/DE/QAB 21 NRR/DE/SEB 25 NRR/DHFS/LQB '32 NRR/DHFS/PTRB20 NRR/DSI/ASH 27 NRR/DSI/CS8 09 NRR/OSI/ICSB 16 NRR/OS I/RAB 22 NRR/DST/LGB 33 BNL'(AHDTS ONLY)

LPDR 03 NSIC 05 r3 1

2 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

,1 1

1 b

TOTAL NUMBER OF.iGOPXES

-REDUXRED:

LITTR P

ENCL

I II I

R

<<)f M

$ A 'I'R I

'I 4'R<<I)'

tf>RRI

$ t.

II v>>',"

~

~

1'R~t) 'iflA lt)

,R'

I;P<<'kl I'l,<<I <<'iy

'l j ii NRt

$ (IIIII 0 ftfff g)V f

fl E, -f c,' ) )IR't~ ( '

tt't~(

ii) l Ii t

'R ft t ift'Ittt

<<<<~AD<<a<<<<:

I <<: <<t<<<<I ~

T -/,<<tt)I ),I I( tt.)

J I i, t $ "III~@

)

I I,

II ji ji t)')fig,)tR;R"", fI g')Q R,II ) ) Qq f n

It lt

<< tf e 'i<<$ III, 1

ii gal),

Ig liit V,I II

< ri fg.>>',

I, f I

ling II i

R 4

K It Rt t '"

I I tt gf

siosozonc'3 s2oame

'PDR ADQCK 05000397 A

PDR Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 (509) 372-5000 Docket No:

50.-397 February 26, 1982 Responds to:

N/A

Response

required by:

N/A Mr. Harold R.

Denton Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

Subject:

HANFORD GEOLOGY Ozj Prte

~~8p~

h'type

~@br~~

Cry I understand the February 10 meeting of our staffs was productive in that we have reached resolution on all the geology issues but one.

We are working to submit the confirmatory materials on all the resolved issues by mid-March to support the tinalization of the SER.

The one remaining topic is the Gable Mountain-Southeast Anticline where there is a fault inferred from one borehole.

In the February 10 meeting, the NRC staff suggested the possibility of additional borings to better define the existence and character of the inferred fault and permit deterministic evaluation.

We have discussed that possibility with our consultants and Northwest Energy Services Company's (NESCO) consultants, and acknowledge that more boreholes m~i ht better define the existence and character of the fault.

However, it is also true that additional work, no matter how extensive, mi'ght not provide an unequivocal descrip-tion of this fairly minor feature.

In the end, an informed judgment may Ee required, based primarily on the body of knowledge already exist-ing.

NESCO and their consultant have already concluded that the fault is probably not capable, and our consultants have, in a comprehensive probability study, assessed its potential contribution to seismic exposure of the site even if it is assumed capable.

It was. concluded in our October 1981 submittal, that the overall seismic exposure of the site was in the same range as that found acceptable by the NRC for licensed eastern plants.

Before we embark on further work, we need a clearer understanding from you and your staff that the scope of work is confined to meet essential success criteria, and that limitations jn physical ability to charac-terize buried features such as this inferred fault do not force extremely

A t

't l

j

)

Mr. Harold R. Denton HANFORD GEOLOGY conservative deterministic assumptions.

The low seismicity of the site and a regional perspective must be brought in to the judgmental process.

We are considering the following work:

(1)

Drill two core holes close to the existing hole, with the goal of better characterizing the strike, dip, and presence of the fault.

(2)

Establish the age of the pre-missoula gravels.

(.3)

Review the existing geophysical data in light of the additional information from the two new core-holes to see if there is an enhanced confidence in the geophysical work previously done.

(4) If warranted from the results from task I, 2, and 3, drill several core holes into the pre-missoula grayels to look at their profile.

If we can obtain your feedback and assurance that such work will provide a sufficient basis for making necessary informed judgments on your part, we will immediately initiate the work in support of an expeditious resolution of this issue.

Very truly yours, Managing Director RLF cc:

W. J. Dircks -

NRC

I 1