ML19257C117
| ML19257C117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1979 |
| From: | Farris J FELDMAN, HALL, FRANDEN, REED & WOODWARD |
| To: | Desiree Davis NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001250001 | |
| Download: ML19257C117 (2) | |
Text
$....,
FELDMAN. HALL FRANDEN. REED & WOODARD ATTORNEYS AT LAW SueTE a s 4 ENTERPRtSE SUILDING TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74103 TELErwoNE SS3 7129 ARE A CODE 9 9 0 RAYMOND G. FELDMAN WILLI AM S. HALL W. E. GREEN ROSERT A. FRANDEN (1889 9977)
JERRY REED JOMN R. WOOOARO ass JOSEPN R. FARRIS
- 7. W IMLOFF December 27, 1979
'" " ^ * ^ " ' " "
W I ! ; ' 'x
&A V'
Mr. L. Dow Davis
!!)
[0
\\
Office of the Executive Legal Director 2f t gef
',.,, 5._
?
-f United States Nuclear Regulatory
,f,-
. st3 e#*,-
Commission 6Y5Y J
Washington, D.C.
20555 Why' h/ l )
S
~
/
Re:
Black Fox Station N
Dockets No. STN 50-556 and 50-557
'NJ'O Concrete Fill in Escavation
Dear Dow:
I have received and reviewed several letters, reports, etc., concerning the necessity for a concrete fill as the result of certain siltstone encountered in the excavation for Unit 2.
The reports indicate that PSO has performed analyses for a concrete thickness of both 9.25 and 29.25 ft.
This indicates to me that'there may be soma uncertainty about the depth of the siltstone formation.
In this respect, I have the following questions:
1.
How deep does the. soft siltstone formation i
go?
2.
How has the depth been determined?
3.
Has core drilling been done to show that another siltstone layer does not exist some-what below the one in question?
1810 096' 8001250 00l k
4
Mr. L. Dow Davis Page 2
Deceraber 27, 1979 Further, since it has now been almost a year since the last hearings, substantial work has no doubt been done regarding confirmation of load definitions of the contain-ment loads, SRV loadings, and the associated responses (see Intervenor's Proposed Finding of Fact, pp.46-50 for work still underway).
Is it settled that the addition of this concrete fill would not affect the calculated load responses --
i.e.,
do you understand it to be PSO's position that the load responses associated with a concrete base will be the same as if whatever PSO thought underlay the Unit 2 site was there?
Since additional hearings are apparently in the offing, what would be the Staff's position regarding some discussion of this issue in addition to the TMI issues?
Ve rulv yours, M
Joseph R.
Farris JRF/se cc:
Black Fox Mailing List 1810 097