ML20209C294
| ML20209C294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Rivenbark G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | James O'Reilly GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702040240 | |
| Download: ML20209C294 (4) | |
Text
January 29, 1987 Dockets Nos. 50-321/366 Mr. James P. O'Reilly Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations Georgia Power Company P.O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
We have reviewed the information provided to date concerning the discrepancies in the seismic design of Hatch, Units 1 and 2.
In order to complete our review of this issue we need the additional information described in the enclosure. You are requested to provide a written response, submitting the requested information, within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, I
r.gi-
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc: See next page I
DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR PD#2 Plant File GRivenbark OGC-Bethesda Edordan ACRS (10)
BGrimes JPartlow SNorris CPTan 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY J
\\
DBL: 0 i2 DBL # 2 i
DBL:PD#2 GRivr! bark:cb l
5 DMd 6Y) l I /J7/87 i/IS/87 fg/87
/
8702040240 870129 gDR ADOCK 05000321 PDR
n
... -.. ~... -.. -
Mr. J. P. O'Reilly Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Georgia Power Company Units Nos. I and 2 cc:
Bruce W. Chruchill, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Mr. L. T. Gucwa Engineering Department Georgia Power Company Post Office Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr. H. C. Nix, Jr., General Manager Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company Post Office Box 442 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Mr. Louis B. Long Southern Company Services, Inc.
Post Office Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 1, Post Office Box 279 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Charles H. Badger Office of Planning and Budget Room 610 270 Washington Street, S.W.
l Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Mr. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Chairnan l
Appling County Commissioners l
County Courthouse Baxley, Georgia 31513
..a 1
]
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKETS NOS. 50-321 AND 366 1
References:
1.
Response to request for Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation relating to; Georgia Power Company's request for review of discrepancies in the seismic analysis at Hatch Units 1 and 2, received November 13, 1986.
2.
Hatch Unit 1, FSAR Sec. 2.7.
3.
Hatch Unit 2, FSAR Supplement 2A.
1.
Af ter reviewing Refs.1, 2,'and 3, some questions remain as to the soil profile definition at the Edwin I. Hatch nuclear site. As stated (refs.
1 and 3), geophysical measurements were used to establish a single shear modulus value to be used for the soil-structure interaction analyses of the Units 1 and 2 reactor buildings and the control building. Also, this shear modulus value defined.the lower layer soil properties for the soil-structure interaction analysis of the intake structures.
References 1 and 3 also provide boring data which presumably complements the geophysical data. Our evaluation of the boring data indicates soil conditions of significantly lower stiffness (i.e., smaller shear moduli) than the geophysical measurements. A clarification of the discrepancies is requested.
2.
In order to facilitate our review, the licensee is requested to itemize structure-by-structure the soil profile to be considered for its soil-structure interaction analysis. The soil profile should be defined in terms of shear moduli (or shear wave velocity), density, and Poisson's ratio, layer-by-layer, if any distinct layers are assumed to exist. Side soil, whether or not included in the soil-structure interaction analysis, should be specified.
3.
Provide the dynamic models of the following structures in enough detail to permit their reconstruction:
(a) Unit I reactor building model.
(b) Control building model.
(c)
Intake structure model.
. 4.
Provide digitized values of the synthetic acceleration time histories used in the re-analysis for Units 1 and 2.
These will be used for our inddpendent analyses and should be on tape or floppy disk.
d l
I i
l