ML20212N163
| ML20212N163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1986 |
| From: | George Thomas PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| References | |
| CON-#386-498 OL-1, NUDOCS 8608280109 | |
| Download: ML20212N163 (26) | |
Text
r
,3
/
WM
(
DOLMETED USNRC Dated:
August 22, 1986 16 AUS 27 N0:40 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gFFICE OF 5ELdtIAh Y OCKET g gyERVICE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before che ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE, COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL- /
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL j/
)
On-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
and Safety Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWERS TO NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO A,PPLICANTS 1)
Please state Applicants' position regarding NECNP Contention I.B.2.
We have demonstrated compliance with the requirements for Environmental Qualification of electrical equipment as outlined in 10 CFR 50.49 and the relevant parts of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A GDC-4 and the NRC Staff concurs with this conclusion, see Seabrook SSER-5, Section 3.11.5 at 3-25.
Therefore, there is no factual basis to support NECNP's Contention that "the Appl cants have not satisfied the requirements of GDC-4 that all equipment important to safety w
B608280109 860822 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0
PD9
) bod
be, environmentally qualified because it has not specified the time duration over which the equipment is qualified".
2)
Please identify and provide accesr> to all documents on which you rely or intend to rely during this proceeding to support your position on NECNP Contention I.B.2.
This includes all documents used in answers to these interrogatories, summary dispositior motions, testimony, and cross-examination of witnesses during hearings.
The documents relied upon in response to interrogatoriec pre referenced with each interrogatory response.
Those documents not specifically provided with each response are available for your review either at Seabrook Station or at the offices of United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C)' in Philadelphia, PA.
To arrange inspection of these and all other documents referred to herein please call W.
J.
- Daley, Jr. (603) 474-9521 Ext. 2057.
3)
Identify all persons on whoce factual knowledge, opinions, or technical expertise you rely or intend to rely for your position on Coi.tention I.B.2.
The names of thoce persons relied upon to substantiate, in wr. ole or in part, our position with respect to this contention are R.
Bergeron, W.
J.
- Cloutier, J. M.
Salvo, and N.
K. Woodward.
The specific information requested by definition #5, at 3, is provided herewith in Exhibit A.
4)
Please identify all persons you may call as witnesses on this contention during these proceedings; describe the substance of their testimony; and identify and describe any documents and the portions thereof that they may rely on for their testimony.
a)
The names of those individuals who may be called as a witness during these proceedings regarding NECNP,
7-Contention I.B.2 are J. M.
Salvo, G.
S. Thomas, and N. K. Woodward.
The speci.fic information requested by definition #5, at 3, is provided herewith in Exhibit A.
b)
The testimony will explain what environmental qualification is and why it is being performed.
A summary of NHY's standard (pcst-accident operability time), which was used at the time of the 1983 testituony, will be presented.
A discussion on the present 100 day acgident duration and its applicability at Seabrook will also be presented.
All equipment which does not meet the 100 day requirement will be identified with its technical justification, which shows that the equipment performs its safety function well within the equipment's qualified duration.
Responses to all concerns raised by NECNP in their submittal, dated July 2, 1986, regarding envi'ronmental qualification will be presented.
We will conclude that all equipment important to safety complies with 10 CFR 50 Appendix A GDC-4 and 10 CFR 50.49.
c)
In addition to those documents relied upon'to respond to these interrogatorios and any documents specified in the interrogatories, the Applicants may make use of those documents identified in Exhibit B.
5)
Please provide access to the following documents referenced in Applicants' Qualification Evaluation Worksheets:
a.
Impell Letter No. 0570-032-NY-156, dated 2/2/86, " Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment, Summary of Class IE
Equipment Submerged as a Result of Design Basec Eventa;"
b.
Impell memorandum from G.
Moore to A. Biswas, dated 2/22/86; c.
UE&C Flooding Study Matrix, SBU-96263; d.
UE&C Engineering Change Authorization No.
037114514A; e.
FP-73400-02, Qual. Te.st Report for Class 1E
- Solenoid Valv'es, QR-526-5683-6, rev.D, dated 4/19/84; f.
Seabrook FSAR, RAI 430.62, Amendment 48, Jan.
1983, pp. RAI 430-47,-48.
g.
The following Equipment Qualification Files and all Documentation References listed in the corresponding Qualification Evaluation Worksheets:
i EQ File No. 113-03-01; EQ File No. 113-06-01; i
EQ File No. 113-17-01; i
EQ File No. 113-18-01; EQ File No. 113-19-01;
~
EQ File No. 113-20-01; EQ File No. 113-22-01; EQ File No. 118-03-01; EQ File No. 120-01-01; EQ File No. 129-01-02; EQ File No. 171-01-01; EQ File No. 171-01-01; EQ File No. 173-07-12; EQ File No. 171-01-01; EQ File No. 174-00-01;
' i
EQ File No. 174-15-01; EQ File No. 236-11-06; EQ File No. 248-05-01,
s
- EQ File'No. 248-37-01; EQ File No.' 248-37-02; EQ File No. 248-37-03; e
EQ File No. 248-38-01; 4
EQ File'No. 248-41-01; 4
EQ File No. 248-45-01; EQ File Nd.'248-47-01; EQ File No. 248-65-01; I
EQ File No. 252-16-01; I
j, EQ File No. 600-0I-01; EQ File No. 600-01-04; l
EQ File No. 600-01-09; EQ File No. 600-06-01;
}
EQ File No. 600-08-01; l
EQ File No. NSS-220-01; EQ File No. NSS-220-02; l
EQ File No. NSS-220-03; l
EQ File No. NSS-220-05; NECNP may have access to any of the above-referenced c
documents except for (d) and one file listed in (g).
The document number provided in (d)'and EQ File No. 173-07-12 in (g) appear to contain a typographical error, as such the documents referred to do not exist.
It should be noted that
\\ '
l l
t n
[
l L.-- --
~
all documents which are referenced on the Qualification Evaluation Worksheets are included as references for each individual EQ File, with the exception of generic references which are included separately.
The documenta identified are available at Seabrook Station.
Arrangements for your review can be made as set forth in No. 2 above.
6)
For each piece of equipment described in the above equipment qualification files, what is the basis for assigning an operating time of one year for the
" postulated environment?"
As stated in our previous testimony dated August 1983, the one year post-accident qualification duration was initially used in the Seabrook E.Q. program to simplify the qualification process.
Certainly the one year post-accident qualification duration is very conservative since the NRC has subsequently indicated that they consider 100 days post-accident qualification as acceptable for componunts without additional technical justi,fication (see Seabrook SSER-5 Section 3.11.3.4 at 3-24).
From a technical viewpoint, the basis.for the assigned operating times is the demonstration of adequate component qualification duration to perform its intended safety function with acceptable margins.
The guidance for providing technical justification of items qualified lese than 100 days is provided in Regulatory Guide 1.89 under 4
Item 4.
Seabrook has provided the, technical justification i
i 6-j l
fe,r components qualified less than 100 days in SBN-988,
-1006, and -1024, and -1030.
7)
For'each of the following pieces of equipment, please state the reason (s) for Applicants' statements in the qualification evaluation work sheets that submergence qualification "need not be addressed" or "is not required":
a)
SkV Power Cable (Equipment Qualification File No. 113-01-01);
b)
Coaxini Cable (EQF No. 113-06-01): Instrument Cable (EQF No. 113-19-01);
c) 600V Control Cable (EQF No. 113-22-10);
d)
Electric Conductor Seal Assembly (EQF No.
118-03-01).
The statements that submergence qualification "need not be addressed" or "is not required" are based on the
. determination that all equipment included in those files is located above the postulated flood level or is not required to perform a cafety function in the submerged condition.
A field walkdown verification was performed to verify all physical plant, locations, the UE&C cable sorting system was reviewed to identify all cable codes, their associated purchase order numbers and cable reel numbers, and their opgrability code requirements were reviewed to identify submerged / equipment.
This review and evaluation is documented in Impell Letter 0570-032-NY-156.
The above-stated methodology was applied to determine'the submergence qualific'ation requirements for items a), b), c),
and d).
p-,-
-nw m - -
en,-,,-
>n,ya,.----,-
---,,--,m
,,,,--n_n--
~
t a)
SkV Power Cable (EQF No. 113-01-01) - All cable included in this file are located outside containment and'above the postulated flood level with the exception of the cables associated with pumps CBS-P-9A and CBS-P-9B located in the equipment vaults.
The pumps have been evaluated as not being required for MELB mitigation and designated as having an operability code of C for MELBs occurring in the equipment vaults.
Therefore, submergence qualification is not required.
Thus the associated c' ables do not require qualification for submergence.
b)
Coaxial Cable (EQF No. 113-06-01) - All Coaxial Cable included in this file ha's been determined by field verification to be located above the postulated flood l
level.
Therefore, submergence qualification is not
.i required.
Instrument Cable (EQF No. 113-19-01) - All Triaxial 4
Cable included in the file has been determined by field verification to be located above the postulated flood level.
Therefore, submergence qualification is not required.
c) 600V Control Cable (EQF No. 113-22-10) - This la a i
non-existent EQ File No.
We believe this to be a typographical error rpd that the intended document is l
EQF No. 113-22-01.
All cables included in this file has been determined by field verification to be located l
-g-i
O above the postulated flood level.
Therefore, submergence qualification is not require'.
d d)
Electrical Conductor Seal Assembly (EQF No. 118-03-01)
Electrical Conductor Seal Assemblies are accessories to
. specific items of equipment to which they are attached and are considered as having the same operability code and safety function as that device.
A field walkdown
' verification was performed verifying the inplant.
locations of all electrical conductor seal assemblies.
This walkdown confirmed that all electrical conductor seal assemblies are located above the postulated flood level and are not required to function during the submerged condition.
Therefore, submergence qualification is not required.
8)
Please describe the flood elevations for all parts of the Seabrook plant, and provide access ~to.all drawings and other documents that describe flood elevations at Seabrook.
Flood elevations for Seabrook Station _are provided on the Flooding Study Matrix attached hereto as Exhibit C.
The changes from the matrix attached to SBU-96263 referred to in 5(c) above were reviewed and they had no effect on the environmental qualification of any equipment.
The reference documents are listed on the Flooding Study Matrix.
All calculations are available at the UE&C Philadelphia Office.
~
9)
Please describe the methodology by which Applicants determined the flood elevations for the Seabrook plant.
Identify and provide access to all documents that describe or discuss this methodology.
_g.
1 Studies of flooding at Seabrook were performed to determine the consequences of postulated pipe ruptures both' in high (> 275 psig or 200 F) and modera,te (< 275 psi and 200 F) energy systems.
The flooding studies were performed by.UE&C in accordance.with the guidance criteria provided in NUREG-0800 Secticns.3.6.1 and 3.6.2, and the NRC Branch Technical Positions ASB3-1, and MEB3-1 attached thereto.
In additiott, industry guidance is provided in American Nuclear Society (ANS) Standard 58.2. " Design Basis for Protection of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants Against Effects of Poctulated Pipe Rupture".
Areas affected by flooding were determined by reviewing the plant arrangement drawings to determine the extent of flooding, which compartments are interconnected and by what s
means.
Once flood zones are established, the areas available for flooding are calculated by determining the
~
gross floor area, then subtracting the floor areas taken by equipment, isolated subcompartments, structural features, etc.
The resultant is the net floor area available'for flooding.
All pipelines in a given flooding zone or area are reviewed and the lines whose failure would result in the most severe flooding level were selected for consideration as the limiting failure.
The limiting pipe break failure size was determined by a prescribed methodology given in the.
ga
,7
~-ann.
--. --.- + -.
~q
\\
above standards which results in a break flow rate.
Consideration is then given to methods for detection and isolation of the break.
The limiting break is defined as the break which-discharges the greatest total volume into a given flooding area.
The total volume of liquid discharged is divided by the net floor area to determine the flood depth.
Additional' discussion is provided in TP-3, Procedure for Conducting Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Piping Failure, Revision 2, dated 01/10/86 which is available at Seabrook Station.
- 10) What is the accuracy (margin of error) of Applicants' determination of flood levels in the Seabrook plant?
The accuracy.(margin for error) in determining flood elevations is inherent in the conservative assumptions used in perforn.ing the actual flood calculations.
The following assumptions were used in flooding calculations which would provide margins for uncertainty.
1)
Pipe break opening sizes prescribed by NRC standards are conservative.
'2)
Floor areas available for receiving floodwater were reduced by conservative factors when complex floor areas were involved.
3)
A minimum time of 30 minutes was assumed to detect and isolate a broken pipeline.
4)
No credit for non-1E equipment was used to detect a flooding condition or to pump out flooded areas.,
e, n
-,m-
--n._---
.e, w --
I 5)
Only 50% of available floor drain areas were used to calculate drainage from flooded zones.
- 11) Please identify all types of accidents that'were considered in determining flood levels at the Seabrook plant.
In so doing, describe the assumptions that Applicants made regarding each type of accident and its behavior.
There are three accident categories considered in determining flood levels at Seabrook Station.
As indicated in the Flooding Matrix they are LOCA's (inside containment),
Each of these accident categories encompass numerous pipe break locations and thus numerous assumptiens.
This information is described in the particular UE&C floading calculations which are available in UE&C's Office in Philadelphia, PA.
They include the following re.ferences:
Nuclear Calc. Set # 4.3.22-07F (rev. 5)
FMEA Cales. 9763-F-FS-01 Rev. 0 9763-F-FS-02 Rev. 0 9763-F-FS-03 Rev. 0 9763-F-FS-04 Rev. 1 9763-F-FS-05 Rev. 0 9763-F-FS-06 Rev. O Piping Calc. 9-06-EN-01-F Rev. 2
- 12) For each accident described in answer to Interrogatory 11, please describe the flood level that was calculated.
There are a number of flood elevations associated with the postulated accidents for each building or flood zone.
t
The UE&C calculations referenced in response to Interrogator'! 11 provide the various flood levels associated with each accident.
The maximum flood elevation for the governing postulated accident in a building is used for design and equipment qualification purposes.
These governing flood elevations are provided in the Flooding Study Matrix provided in response to Interrogatory 8.
- 13) After determining flood level and equipment elevation, what criteria did Applicants use to determine whether equipment needed to be qualified for submergence?
Please identify and provide access to all documents that contain or discuss those criteria.
The criteria for defining equipment requiring a
submergence qualification was developed by evaluating the operability requirements fer all safety relateu equipment.
The operability requirements for Seabrook Station ere in accordance with the guidance presented in Regulatory Guide 1.89, Revision 1, Appendix E, Section 3.
Safety-related equipment was categorized into one of the following categories for each postulated design basis event.
A.
Equipment which will experience the environmental conditions of design basis accidents through which it must function to mitigate such accidents.
B.
Equipment that will experience environmental conditions of design basis accidents through which it need no,t function for mitigation of such accidents but through which it must not fail in a
- 13 1
r manner detrimental to pl' ant safety or accident' mitigation-C.
Equipment that will experience environmental conditions of design basis events through which it need not function for mitigation of such accidents and whose failure is deemed not detrimental to plant safety or accident mitigation.
D.
Equipment that has performed its safety function prior to the exposure to an accident environment and whose failure is deemed not detrimental to plant safety or accident mitigation.
- 14) What are the parameters of a " worst case" flood, and I
what are Applicants' criteria for determining what constitutes a worst case flood?
The worst case flood elevations are provided in the Flood Matrix attached in response to Interrogatory 8 and the criteria and methodology are provided in response to Interrogatory 9.
- 15) For areas outside of containment, what is. Applicants' basis for assuming that the areas will be pumped?
What systems will be available to pump the water?
Where will the water be pumped to?
Submergence qualification for the cables outside containment identified in Impell Letter No. 0570-32-NY-156 is 30 days.
Sufficient margin is included in the qualification evaluation to ensure that these areas will be pumped prior to exceeding the qualification limitation.
This concern was specifically addresse,d in SBN-lO2O
- 14.-
l
e providing the technical justification for the limited
~
submergence qualification.
The two r.reas requiring submergenc,e qualification for cables are the Main Steam & Feedwater Pipe Chase &
Mechanical Penetration Area.
Two sump pumps located in the chase sump will be used to pump the water from this area.
If these pumps are unavailable or cannot be refurbished these areas will be pumped manually by the use of portable sump pump 3.
Floor drains are provided in the mechanical
' penetration area which drain to the equipment vault sump containing two sump pumps.
If the floor drains become plugged and cannot be unplugged this area will be pumped manually.,
The water from the Main Steam and Feedwater Pipe Chase Sump is pumped to the storm drainage system.
The water from the Mechanical Penetrati6n Area is pumped from the Equipment
. Vault Sump to the Floor Drain Tanks in the Waste Processing Building to be processed.
i l
- 16) For areas outside of containment, what levels of l
radioactive contamination of floodwater have been
~
i calculated?
Those events which cause flooding'in outside containment areas are a result of HELB's and MELB's which are postulated
(
to occur during normal plant operating conditions.
Any radioactivity in the floodwater resulting from these events would be at a level associated with normal plant operating conditions.
These radiation levels would be much less than l !
l i
~
.L.
g.
the doses in those same areas resulting from the Worst case loss of coolant accident event.
Therefore, levels of radioactive contamination of floodwater for outside containment areas are insignificant, and are not calculated.
- 17) Have Applicants identified and environmentally qualified "nonsafety-related equipment" whose failure under postulated environmental conditions could prevent satisfactory accomplishmeitt of safety functions, as defined in 10 C.F.R. 50,49(b)(2)?
If so, please describe Applicants' criteria and methodology for identifying that equipment and list the pieces of equipment that fall under that definition.
It has been previously explained in response to prior interrogatories and previous testimony that our definition of the terms "important to safety" and " safety related" were the same and are used' interchangeably to identify-structures, systems or components that perform a safety function.
We further stated that there is no equipment designated "important to safety" but not safety-related.
Therefore, all equipment that must be environmentally qualified to assure it will perform its safety function is identified as safety related.
a S
- 18) Is the equipment identified under 10 C.F.R. 50.49(b)(2) distinct from " safety-related equipment," as defined in 10 C.F.R. 50.49(b)(1)?
No.
Refer to response for NECNP Item 17.
.,,4*i c.-
w Geor'ge Y. Thomas STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
- kockingham, ss.
AugustRR, 1986 Then appeared before me the above-subscribed George S.
Thomas and made oath that he is the Vice Fresident-Nuclear Production of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, authorized to execute the foregoing answers on behalf of the applicants'and that these answers are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Before me.
3 M b S N ousaar Notary P3blic
_.3 3 -lo ~ 90 b
t s
e 9
7 EXHIBIT A TO NECNP Richard Bergeron Address:
See Note #1 Employe r: New-Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (hereinafter referred to as New Hampshire Yankee)
Title:
Instrumentation & Controls Engineering Supervisor William J. Cloutier Address:
See Note #2 Employer: Yankee Atomic Electric Company
Title:
Lead Systems Engineer, Seabrook Project Joseph M. Salvo Address:
See Note #2 Employer: Yankee Atomic Electric Company
Title:
Senior Mechanical Engineer; Seabrook Project George Tsouleros Address:
See Note #2 Employer: Yankee Atomic Electric Company Title.
Lead Electrical Engineer, Seabrook Project George S. Thomas Address:
See Note #1 Employer: New Hampshire Yankee Ti tl e':
Vice President - Nuclear Production Newell K. Woodward Address:
See Note #3 Employer:
Impell Corporation
Title:
Project Engineer for Seabrook Station l
_ ~
r EXHIBIT A (Continued)
Notes:
These individuals can be reached at the fol' lowing address:
1.
Seabrook Station Laf ayette Road P. O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874 Attn: (name of individual) 2.
These individuals can be reached at the following address:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcaster Road Framingham, MA 01701 Attn:
(name of individual)
)
3.
This individuai can be reached at the following address:
Impell Corporation 225 Broad Hollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Attn:
(name of individual) b
(
8 t
-,,.y-
.y,_.
y,
1 EXHIBIT B 1.
EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION FILES EQ Fils No. 172-01-01 248-36-01 c
252-38-01 2.
APPLICANT LETTERS, PSNH Letter (SBN-886) dated October 31, 1985,
" Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment; SER Outst&nding Issue #6",
from Applicants to G.
W.
Knighton.
i
~
PSNH Letter (SBN-979) dated March 31, 1986, " Electric Separation Criteria" from Applicants to V.
S.
Noonan.
PSNH Letter (SBN-998)' dated April 10, 1986, " Response to Environmental Qualification Audit Observation" frem' Applicants to V.
S.
Noonan.
PSNH Letter (SBN-1005) dated April 16, 1986, " Mechanical Equipment' Qualification" from Applicants to V. S.
Noonan.
PSNH Letter (SBN-1031') dated May 7, 1986, " Environmental Qualification; Evaluation Worksheets" from Applicants to V.
S. Noonan.
PSNH Letter (SBN-1061) dated May 16, 1986, " Response to Environmental Qualification Audit Observation IE Information Notice 86-03" from Applicants to V. S.
Noonan.
PSNH Letter (SBN-1081) dated June 1, 1986, " Mechanical Equipment Qualification (MEQ)" from Applicants to V.
S.
Noonan.
/
PSNH Letter (SBN-1090) dated June 5, 1986, " Steam Line Break Evaluation" from Applicants to V.
S. Noonan.
PSNH Letter (SBN-1107) dated June 13, 1986, " Electrical separation criteria:
Additional Information" from Applicants to V.
S.
Noonan.
PSNH Letter (SBN-1126) dated June 20, 1986, "IE Information Notice No. 86-02" from Applicants to V. S.
Noonan.
.~.
a
T' PSNH Letter (SBN-1127) dated. June 20, 1986, "NRC EQ Completion Letter" from Applicants to V.
S. Noonan.
3.
USNRC DOCUMENTS Regulatory Guide 1.75, Rev.
2, dated September 1978, "Phystral Independence of Electric Systems" Regulatory Guide 1.89, Rev.
1, dated June 1984,
" Environmental Qualification of Certain Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants" Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev.
3, dated May 1983,
" Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident" NUREG-0588, Rev.
1, dated July 1981, " Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment" NUREG-0896, Supplement No.
5, dated July 1986, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2" 10 CFR 50.49 I
4 2-
. _,., - ~ ~ _, - - -
EXHIBIT C Sheet 1 of 2 SEABROOK STATION FLOODING STUDY MATRIX i
REFERENCE ELEV.
REFERENCE ELEV.
REFERENC E -
f BUILDING
' LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL i
CONTAINMENT
(-)2'O'-8" Calc.
N/A N/A 1
.5'-4" 4.3.22.7F
(-)26'-0" l
Rev. 5.
l l
Calc.
EQUIPMENT VAULTS N/A
(-)SS'-ll" 9763-F-FS-03 N/A' Sheet 5
(-)61'-0" 5'-1" I
Calc.
l Calc.
j PAB N/A
(-)21'-6" 9763-F-FS-01
(-)23'-1": 9763-F-FS-02 Summary Item Summary Item t
(-)26'-0" l
. 4'-6"
- 1 2'-11"
- 4 f
Calc.
D.G. BUILDING N/A
(-)6'-6" 9763-F-FS-05 N/A I
Summary Item
(-)l6'-0" l
19'-6" max.
- 4 l
Calc.
Calc.
j M.S. & F.W. PIPE CHASE N/A 3'-9 3/8" 9-06-EN-01-F 5'-5" 19763-F-FS-04 (W)
Summary Item 4
i 3'-0" 0'-9 3/8" 12'-5"
- 4 Calc.
- Based on M.S. & F.W. PIPE CHASE N/A 3'-8" 9-06-EN-01-F 5'-5" l West Chase l
(E)
(Conservative) 3'-0"
! 0'-8" 12'-5"
)
Calc.
l NECH. PENET. AREA N/A
(-)-25'-11" 9-06-E N-01-F j
Bounded by l
(-)34'-6" 8'-7" Failure in 1
PAB Calc.
TANK FARM N/A Diked 9-06-EN-01-F N/A l
l I
Not Calc.
FUEL STORAGE BLDG.
N/A Calculated 9-0 6-EN-01-F.
N/A 3
(Not required) l l
}
-n e
i I
l l
1 l
2 fo 2
E C
t N
s E
m R
h E
S FE B R L
EH l
l 1
l VE LE A
A A
A A
/
/
/
/
/
N N
'N N
N L
E VEL l
\\
F F
6 E
0 C
1 1
N 0
0 S
E F
R N
N E
.E
.E
.F FE c6 c6 c3 R
l 0 l0 l 6 B
a-a-
a7 L
C9 C9 C9 E
X M
I V
4 R
E
/
NT L
1 OA E
I M 2
C T
2 4
A A
AY
/
/
/
/
T TD 1
7 1
N N
I SU L
2 B
T E
2~
0 2
l KS V
i O
E X
OG L
'0 0
0 i
E RN 1
l l
L C
F NE R
E F
ER AC O
L VEL E
A A
A A
A
/
/
/
/
/
N N
N N
N lE V
E 'e L
ll 1
l l.
1 l
P K
R M
0 N
E U
A W
T O
E G
P S
N 7
T U
I 2
T 0
D W
T G
N 1
S N
E l
C l
F I
V P
U
. E L
E M
B Y
T O
U C
A O
G P
L N
S C
s N
O E
N I
R GE E
D W
T RS DA W
L N
E0 NE I
O M0 OR U
S C
E1 CA S
1 B
i l:
l!
- 1 I'
,.I t\\!
!:1i
!;ji t
!}l;
c DOLMETED USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 16 NE 27 A10:40 I, Thomas G.
- Dignan, Jr.,
one of the attorneys for-the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on August 22, 1986 I
made service of the within document by depositing ' coq 'Ek,{fjy' thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery f6 FRMICW where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):
Administrative Judge Sheldon J.
Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Attorney General Commission 25 Capitol Street East West Towerr Building Concord, NH 03301-6397 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Board of Selectmen Hampe and McNicholas Town Office 35 Pleasant Street Atlsntic Avenue Concord, NH 03301 North Hampton, NH 03862 Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Harmon & Weiss Director Suite 430' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
Tenth Floor Washington DC 20009 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516
-Washington, DC. 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 M
8 g
\\
E
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Ed Thomas Board Panel FEMA, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 442 John W. McCormack Post Commission Office and Court House Washington, DC 20555 Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 Paul /McEachern, Esquire Carol-S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. B ro,ck, Esquire Assistant Attorney. General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney General 25 Me.plewood Avenue One Ashburton Place, 19th, Floor P.O. Box 360.
Boston, MA 02108 Portsmouth, NH ' 03801 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Mr. Peter J. Matthews Holmes & Ells Mayor 47 Winnacunnet Road City Hall Hampton, NH 03841 Newburyport, MA 01950 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A.
Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City' Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801
,
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S.
Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr.
J.
P.
Nadeau 1 Pillsbury Street Selectmen's Office Concord, NH 03301 10 Central Road (Attn:
Herb B6ynton)
Rye, NH 03870 Mr. Thomas F.
Powers, III Mr. William S.
Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall l
10 Front Street Friend Street-Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 H.
Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 1
j
._ ~
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Judith'H.' Mizner, Esquire Aesistant Attorney General Silvergate, Gertner,. Baker Department of the Attorney General Fine, Good & Mizner
-Augusta, ME 04333 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110
~
f
/
Thomes G.*15%Jr.
- = Ordinary U.S.
First Class Mail.
f C
2 l
t l
_