ML12333A266

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response to Request for Information Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Unit 1. Part 2 of 2
ML12333A266
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 11/27/2012
From:
Pacific Gas & Electric Co
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
DCL-12-118
Download: ML12333A266 (210)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:, I, EqlJipnlent ID No Class: f! Equipment

== Description:==

Aux. Bldg Venmatkm SuPPly fans .. -' .. "--.... -" .... _ .. ,,_.-.... __ .*. _._-_ ...... _-_ .. _--------_ ... _---------------- Location: Building: AoorEI. HQ Room, Area: l-BFS-31 Manufacturer. model. Etc. Buffalo Forge Company BL-AEBOEOll 72P-11504Al Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an Item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the following questions may be used to reccird the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e,ls the Item one of the 50% of SWElltems requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent. broken. missing or loose hardware?

Wedge washers were used for some of the anchor bolts. Judged to be ok based on tolerances during construction.

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

Anchors are coated; no corrosion Is present. 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks In the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consIstent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies If the Item Is one oftha 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification Is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations.

is the anchorage free of potentially adverse conditions? (9) 6/8 H anchor bolts were used for the fan and motor skids. No concerns found. Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? There Is adequate clearance for all soft targets. 8. Are overhead equipment. distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the eqUipment? Conduit and piping running over the fan are adequately supported. Fluorescent lights in the area have positive anchorage (no S-hooks). No ceiling tiles or block walls In the area. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoId damage? Flexible conduit run Into the fan motor. 10. Based on the above seismic Interaction evaluations, fs eqUipment free of potentially adverse seismic Interaction effects? No Interactions noted in the walkdown. Other Adverse Conditions N y y y NfA y y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismlo conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page lof15 Status: EqlJllprrlent ID No Class: Equipment

== Description:==

Aux. Bldg VenWation Supply Fans ..... _._--_._-_. ---' -_ .. _----.. .*.... ........ . . ...... _ .. __ .... _----------_.--_. __ .. _ ......... _-----_ .. _-_ ........... _-_._--. -'-_."-'-Comment: Adhesives on some run wire for vibraUon monitoring were worn out. Judged to be acceptable (no seIsmic concerns). System engineer was notified. Eyaluated by' KTM Jlat!t. . SMM Page 2 of 15 Equlpmemt 10 No j.Q EquIpment

== Description:==

Control Room Ventl1atjon SUQply fans location: BUilding: 8IDOO1mt FloorS. jM Room, Area: Manufacturer, model Etc. --_ ... __ ....* Insiructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an Item of equipment on the SWEl. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the 'end of this checklist for doell.manting other comments.

--.*. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, is the Item one of the' 50% of SWEl items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken. missIng or loose hardware'?

Unit is welded to stiffened channel sections that run along erther side. The side channels are each bolted to the floor by (4) 112 u embedded anchors. Additional support for the Inlet-side extension is also provided.

3. Is the anchorage free of oorrosion that is more than mrld surface oxidation?

Surface corrosion noted on support channel on North Side of unit. Small area of severe corrosion on norlheast of the Gail seafion (has no Impact on function of fan). 4. Is the anchorage free of vIsible cracks [n the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: this question only applies If the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is reqUIred.) .6. Based on the above anchorage Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions? -The vendor welds between the base frame of the unit and the four sheet metal base angles Is quite small In some CBses. The smalfestwslds afe 1-112" long 118"fillel weld on the Inside and a 1-112" long 1116" effective soom weld on the outside. It was found that the as-built calculation DHV-1.3 conslde($d the welds as 1-518" long 3/16" effective welds at both ends. For disposition see Attachment

1. Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby eqUipment or structures?

No visible soR targets. The motor for the belt-driven fan Is mounted directly on the unit. 6. Are overhead eqUipment. distribution systems, caning tiles. and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Conduit piping. flnd room Oghtlng well supported.

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equIpment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Flexible jOints connect the fan to both the Inlet and outlet-slde dueling. Other AdverAA CorujijipnS
11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the equipment? . Electrical connection to solenoid valve (VAC-1-SV-5019) on North side ofooit section Is tJeryweak and unsupported length of conduft to valve Is relatively long. Fordlspas/f/on see Attachment
2. N y y y NfA y y y y y y Page 1 of 11 I i°.-i I L i Seismic Walkdo1lVl1 Chedclist (SWC) Status: Equipmen t ID No DC-1-23-M-BF-S-35 Equipmen t Class: .1Q Equipmen t Desc r iption: Control Room Ventilation Supply Fans Comment: Includes Cooling Coil Unit DC-1-23-M-HX-C35 which Is Integral with the Fan UnIt and supported by It. El!alllll!edlW: J? ;4 ORe

'o!t-}/'Z-y Page 2 of 1 7 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Attachment The weld sizes of connecting steel angle between the fan and the base skid are smaller than the analyzed. Evaluation: 1 3 The supply fan 8-35 is safety reJated. The seismic evaluation of the connecting angle is documented in seismic legacy calc # DHV-1.3, Pages 54 thru 61. The" connecting angle Is L 1-1/2x2x3/16, which connects the supply fan and base skid. The skid Is anchored to the concrete floor. Based on the original field walk down, the weld size between the supply fan and connecting angle is fillet weld 3/16". 1-1/2" long on both sides. The connecti0n between the angle and base skid are %11 fa bolt and a 3/16" fillet weld with Bit long. However, the field down has found that the weld size between the supply fan and connecting angle Is smaller than that shown In seismic calculatjon. The weld sizes are fillet welds 1/8 1f on the left side and 1116" on the right side (see sketch on Page 2). The as-found condition is evaluated as shown on Page 3. The results show that the as-found condition has significant margin. Therefore. the as-found condition has no adverse effects on the seismic qualification of supply fan 8-35. Therefore, this condition does not Impact the operation of DCPP. Recommendation: Revise calculation no. DHV-1.3 to address the actual weld configuration. Notification Required: Yes (50511891) Evaluated by; _____ _ Reviewed by: Power Unit Equipment No. Attachment 1, I V %f /i1J(/;c[.y 2 3 Equipment No. DC-1-23-M-BF-S-35 Weld between the angle and supply fan: Weld size: fillet weld 1/8" (left) and 1/16" (right) Weld length: 1-1/2" on each side. Electrode: E60XX, 60 ksi Power Allowable: .707*{1/B + 1/16)* 1.5x.3*60

= 3.58 kips The shear forces on the welds (see Sheet 60 of DHV-1.3) Longitudinal:

1590 Ibs due to uplift Transverse: 9851bs due to EW seIsmic 1.59+0.985=2.575kips < 3.58 kips "0K II Attachment 3 3 Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) Diablo Canyon PoW e r Plant, Unit 1. E quipm e ht No. DC-1-23-M-BF-S-35 Attachm e nt 6., Page 1 of 1 Lice n sing Basis E v aluation The electrical conduit providing power to solenoid valve no. SV-501 9 (located in the cooling coil supply piping on the north side of Fan No. S-35 , is not well supported in the lateral direction. EValuation: The valve (DC-1-23-I-SV-SV-5019) is Design Class I and is seismically qualified. The valve controls the flow of Freon th r ough the cooling coils for the supply fan (see drawing no. 102023, sheet 17 , coordinate C-176). The potential exists for the conduit t o impose loading on the solenoid ope r ato r during a seismic event. The instrumentation schematic for the valve control (see drawing no. 102035, sheet 24H, coordinate E-:240H) indicates that the valve control is "Energize to Open". Therefore, loss of power or damage to the solenoid operator could result in unintentional closure of the valve, arid loss for Freon ffow to the cooling coils. However, the as-found instaHed conoition is in accordance w i th the requirements of DeM T -8 (Design Class IE Electrical Raceway Supports) and Drawing No. 050029 (Notes, Symbols and Typical Details for & Wires), which permits a maximum conduit cantilever length of 4 feet beyond the last support (drawing 050029, sheet 138, Note 41) (the actual cantilever l engtltis 35.4" per field measurement) and requires the installation of flexible conduits (drawing 050029, sheet 10, Note 25) (there is 7-1/2" of flexible conduit per field measurement) at all connections "to motors" and "instrument devices" (e.g., the solenoid-operated valve). Therefore, the installation is per the design requirements .. Recommendation: Acceptable as-is. Notification Required: No N Equipment ID No PC-1-23-M-BF-S-43 Equipment Class: .e. Equipment

== Description:==

4BO-V Switchgear VantHatioo Supply fans location: Building: Floor EI. .w.a Room. Area: Manufacturer. model, Etc. Instructions for Completing' Checklist This checkHst may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of a.'n {tern of equIpment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist fOf documenting other comments. Ancboragg

1. Is the anchorage configuratron verification requIred (I.e. Is the Item one of the 50% of SWEL Items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

Anohor bolts are Intact. Bolts oonneoting the fan support saddles to the base pedestal are intaot. 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation? See comments sect/on y y N 4. Is the anchorage free of visIble cracks in the concrete near the anchors? Y No concrete craoks obsElIIved

6. Is the anchorage configuration consistent wIth plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the Item Is Y one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification fs reqUired.)

The fen anchorage cOnfiguration Is consistent wJth the design Information

6. Basad on the above anohorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

y The conneotlon of the fan to the pedestal Is degraded due to corrOSion, but as-found condition Is acceptable. See comments seclfon. Interaction Effegts 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? No credible interaction sources 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? No overhead oomponents. 9, Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Flex conduit Is adequate. No slgnifioant relalive displaoements are expeoted.

10. Basad on the above seismic Interaob"on evaluations, Is equipment free ofpotentiaJIy adverse seismic interaction effeots? Other Adyers@ Conditions y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment?

Page 1 of 10 seismic '"tall<<kllvvn ChE!aClst ( Status: N Equipment rD No PC=1-23-M-BF-S-43 Equipment Class: .a Equipment Desoription: 48Q..V Switchgear Ventijatloo Supply Fans Comment; The bottom flanges of (he fan saddle supporls have significant corrosion. Steel material has delaminated. Also significant corrosion of the interior 1" wide lip of the pedestal base plate. Sudace corros;oo was also Ob$eNed on the bollom edge of the panineter of the pedestal base plate, on the stiffener plates, and anchor bolts.Corrosfon obseNed on the bottom of the transition p/6ce between the damper and the fan. The as-found condltlon of the ste61 saddle supporlls acceptable for s61smlo loading. At the seollon with the significant corrosion, suffioient sound material remains to resist the se/smlo forcos. See Attaohm6nt No. 1 for disposition. Evaluated by' 10/ "t4;/ 'to 11-ORe IO/Z;/ fl., Page 2 of 10 I ! . i Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) D i a blo C a nyon Powe r Plant Un i t-.L E q ui pm e nt N o. D C-1-2 3-M-B F-S-4 3 Licensing Basis Evaluation A tt a chm e nt 1 , Page 1 of 1 Significant cQrro$ionand metal qelamination on saddle support, corrosion on base plate ancfsfif(ene r plates, corrosion on transition from fan to dampe r. Eva l uation: The corrosion is pr i marily on the metal surface , resulting in paint loss and some flaking of the base metal, but does not result in a significant loss in metal area. A review of the seismic calculation (D-HV-1.8-1) indicates that the stress levels in the base and pedestal are very low relat i ve to the allowable stresses. Therefore, the corros,ion does not compromise the stru.ctural integrity of the fan and it will be able to perform its intended fUnct i ons. Recommendation: C l ean anq reeoat corroded areas. Evaluated by: _""'---I IF-T_fl-'+r----t-"---=----= ____ q--4-L'2-_l4-1-I_ .. rL ________ Reviewed by: _--rot"-J-A"----+----..:. --'<--':::...-_______ -:-/-t0I_u-fI_'L_* _________ _ EqlJlipmlent Class: Control Room Ventilation Air Conditionjng Condensers location: Building: Auxiliary FloorEI. 1M Room, Area: Manufacturer t model, Etc. Trare lnstructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist f9f documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (Le, is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
2. (s the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

The unit Is bolted to (4) base structural channel members by (4) 1/2" bolts (1 at each comer of the main sectfon). This appears to be the weak point in the anchorage load path. Each of the stiffened support channels is bolted to the raised concrete pad by (2) 112tr bolls (8 total). The inlet extension has an additional support at the two corners that provIde vertical and lateral restraint. These are welded to the embedded angle frame that envelopes the raised pad. 3. is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation? Moderate level of surface corrosion aI/ around base of unit as well as the anchor bolts. The pneumatic actuators as well as the copper tubing and brazed copper pipe are a/so moderately corroded.

4. Is the anchorage free of vIsible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)

Anchorage is consistent with drawing 443333*1.

6. Based on the above anchorage evalUations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? Soft targets limited to small d;ameter copper tubing and a/l overhead items appear to be adequately anchored.

8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles. and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the eqUipment? . Room lighting supported by pipe sections with balJ and socket connections, or in one case closed hOOk. All have safety chains for additional protection.

Reinforced masonl)l wall forming West wall of room has additional support at both the base and the top. Conduit and pipe in room is well supported.

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoId damage? Flexible hose connections at all connections to unit. 10. Based on the seismic interaction evaluations, is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? other Conditions
11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the equipment?

y y y y y y y y y y y Page 1 of 20 Seisnic Walkdown Checklist (S\VC) Status: Y Equipment ID No DC-1-23-M-HX-CR35 Equipment Class: 10 Equipment

== Description:==

Control Room Ventjlation Air Condit i oning Condensers

. __ .. -----.--..* -_._------_._--

Eval u a t e d by: IOI,s/ZO I l-Page 2 of 20 f .l Equipment Class: Z Equipment

== Description:==

4SO-Y SwItchgear Ventilation Shutoff (DIscharge) Dampers location: Building: FloorEI. Room, Area: Manufacturer! model, Etc. Quality AIr peslgn Moo aotuatQr ....... _-_ .. Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Saismlc Walkdown of an Item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documentIng other comments. AnchQrage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (I.e, Is the Itam one ofibe 60% of SWEL Items reqUiring such verificatlon)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

No bent, broken or miSsing hardware.

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that )s more than mild surface oxidation?

Mild surface corrosion. See Attachment No. 1 for disposition.

4. Is the anchorage free of vlstble cracks In the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: thIs question only applies If the Item Is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification Is requIred.)
6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentIally adverse seismic condUions? (ntaractlon Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures?

No likely interaction sources. 8. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems, ceiling tHes, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Ductwork Is braced and anchored.

9. po attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Both the fan and attached duct have vel}' stiff supports.
10. Based on the above seIsmic Interaction evaluations.

Is equipment free ofpot'entlaUy adverse seismic Interaction effects? Otber Adverse Conditions N y y N/A N/A y y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seIsmic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equlpment? Page lof9 , I l Status: Y EquIpment Class: Z Equipment DescrIption: 480-Y Swftchgear Ventilation Shutoff (DIscharge) oampers Comment: 1-FCV-5045Is a line mounted damper. The actuator unit Is mounted on the norlh side of the damper. The damper Is mounted In-line between fan 1-543 and the duct. Mild to significant corrosIon was observed on the supporlfng steet. linkage, ductfng, damper. and ducl support base plate. See Attaohment No. 1 for dIsposition. Evaluated by: OKN ;' ,.-(/ i() I "24 2... ORe fl. Page 2. of9 Seismic Wa l kdown Checklist (SWC) D iabl o CC;lnyon P o wer Pl a nt, Un i t J.-Eq u ipm e n t No. D C-1-2 3-P-D-V A C-1-F C V-5045 1, P age 1 of1 Licens i ng Basis Evaluat i on Issue: Varying cfegrees of (sLJrface to significant) of coatings and material degraqation was noted on damper and actuator. *Material corrosion was noted on the supporting steels mechanica/linkages , ducling , base plates and to top cover of the damper housing. Evaluation: The condition as note do no t affect seismic qualification of the component to perform its functioh based on the current inspections. Recommendation: The coatings/corrosion needs to be cleaned, Inspected, and repaired. Notification Requ i red: Yes (50510116) Evaluated by: t {k",C? Reviewed by: Jt Location: FloorEL 154 Area: 1-CP-35 Manufacturer, Etc. Barber Colman Electric Actuator instructions for Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the foHowirig questions be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting ",thor-.I"'t"\f"nn'""",.,f", 1. Is the verification required is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items ",. ** , .... such N verification)? The ,.." ..... are off the floor. 2. Is the ..... ,.",,.,,o of bent, or loose hardware? y 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation? y 4. Is the am)horagre free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? y 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question onlyapp[[es if the item is N/A one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.) Actuator frame and is consistent with 513521-1.

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the free of potentialfy adverse seismic conditions? . Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures?
8. Are overhead equipment.

distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment?

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations.

is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction y y y y y Other Adverse ConditiQns

11. Have looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the and bottom add substantial see Attachment
1. to the system fs Comment: Evaluated by: 10 2 14 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Power Unit Attachment 1 1 18 Motor Operated Da.mper DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-10 was modWed by adding structural steel channel stiffeners (approximately 19# per linear foot) on thf!! top and bottom of the. damper. The channel sections also extend to and $tiffen the damper immediately adjacent to MOO-10 Reference PG&E Drawfng 59353 for a layout of the dampers. The concern is that the heavy channel stiffeners may adversely impact the seismic qualification of the ducting/ducf supports associated with the MOD Dampers. Evaluation:

A review of the seismic calculation for the dueting/duct supports with the MOD Dampers (Calculation HV-86 1 Revision 0) shows that the additional mass from the channel sections was not considered in the qualification of the dueting/duet supports. A copy of calculqtion has been revised (marked up) such thqt it now accounts for this mass. This markup is found under sheets 2 thru 18. The mf:lrk up demonstrates that the dueting/duct wOIJJd remain seismically qualified (with significant margin) if the additional mass from the channel' stiffeners is considered. Therefore, this condition has no impact on the operation of DCPP. Recommendation: Calculation HV-86 will require formal revision to account for the additional mass from the channel stiffeners. Notification Required: Yes Eval\lated by: /llifj!AA Reviewed by: '\JU(l.\t\ \Of ZZl"L Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit...:L Equipment No. DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-10 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 18 "..,.,.. ... . IM}_ A4 Je GE-nRAL CDMPUTATtON SMUT =- 11 IJrRr ..svlfJt}lflrtfYAUlD1CN*Ae/X/t./IfItt M"II .. -2 t!MI'I _1Ir. /iii _.v.' ____ _

  • _ III /l1.Z t. . -( 'h. ",. II?

(/) ; (j) ) . .. '48 '" :2(7) f !!. -I .. ,(7rlf.tI)Ct)(.tJII!i(&"'t'4'1tJJ!;J)c lag", . ' { '!'" Dr :M1.I!f!f' of (i4; V7f@) ,E,.." . " .

, ,,;6 :1'8 .Z!:.

..... : . of Yt. JI.",IC . . . ". 7(.4.# . " .. ",,) .... .. (fi. IIJ1' '-If tt,'" .MtmTllIIAI. IfA. ' * .. '. 'IIIfJ lfJ,"I(!/fI.t.tk.lt:l'.)..

  • I 'f') ; '0( .'

-, . " . ",151' ; IIlJ 11 -. . : o :. (II;..JIIT

-f/IWI -+ .u) c {Ft. J's ..

f + ':71, II" '13'/..s # . . ,: ;(PJ.;;;7;;. II. (ISC +. _T ,itl' . I&. It 1-40:1-.". . ('!:till' '1' ill 1"-,.-) fI: 1'" .. ". 'fI.¢ #: J!.j, .: of 0,:: k "",we! (.ts mm ",61#1 " .Q:X ** J:ff' # 1':-1-7.'o/,;:t: ' . .... '(p. 4.) . 1-.54-.$&.,;

  • 1:: 1f!>>J:" (pr1S-t:1) . /1 t:-n lI,n4-3;./f:FI,.nKj'%!M.'!

% ;:;:¥:. /::IY::. .qz" ;:"1&, c,. +J !1 fotf¥..1fZ ./;::7;7= J' J.& I '!SA;' : , ! Markups By: BM04 I*91!1111 Tn1ml:arv !eight for Duct Support No. 30 P4=176.41bs. P3);:: * (31lbs. + 171bs.) '" S2lbs. + "" 391bs.)= t44.S Ibs. !oS(Pt} ::: 38.21bs. P;o ... 176.41bs + 144:.5 Ibs + 521l?s .. 3t21bs. == 411.llbs. adding fwD 70":tiJ!mm atw 0:: 19""" P'30=411.l1bs. + m lbs. % .. S22I41U""1m! . Tribwryweightf or DuetSllDpOrtNg,33N I'll =210.01bs. + PEl + P14) 110: I l.1lbs. + 138,4 Ills. '" 391&!.) 0:; 144S Ibs. P7)-lh{111.7lbs. + 13M tbs. +39 Ibs.}=144.5 k 1':13 = 210.0 Ibs+ 2 x 144.5 lbs+ 38.21bs. == 531llbs. oddlngtwo 70" stiffonmat It' -19 P4 % increase:: 648537.2 = 121% lISe 1270/\1. Sheet 3181 1.....3. w .....3. CD Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) Diablo Canyon Power Plant , Unit l Equipment No. DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-10 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 18 t:! Q t e 3 a 0 v a m $ &;-II {5 it :t 'I (1 oS 0 i , . """ , r ; ,,, .:; \1 II] . II , t i 1 ! : I ' ...... t!.(:<';_.t' ,-,.C' " b>#:.: .. 5f'.:::!T .. .. ._.;"",_. J!I.!Y. t!J * .$, -.-2(v:'. ., $)" /j',.." !..:: * .:.a' _.. ME!M;::e'Je ... __ _ -=::-:-1 . .

  • r , .

/.! t';t:;" fi!JI! rJC:o:r;,!. I ;.: I * ... j . . . . A = J',.. i . .... -'J , 1: *. B'-,';'; ::

-.' ..... ""-_... . .-....... --...... --'-"" ._; --I' AX/lit.. . . ,_ --,;i;iJ/':-: '-:_' ; "i. ...... --.. ' ... .. --*.;:.......-t?,."7.:;*./G!/.. ---I : "1,,/ I :.;; /:A. ., , ._ .. " ,-----.--, . __ " . . I: M *. ..' j 71>'' 7fL .=, -.= .* -2,*n4--k;o*' , ' .. : _ ': . .; f?cr=.-/,i'-t-:: b 7)'-S:;;;6'6 , i.t?-W: J.. , 2.tJ71. __ . , .. '!.::7 I , .... ... {ij ,. Markups By: BM04 Iotmction Equation:

0.14(111) = 0.18 < 1.0ck. Date: 91271 1 2 Sb=34/8 1 rl . .c c: -0" 3 Cl) a z p o () I -'" I '" CN -1J I o <: >> C) I o CJ I o >> :::= s:u o =r 3 (1) ::J ...... 1J s:u co (1) CJ1 a -'" OJ (J) CD en" 0 3 or c)" tT 0' C) m Il) " ::s '< 0.. 0 0 ::s '"C :E 0 :J' =E (1) () -s '"C ::T iU CD ::s 0 r " C '-_ . ::s en .;:+ 1-'" (J) () --- .... K ** (;E: IEI\!lL CO!.l'prl[t.'7t C H .. .. :-.Jd $'2-"/ '",' ". __ _ \:.IlJ;-17 ':; 'g , ... ': : -: = __ j , -'.' n*", . ' . :f . L f _-=2i : ... . .-__ ...

  • ___ .I --" ...

.-.; ..... *'i.7_:6' . ._ -". -;' __ .... -_ -___ , f). _ ..... .. _ .. ! " ,.. J.' .": . _._%;' . .. i<<:; ' _._'\ . ,_ .. _J,j.! .s.t; .e .. Markups By: BM04 .-. .. , ----,---1 ......... 1 ;£Z/!-Sj $4 . , ' Iiltcractjon Eqnation: . r:-' .-)--1: ( ,_,, __ . .--: ':.'.-!.If:-:-: ... : O:S5(12?G.4)=O.70<1.O ok. L..3 ",:t#6' ..5; . Cb.ec1:L3JC3xSJl6'" _ fi:: ' ---:;:r:: 19,70{J.27) =25.0 bi < 34.56 ksi o k. ,'. 1 Date:9f1.1112 Sbeet351S1 m .0 r:: -0' 3 CD ;a. Z P a o I I N W I -p a < f; I I $: o CJ I -J. o s:u (') ::J 3 CD ;:, -I-J. -0 Q) co CD m a (X) en CD. 00 0 3 _. Dr (') t:r 0-n m g) " ;:, '< C-o 0 ;:, -0 0 ::l (') ..., -0 ::T a;-CD ::l (') .-+ . 25: c :;, 00 ;:::;: ,.... \--,.-... (J) (') '-' Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) D i ablo Canyon PoWer Plant. Unit...1. equipment No. DC-1-23-P-O-VAC-1-MOD-10 Attachment 1 Page 7 of 18 M 0'\ C5 m 6; i , i I i 6 I ,,: .g l :g .:.! 0 ('l V 10( on \0 cq ..!.! 0 () 11 !q Q V '00 C) 0 d II II (:::-i ::! f:' .f Q l c) Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit-.L Equipment No. DC-1-23-P-O-VAC-1-MOO-10 Attachment 1 Page 8 of 18 r. .. ;:F V g C> i d II >-co R ::S. "CI i! ",. -=! :E 0 t 1 Seismic Walkdowri Checklist (SWC) D i ablo Canyon Power Plant Unit ..:quipment No'. DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-10 Attachment 1 t:! j;::; Q g &i-:s. .a :!E -;-------. , 1 f. g ! .j .s Page 9 of 18 5 v 0 u fi d J ,., ; ! i, -"" :;:. r'" j!lJr/d! ..... _ .. 5N!E: T J.,.;tf!, J)ut:;.( . .;:..vi:) * ;".'i"," , _.. .* , " ,",i" r

  • if.t/ _ *.. ... v "-1-. If,!:: 6--' -, ""'_'1 :? c:' , ... :.::"'.;: .. ; ... *X:!. . .Afi .. ..

/."'f).-=L ... ** 7 J'(J./:'.f'1

'I
;; .to , , , :

I ,..";. "". iii ;1"6", 7llJ . *oCf J" Cj33 r: ""y /-:;'/ "::"0*. rt.;: . ., ..... _ .,._-1. .... j .. ,. tfS..:x. .. fbI: r;; .:;j';';:. t:l2iG ,I'"*a-';S'4 . )ai' Markups By: BM04 IIJTC;l.d,r" ,,*d, i .' .=. _ ....... ' , .. _ ..... ...... _ Jnterac:tionEquation: 7,9 L; . ."'"' ,... . . J"-'" T .. '., _.. 0.24(1.27)=0.30<LO '£0,$' .' ..... ;;, _-........ '_'; e.'1ZC'::!.- r,/U 1 Uf.t'eu: Date:9/27fJ2 Sbeet46f81 o t m .0 c: "0' 3 CD :::s ..... Z 9 o (") I -'I. I N W I "'0 I o I ('") I I :s;: o o I o m (1 ::r' 3 (J) ::s ..... "'0 Q,) CQ <D 0 0 -... OJ en (1) en 0 3 iir (') 0'" 0' (") m :::s '< C-O 0 ::s '1J 0 ::l <D (). ..., ::g :::r f.}) CD ::s (') ..... -C ::s (J) ';::;': ..-+ ..-.. en (') "'-'" Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit...L equipment No. DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-10 Attachment 1 Page 11 of 18 N ! C:! ..,. ! v 0 '0 :: r"i en Q >-*. S= P c:Q "j a ::J §' .'" .$ :E d I. Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) Diablo Canyon Pbwer Plant. Unlt-L Equipment No, 0 Attachment 1 Page 12 of 18 , ........ --, -. ]1' ;; " I I I i i I I I I j I . 1 13 18 £ ... /.. ' "£"'; 6. J. i: . (; e (; (I i c. 7" (I.Il" 1oI,::'£T ',.\ "" .;";1" .1&. ::: '. Markups By: BM04 Date: 9127112 :',.', .... ,,'; .. " f j (.:: .. /Iw!c- -.* -.. , ,, -. .1SN _ -.. ., -= "...-. _; * ,. . . ---I', 2--" r : ' .-.. ,"..' . , . ..!! 18'.": 1 l pller

  • DUetSbeetSIIeSS

_ t .flN ....... i!-;:7;96 i . ."_ .. : -:..,_ 1I.739ksi (1.27) = 15.0 bi <M6(30bIj or 23.80 ksi ok .. . -! _. _: .. ='" ... >>: /3. <-Ile"'i'.e j ' . -';;:r .---....... ShearS1ress , .--.' .-:--.. --'-'-' o f---* : :::: .. ... -1 j .. .... '2-:; O.183(1.27)'=I().99'1<si<0.58F.=17.4ksiok.. r'j_'" . ... -_e:',?.;;...k< ,!>t;:;, ... r,;,-:i/-X-t, , 'f ... .t'f1;-. , .;! .o k. .--:;:-* ... ............J, ,.t ,if .I¢.:D " T """. *. ':7: ...... -b ei'i:.7 ..:s["r-/'l" oI.l!: ,'Y{! .. x-44'17?,0.1:. ./4 :t)uCr .... -.. + .. --, .. ... , ,'" .. ' . _. ___ .. ' 4:-.. 5-"'. "" . I"?: ** ... ./.::' .. --.. : , it:,. .*f* >J. ., --,' ----:..::.. .*Q-4X-,:=, (4:;-1 M __ . ; . . Zf l "'4-if'B;;".S ;;"i,1' ... ,,*k --___ ------1 m ..0 C -0' 3 CD ::J ,..... z 'Sheet 52'81 9 0 ('") I I f\.) (J.) I "0 I 0 I en CD (') en I 3 I s: 0 0 iir 0 0 0-I 0-0 0 !U Q) ::J '< C-O :J "0 0 ::J () Q) "'0 .::::r ' 0 m CD ::r :J 0 3 .r+ CD C ::s -::l en ;::e: ...... ..-.. en "0 () Q) '-" CO CD a co Seismic Walkdown CheckHst (SWC) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit_1 ":quipment No. DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-10 Attachment 1 Page 15 of 18 r:=: 4> 1iJ A ..,. 0 :: CI/) m .C:: ii IA f 1'0 :a :: -< a :E! II g l2 II. J2 00 -.1 1' ',;:. u "'t

,':*.!t '!:! .,w .:!to'!l'!;;; .t,oJ" *.* $0: * ..'.8'(", * .,. ,-J, /ly#j, G E' N F .L.L :'!ri" i 1> L r-r ,'\.T 1
, *fT ." .. ;

Hv4'G --** .. .. . " /.k::T "".. ... , ..*. " .. ve f-, '; .. , " ,--_._.--, .. -" .. ., ;f /$," r e:tl!1 CI'l" .. :De,., r? -t//t::e*.,.. C..':IIt:.I';. ./:.: r,..,( Tf--,! . Markups By: 8M04 Date: '9127112 Duct Sheet Stresses ' .. . <': 7.956ksi (1.27>>10.10 'ksi<O.96 Fyor28;8ksi ok ; .'. ) ..... ... .... ... ) : 11 ShearStresses ,-.... : . fi,,:;, .,.t"4.(j-' .. .).,* , " --j: Z F: T. '\' .r':{ ... : : .;' ;--'---'-:l" '. =0.24(1.27)=0.306ksi<]i.4ksio1c ;'tf.£';:'--=0.294(1.27) =0.373 ksi <: 17.4 ksi ok . :--: 1":-:,

  • . ..

7?//! I": *A.-f"n:(! ."1';H1'Jt..J ; -i ,,'I' . . i , 1' .:. -...... , ._ .. . , *. ()-e .* ,'" ' *. 1 .. , -.. -._.,.. .. .... . r-. .-16'" " z..co '" "f)'ua:; . ! ?S, -See ")'-1'1. i2) " . +--, ",_ -.---'.SIkn-e ,;i; :z i v .. 3. 7 !> < , __ 'v 1" ,,;.:;<;' r<A!.T-:U1!;..!J l . .. l::::' :,.(JS"3-;L tI!',

O .. .s,/tJ ... ?-ib4 ',c , .. i¢.2z,$*)I: a;/t:) .... /.. ... /" ,-.,
'4: (,'$' '". . /i5 '>Uf'-

';' -i;?u"'x-'--' -BY ,:t,.v',;,s/V ./.! M(J/!:'l'; r.k.: l'7t'.;U .. , __ ._. __ L .. _ * ... j Sbeet56/8 1 m .0 E '"C 3 (I) :::J ..... z 9 o () I I I\.) W , ""0 , o I (") I I s: o o I ....lIo. a ..... W o ::T 3 (I) :::J ....,.. '"U !l) cc (1) Q') Q. ....lIo. OJ en CD. C/) 0 3 Sir 0 c:r 0 0 W m " ::l '< 0.. 0 ::l ""0 0 ::J (') '""'Ii -0 ::r W-CD ::l 0 .r+ 25: C :J en ;:;: ...... 1....lIo. ........... en (') "'-"" '"t ... -.;.!'t.(: 1 U"::: ' .... .. 8I. -Lt*, .. "'" PI'-.,.> .. "RiiY." , -.'-/t'>;' !)(.JeT"; "!Nt> . ,,' .. ... .. '" , .}';;;w.":/;::",,, .,..;/;:),v'$- r

  • 1"" , "fti;iJ7;

... .4/e.;;* . . -:-:.4.. /4!.tJ ";,. Rrir: '!P. 'j .. M -::--

  • bucr.. , o/Jt;;L.t.N.1.

0N : * .tro ;.eb".i /l:t(t.c:.P'rn

e.:...=w!r

,.l ... .,..,..,r= ',.T-'e::/...R., -. .. i 01,.1 :;>-. dh. -f Ir... ' , *ft. >>._ . ,"),_ .' -. ',, 1.,' _ .;;., CvJ' .,0/. $,/:.':'(,,;"$" Dr-17 T{.f __ Markups Sy: BM04 Date: 9127112 SbeetS8181

== Conclusion:==

Afier accotmtingiorexisting stiffener \\'oightonHVAC spans 5 and 6, the ducting andassociated doct supports are ok. rl * .0 s::: -0" 3 CD :l ---z p e (') I

  • I\) eN I .,., I o t (') I I s: o o I o Q) (") :::::r 3 CD ::l ..... I ... -0 Q) CO CD ""oJ 0 ...., 0) en CD W* e 3 w' o* C" 0-(") Q) ;\ ::l '< c.. 0 0 :l "'0 0 ::::J CD 0 ., "'tJ -::::r W-CD ::::s 0 .r+ 2S: C ::l CJ) ;::;: ,...... ..........

en () .......... I A J 1.0 Apply Sejwic and Dead Loads to Duct Cbeclc 7(1' x 20" RecIanguIar Duct {SpanS 5 and 6} vertical Load Shear z ... O.17sX{t.21)(3.10) == 0.7& Torsiomt=O My" 2.1S .&(1.21)(3.10) = 8.46 ift.It RmWCiStLoad Axial P=0.11&1i:(U1)(3.10)=0.7J:. Sh=Y-O Mt"O North South Load AxialP=O Shear Y"" O.I7sK(1.27)(l.2O) ... OSJ. =2.lS iaoIC (l.27)(2.1t) =6.0;,wc By oomparlson. the more critical combinalion load wiD be . (tV+NS) A 1 U.a. Bendig Stresses !See Sheet 7 ofBY-B6l 8%"'1015,044110= 101.5 ill Sy => 89.897135" 2.S7 in' f b" 8.461101.) + 6.012.57" 2.42 ksi A l1.1.b. Shear Stress .. 2(10)0.0359 =-S.OS in% = 2(20)0.0359 "" 1.# hf + 0= 0.49 ksi ftt .. + 0" O.099l1si A 11.2.& Axial Stresses 4-'IAt""'O.71O.926=O.7SOksi A 11.2 bA.'rlal Bucklin-(See Sheet 9 ofHV=f) f",,'" PJA. wa A." 2(h+w)t = 2(70 + 20)0.0359 .. 0.116.46 = 0.11 bi < l.6Fa I)k A 120 Apply Pressure Leads to I>uds ... PMT'" PM + P1) + Pe'" 0.092 +0.0114 + 0.0359= 0.1387 psi 4a= PM'P,JPfC ... 0.1387(30,000)10.796 = 5.4 I ksi A 13.0 Check: Duct Stresses 5.41 + 0.756 + 2.42 "" 8.59 ksi < 28.80 ksi A 13.2 Shear Stresses f\,=0.49+ 0.099 =5.89 biok'(i.e.. < 17.4 ksJ1 A 14.0 Aeply PressuM Loads (See AISC 711& (arangle SlId channel properties) Lb:.lxli8" and Me 8x18.1 frM-r=M_IS, < 0.96 Fy Stiffener type: MCSxUl7 atop two angles. (above and below ducting). ... Q-l j a l\)p)(!'up2 .. (3-24: "'195r j 2.t. s,=£'(b.+t* y) where ha = height of composit!:: stiffener = 1" + 2.9" = 3.9" t "" 5.0+ 12(O.0359XU6 -O.03S9/l):t + 5.97(2.0 + 0.0359 -1.86f=6,64 Iu is aboutS.O in¢byengineeriagjudgemem: Os "'" 12 or l/2.j Ym ""2.0 in by engineerlngjudgment _"" 12 ceh: +S.96(1.0+O.Q3S9} 1.86 )' Ss = 6.64(3.9 + 0.0359 -1.86) ... 13.79 bending stress on stiffener . fPM!'=M-lS s "" ksi <O.96F,. =23,8 ksiok 1-:.. -:.. (X) -:.. (X) ----_.-._._-_. __ .. _._.-_._-------. .-------.-----.- ...* ._------------_ .... _-.--.. -_._------_. y t:ql .. UPITIeJ1t ID No Equipment Class: f1 Equipment

== Description:==

Control Room Ventilation Supply Fan Suction Dampers Location: Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 154 Room. Area: 1-CP-35 Manufacturer, model. Etc. Barber Colman Actuator Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. AnchQrage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, miSSing or loose hardware?
3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?
4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? . 5. Is the (inchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification Is Actuator support frame and actuator anchorage;s consistent with drawing 515850-1.
o. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? Overhead items consist of conduit and a copper pipe that are well supported.

8. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems, ceiiing tiles, and lighting.

and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the eqUipment? Nearby room lighting fixture Is restrained by (2)rOO8 with ball and socket connections to the ceiling. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexlblllty to avoid damage? 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations. is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditjons N y y y N/A y y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page 1 of is Seismic Walkdo1Nl1 Cheddist (SVVC) Status: Y Equipmerit ID No DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-9 Equipment Class: . !! Equipment Description

Control Room Ventilation Supply Fan Suction Dampers Comment: Damper consists of an In-line rectangular damper plus a separately supported actuator.

The duct/ng has an insulating cover and the duct/damper connection could not be seen. However, the damper appears to be well restrained in the duct. The dueling below the damper is secured to the floor while the ducling above the damper is supported from the ceilingThe separately mounted damper actuator is bolted by (3) 3116" bolts threaded into a plate that ;s welded to B Unistrut frame that is bolted to the ceiling. The Un/strut frame Is braced in both norizontaf directions. The actuator and damper mechanisms Bre connecteq by an approximately 5116"diameter rod that Is about 4' In length. It appears that the flexibility of the rod is sufficient to acCommodate the relative horizontal displacement of the floor at 154' and the ceiling at 163' which based on Hosgri DCM C-28. Is less than 0.02". Evaluated by: 10 /lfJ/W 1'0 Page 2 ofi8 N EOlilipmlent ID No Equipment

== Description:==

Control Room Ventilation Filter Unit Location: Building: FloorEI. 1M Room. Area: Manufacturer. model. Etc. American Air Filter Instructlons for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to documeni the of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of eqUipment on the SWEL The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and Additional space Is provided at tha end of this checklist fqr documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, Is the Item one of the 50% of SWEl items requiring such vermcaUon)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

The base channels for the Filter unit which have been stiffened at four (4) places along the length of tha filter are welded to the outsIde of the top flanges of I-beam sections that are each anchored by (4) 112" embedded anchors on either side (8 total). . 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that Is more than mild surface oxidation?

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consIstent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies If the Item Is one ofthe 50% for which an anchorage configUration verification is required.)

Drawing 443333-1Indioates that the anchor bolts should be 5/8'1 In diameter. Calculation O-HVAC-5.11-1 oaloulates . anchor bolt stress based on 112" anchor bolts. Because of the location of the weld between the channol flange and the I-boam flange the/oad path for vertical loads and s/de"to-slde overtumlng forces Is not directly through the axes of the members creating rotational moments. However, the referenced calculation applies the loads properly. For see Attaohment

1. . 6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

Interaction Effecta 7. Are soft targets free from [mpact by nearby equipment or structures? Only soft targots are short runs of small diameter copper tubing located on ono side of the filter unit A nearby room lighting fixture appears to be the only credible faIling source but it /s supported by pipe section with ball and soc/cet connectIon.

8. Are overhead equipment, drstrlbutlon systems. ceiling tiles. and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment?

Overhead conduit, fire water pipIng, and Junction boxes are well supported. Reinforced masonry waIf has' additional support both at the base and the top. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? 10. Based on the above seismic Interaction evaluations, is equipment free of potentiaUy adverse seismic Interactton effects? Otbftr .,dY9@e Conditions

11. Have you looked for and found no other seismIc conditions that COUld adversely affect the safety function ofthe equipment?

Temporary soaffold ad,jacent to the flTler is properly restraIned and the paperwork is current y y y y N y y y y y y Page 1 of 18 Seismic WalkdolM1 Cheddist (SWC) Status: N --------------------------- _ ... -.-----Equfpment tD No DC-1-23-pwEL-FU39 Equipmen.t Class: 18 Equipment Description

Control Room Ventilation Filter Unit ---------'-'---------Comment: Evaluated by' Page2of18 . I I i . I I Equipment No.

Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Power The anchorage for the housing unit are ;%" diameter bolts contrary to what's shown on Drawing 443333 (detail Section A & detail 2)1 that shows 5/8" diameter bolts. Evaluation: Page 1 1 The %11 bolts are consistent with the design calculations for this component (Ref. Calc. DHV-S.11). It appears that the drawing is in error and needs to be corrected. An inspection of Unlt-2 equipment shows the same condition (Le. existing bolts). Drawing 443333 is applicable to both units and should be corrected to reflect condition. Since the design ca1culation reflects the as built condition. there is no adverse impact on the equipment qualification and function. . Recommendation: Revise Drawing 443333 to reflect the as-found bolting. Notification Required: Yes (50511308) Evaluated by: _____ _ Reviewed by: ____ __ I* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t:qullpmlent ID No EQlliPlTlent Class: Post-LOCA Sample System return line to containment yalves LocatIon: Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 100 Room, Area: 1-FCV700 ManufactUrer, model. Etc. Valcor Engineering Corp. Instructions for Completing Checklist This cheCk\lst may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the follOwing questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. AnChoragtl

1. is the anchorage configuration verification required (Le. is the Item one of the 50% ofSWEl items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

Smallillstrument valve with tubing secured on both sides of the valve (U-bolts) and the operator (botted strap) secured to the same mounting bracket. The mounting bracket is anchored to the concrete wall by (4) 112" expansion anchors. 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Nota: This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)
6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

Jnteraction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby eqUipment or structures? Overhead piping (CCW and fire water). conduit. junction boxes. and cable trays are well supported.

8. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the eqUipment?

No masonry block walls in area. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? _ Electrical/ine to valve has adequate flexibility.

10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equIpment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditions
11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the eqUipment?

N y y y N/A y y y y y y Page 10f 10 Seismic WalkdolNll Checklist (SWC) Status: Y Equipment (0 No Equipment Class: fi Equipment

== Description:==

Post-LOCA Sample System return line to containment valves ---. -._-. ----_. _. -----Comment: Evaluated by: Page 2 of10 Equipment

== Description:==

ASW Flow Control Valve No FeV-S02 Backup Air Accumulator location: Building: FloorEt mi Room, Area: l-CCWHE Manufacturer, model, Etc. Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an Item of equipment on the SWEl. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. . , .-.. ---.... _-_...... . -----,-._--_.

    • --__ * * ... Of .. '--........ , ****** : **** _____ *** __ "_"_' *** , ** __ ",,-._. __ ... _ *** _ ***** ____ ** 0 ** -_ **** __ ** __ Anchorage
1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, is the Item one of the So% of SWEL items requiring such N verification)?

The anchorage consists of weldments that are substantial and adequately support the air tanks. 2. Is the anchorage free of bent. broken, missing or loose hardware?

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?
4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for'Nhich an anchorage configuration Verification Is required.)
6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

InteractIon Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? . The accumulators are located in a niche in the concrete wall that protects them from famng objects. Thus .the only soft targets for the accumulator tanks Is the stainless steel transfer tubing that runs along the waJl. 8. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Possible failing sources include the room lighting fixtures, the emergency lighting, and the nearby masonry block wall. The lighting fixtures are adequately restrained and the reinforced masonry wall includes additional support at the base and near the topThe nearby room lighting fixture wit/likely swing during an earthquake and the support rods will likely Impact the sew piping that is In close proximity. It Is judged that such impact could jar the fluorescent tubes loose from the fixture, but these pose no hazard to the tubing. Such impact should not result in falling of the fixture itselt 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is eqUipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adyerse Conditions y y N/A N/A y y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page lofl1 Seisnie Walkdown Cheddist (S\IVC) Status: Y Equipment 10 No DC-1-2S-I\n-TK-BUAS-602 Equipment Class: 2.1 Equipment Desc r iption: ASW Flow Control Valve No. FCV-602 Backup Air Accumulator ---.. -.-............ -. . ----------Comment: Evaluated by: Page 2 of 11 y ----------------- IInrru:" ... t I D No Equipment

== Description:==

Auxiliary Relay Rack ------------Location: Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 128 Room, Area: 1-RNARA Manufacturer, model, Etc. Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

.---------

Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (Le, is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items requiring such verification

)? 2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware? A false floor is created by a series of W10 wide flange beams that are bolted to the concrete slab by 518" expansion anchors spaced on 24" centers with the bolt pattern staggered on either side of the beam. The panel is welded to the flange of beams running along the front and back of the panel. The original welds are 2-112" long 3116" fillet welds spaced on 6" centers. These have been augmented by 3x2-112x112 plate tabs that are welded to the panel on three sides and to the floor beam flange on the bottom. There are two such tabs both front and back. 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation? N Y Y 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? Y 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is N/A one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

y Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? Panel RNAR-A is the center panel of three similar adjacent panels. The panels are connected at the top by plates that span between adjacent panels and are bolted to the top structural members for each. These connecting plates are located both front and back. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Several layers of conduit run above the panels that appear to be rigidly supported. Conduit runs also enter the top of the panel. Cable trays run above the front and back of the panel and these are also rigidly restrained. A room lighting fixture located on the West side of the panel is hung on very light weight chains which appear marginal. The fixture will very likely impact the panel should it fall. For disposition see Attachment

1. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Connections are via rigid conduit. 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditions
11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the equipment?

y y y y Seismic Walkdown Checklist (S\IVC) Status: y Equipment 10 No Equipment Class: Equipment Description

Auxiliary Relay Rack Comment: Evaluated bY' Date: m/Z}, It, Page 2 of30 Equipment No. DC-1-36-E-PNL-RNARA Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Power Attachment Page 1 of 1 Florescent Light fixture (Located to the West of the Aux. Relay Cabinet) Is restrained from the celling by light duty chain with open hook. Evaluation:

This appears to be non standard attachment (compared to other fixtures) relatively weak connection between the chain and the fixture. This should be replaced to avoid SISl and potential personnel safety (Fixture falling on someone because of the open hook and weak connection to the sheet metal fixture). The SISI concern is with the potential swinging of the fixture into the cabinet in a seismic event; however since there are no soft targets (e.g. Relays) on the door. the potential Impact of this light weight source is not anticipated to affect the function of the cabinets. Recommendation: Use more robust restraint configuration for light fixture Notification Required: Yes (50511307) Evaluated by: .* \ .* __ _____ _ Reviewed by: v _______ ________ _ Equipment

== Description:==

location: Building: Floor EI. .1Ml Room, Area: Manufacturer, model, Etc. Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equIpment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. AnchQrage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (I.e, Is the item one of the 50% of SWElltems requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent. broken. miSSing or loose hardware?

All visible anchorage Is in good condition.

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

No corrosion is present. 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks In the concrete near the anchors? Panels are all welded to embedded plates. 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.) Panels RNSJA, RNSLA, and RNSOA are part of a continuous cabinet. The bottom of the cabfnet has (4) 112" x 2-112" X 4" A-36 galvanized steel plates welded to embeds on both sides. Previously, there were (6) 114" fillet welds with weld lengths of 2-112" on both sides of the cabinet. Some of the weldS were removed In order to Incorporate the plates that were welded to the embeds. Verification of the welds that were not removed could not be done due to the rubber skirting glued at the bottom oftha cabinets. Further investigation into Calculation EPA-2 showed that the original fillet welds were neglected and only the welded embeds were used In the design ca/cu/ation. Therefore, the original welds do not need to be verified since theya(e not part o( the deSign basis. See drawings 050053 sheet 65 and CALC NO. EPA-2 6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations. Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions? No adverse conditions were Identified. Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equIpment or structures? No soft targets are present on the panel. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems. ceiling tiles. and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Overhead ceiling lJ1es may fall the cabinet if they are not seismically restrained but there are no soft targets, therefore no negative affect. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility 10 avoId damage? All attached lines use fleXible conduit. 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations. Is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic Interaction effects? No seismic Interaction Issues were Identified. Other Adyerse CQndiUops Y Y y N/A y y Y Y Y Y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page lof14 Equipment

== Description:==

_. __ ._._ .. -._._ ..... __ .. __ ... _ ... -.---_ .....* , ... _._--_ .. Comment: Evalyated by' KTM SMM Page 2of14 y Equipment

== Description:==

_ ..* *.0_' __ '_-_._--. ______ _ location: Building: Floor EI. 140 Room, Area: Manufacturer, model, Etc. Instructions for Comple1ing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the SeIsmic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provIded at the end of this checklist for documenting other Anchorage 1, Is the anchorage configuration verification requlred (I.e, is the Item one of the 60% of SWEL Items reqUiring such verification)?

2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

An visible anchorage is in good condition.

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mUd surface oxidation?

No corrosion Is present. 4. is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? Panels are al/ welded to embedded plates. 6. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item Is one oUhe 50% for which an anchorage configuration verificatIon Is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

Panels RNS/A, RNSLA, and RNSOA are part of a continuous cabinet. The bottom of the cabinet has (4) 112" x 2-112" x 4" A-36 galvanized steel plates welded to embeds on both sides. Previously, there were (6) 114" fillet welds with weld lengths of 2-112" on both sides of the cabInet. Some of the welds were removed In order to Incorporate the plates that were welded to the embeds. Verification of the welds that were not removed could not be done due to the rubber skirting glued at the bottom of the cabInets. Further Investlgatfon Into Calculatfon EPA-2 showed that the original fillet welds were neglected and only the welded embeds were used In the design calculation. Therefore, the original welds do not need to be verified since they are not part of the design basis. See drawings 050053 sheet 65 and CALC NO. EPA-2. No Issues were Identified. Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? All nearby eqUipment are properly secured to prevent Impact wIth the cabinet. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? External buttons are 'on the face of the cabinet. The suspended ceiling is hung with a braced un/strut system. The HVAC duct is braced and the registers are Independently rod hung. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? All attached lines use fleXible conduit. 10. Based on the above seismIc Interaction evaluations, Is equipment free of potentially adverse seismiC Interaction effects? No selsmfc Interaction Issues were Identjfjed. Other Adverse Conditions N y y N/A NIA y y y y Y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page lof13 1-y Eqt.liprrlent

== Description:==

-. __ *. _-_._--_._--_ ... -....... -----------_. __ ._----------_ ... _ ...... _ .. _ ..... '-...................

' .. , ... _--_. __ ._-_ .......................................... . Comment: KTM Evaluated by: Page 2 of 13 Equipment

== Description:==

SSPS -Output Relay Cabinet Location: Building: FloorE" tiQ Room. Area: 1::§§f.§. Manufacturer, model, Etc. Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end ofthis checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, Is the item one of the 50% of SWEL Items requiring such verlfTcation)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent. broken, missing or loose hardware?

All visible anchorage is In good condition. S. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mUd surface oxidation? No corrosion is present. 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks In the concrete near the anchors? Panels are all welded to embedded prates. N y y NfA 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: ThIs question only applies if the Item Is NIA one ofthe 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification Is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

y Panels RNSIA, RNSLA 1 and RNSOA are part of a continuous cabinet. The bottom of the cabinet has (4) 112" x 2-1/2" x 4" A-36 galvanized steel plates welded to embfi!ds on both sides. Previously, there were (5) 1/4" fillet welds with weld lengths of 2-1/2" on both sides of the cabinet. Some of the welds were removed In order to Incorporate the plates that were welded to the embeds. Verification of the we/ds that were not removed could not be done due to the rubber skirting glued at the bottom of the cabInets, Further Investigation Into Calculation EPA-2 showed that the original fillet welds were neglected and only the welded embeds were used in the design calculation. Therefore. the original welds do not need to be verified since they are not part of the design basis. See drawings 050053 sheet 65 and CALC NO. EPA*2. No Issues were Identified, Interactlgn Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? No soft targets are present on the panel. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, celling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Overhead ceiling tiles may fall onto the cabinet if they are not seismically restrained but there are no soft targets, therefore no negative affect. 9. Do attached lInes have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? All attached lines use flexible conduit. 10. Based on the above seismic Interaction evaluations, Is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic Interaction effects? No se/smfc Interaction Issues were Identified. Other Adyerse Conditions y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page lof11 I ! Equipment

== Description:==

SSPS -Output Relav Cabinet Comment: Evaluated by' KTM 10//5/ J.c>l Page 2 of11 Equipment

== Description:==

SSPS -Test Cabinet --------------_ ..*..* _------_.--- Location: Building: FfoorEI. MQ Room, Area: Manufacturer, model, Etc. Instructions for Oompleting Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space (s provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, Is the Item one of the 50% of SWEL Items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

All visible anchorage is In good condition.

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosIon that Is more than mild surface oxIdation?

No corrosion Is present. 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks In the concrete near the anchors? Panels are all welded to embedded plates. 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only a*pplies If the item Is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification Is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations.

Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions? No adverse conditions were Identified. Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? No soft targets are present on the panel. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Overhead ceiling tiles may fall onto the cabinet If they are not seismically restrained but there are no soft targets, therefore no negative affect. -9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoId damage? All attached lines use flexible conduit. 10. Based on the above seismic Interaction evaluations, Is equipment free of potentially adverse seismiC interaction effects? No seismic Interaction Issues were Identified. Other Adverse Conditions N v y N/A N/A y y .y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page lof12 Status: Y Equipment

== Description:==

SSPS -Test Cabinet Comment: Eyaluated by' SMM Page 2 of 12 Seismic Walkdown Checklist Equipment ID No. Equipment

== Description:==

Fuel Transfer Tube Expansion Joint Equipment Class l2 o. (Other) Sheet 1 ofS Status: Location: Bldg, Auxiliary Floor E1. ..::..10=0"-' ____ _ Room,Area ____________________________ __ Manufacturer, Model, Etc. (optional but recommended) Tube-Tum Bellows Expansion Joint Instructions for Completing Checldist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings. Additional space is provided 'at the end of the checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e., is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items N requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage fi:ee of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

N/A This SWC applies to potential SFP rapid drain-down through the expansion joint where the Fuel Transfer Tube (FTT) penetrates the exterior wall ofthe Fuel Transfer Canal (FTC). The expansion joint is welded to the FIT at one end and the steel penetration sleeve that is cast into the concrete wall of the FTC at the other end. Therefore, anchorage is not applicable. " 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface corrosion? NI A 4. Is the anchorage fi'ee of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchorage? N/A 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only NI A applies if the item is one of the 50% for which anchorage configuration verification is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic NI A conditions?

Interaction Effects 7. "Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? The expansion joint is a soft target, but is located in a recess in the west wall of the Fuel Transfer Canal (see drawing no. 57731), which completely protects it from any falling objects. y 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles and lighting, and masom'y block walls not Y likely to collapse onto the equipment? The expansion joint is located in a recess in the west wan ofthe Fuel Transfer Canal (see drawing no. 57731), which completely protects it from any falling objects. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? The function of the expansion joint is to acconunodate any differential displacements between the Fuel Transfer Tube (which is anchored in to the Containment Structure) and the exterior wan ofthe Fuel Transfer Canal (which is part of the Auxiliary Building), There are no lines, other than the Fuel Transfer Tube, attached to the expansion joint. 12 Enter the equipment class name from Appendix B: Classes of Equipment y Seismic Walkdown Checklist Equipment ID No. EqlLlipltne][lt Class 12 Equipment

== Description:==

Fuel Transfer Tube Expansion Joint 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is the equipment fi'ee ofpotentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditions

11. Have you 100ked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the plant equipment?

Minor corrosion was noted on the interior surface (dry side) of the expansion joint. See Attachment No. 1 for disposition. Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary) Sheet 2 of5 Status: y y This SWC applies to potential SFP rapid drain"down through the Fuel Transfer Tube (FTT) expansion joint (see drawing nos. 500197 and 663321-2 and the figure 011 sheet 3 of this SWC). Access to the interior surface (dry side) of the expansion joint is through a narrow annular space between the outside of the FIT (20" diameter pipe) and the inside of the 26" diameter penetration sleeve cast into the exterior concrete wall (27" thick) ofthe Fuel Transfer Canal (FTC) -see photos on sheet 4. The exterior surface (wet side) of the expansion joint is located in a recess in the west wall of the FTC, which is near the bottom of the 40 r deep FTC. As indicated on drawing no. 663321-2, the expansion joint is fabricated fl.*om stainless steel. It is exposed to boric acid (SFP water) on the wet side and the outside atmosphere on the dty side (access to the dry side is through the seismic gap between the Auxiliary Building and the Containment Structure). Based on the potential environmental effects on the expansion joint, the dry side was selected for detailed visual examination, which was performed using a IIboroscope" inserted into this annular space, which provided a display on a video monitor (screen shots from the video monitor shown on sheet 5). Evaluated by: wrh Date: 12 Enter the equipment class name from Appendix B: Classes of Equipment Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) DIabl o C any o n PO\l\(er Plant. Un I t J... equ ip m en t No. D C .. 1-4 2-M-E J-FTC-1-EJ 2 li censing Bas is E v a l uati on Issue: Att ach ment 1, Page 1 of 1 Minor surface corrosion was noted on the Interior surfaoe (dry side) of the ()xpahs/on Joint. Evaluatfon

The Expansion JoI nt 1$ Design Class I and seismically qualified. Its function is to provIde a leak-tigh t sea l arounq the Fue l T r ansfe r Tube where It exits the west wall o f the Fuel Transfer Canal while accommoda t Ing differential seismic aod LoeA displacements between the ContaInment Exterior Concrete Structure arid the Fuel Handling Area of the Auxiliary BllUding.

The Joint Is not a component, and Is only to the water associated with the hydraulic head associated with the water level In the Fuel Transfer Canal (approx. 40 ft.). Note that a"t this time l the Fuel Trahsfer Canalis dry, so there Is no hydraulic head applied the Expansion Joint. The exten t of the corrosion Is minor. and will not compromise the structural Integrity of the Expansion Join t. Recommendation: .. further review/evaluation by the DCPP Metallurgist .. Consider developing a routine Inspection program to monitor the condition of the Expansion Joint. Notification Required: Yes (50518405) Evaluated by: " wrh {4J4..-IS Reviewed by: 1\\ ,7.,,//1 , . Equipment ID No Equipment location: Building: Manufacturer, model. Etc, Instructions for Completing Checklist y Floor EI. .11Q Room, Area: .1::B.f.S.Q1 This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. -Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (Le. Is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

Cabinet Is welded at the base. 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that Is more than mild surface oxidation? No corrosion was noted. 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? The floor was overlayed with carpet. but no cracks were visible after pulling up the carpet. 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies If the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

3116" fillet welds are stitched at the base of the cabInets. See drawings for details. Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? No soft targets present. 8. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles. and lighting. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the eqUipment? N y y y N/A y y y Aff the overhead cable trays are seismically braced. $.eer 1Tt-V 1-ve>l ff,e. t./;.J 4 .." t..t!-rU-VI t£-.tw. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? No flexibility issues to note.

10. Based on the above seismic Interaction evaluations, is eqUipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? y No interaction effects present. Other Adverse Conditions
11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment?

Page 1 of 13 y Equipment DescriptIon: process Controlaod Protection System -Computer Input Rack (c>/io/lz.. ' .... , Comment: Evaluated by' SMM Page 2 of 13 .' Status: Equipment

== Description:==

.....*.... ... ---.--.---

.*... ---_. Location: Buflding: FloorEI. Room, Area: 1-PNL-ARP Manufacturer. model. Etc. Instructions for Completing ChecklIst This checklist may be used tQ document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an Item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each Of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this for documenting other comments.

1. Is the anchorage configuration verificatIon requIred (I.e, Is the Item one of the SO% of SWEL Items requiring such N verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missIng or loose hardware?

All of the anchor bolts (both Inside and outside of the paneQ are In good condition.

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that Is more than mild surface oxidation?

No corrosion present. Y y 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks In the concrete near the anchors? Y No cracks are seen In the concrete. S. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the Item Is N/A one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification Is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismIc conditions?

The Inside of panel ;s anchored to the floor (see pictures). The back of the panel is anchored to the adjacent cabInet. The top of the panel Is welded to a braced frame which acts as both a vertical and lateral restraint. Interaction Effects 7. "re soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? All overhead cable trays are seismically braced. 8. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems. ceiling tiles I and lighting. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Block walls have been retrofitted with steel members which are anchored at the top and bottom of the walls. 9. Do attached Jines have adequate flexibility to avoId damage? All attached lines have adequate flexibility.

10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations.

Is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? No Interaction Issues were found. Other Adverse Conditions Y y Y Y Y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page 1 of 12 Equipment

== Description:==

_______ _ ........ _o .......... r ... _R __ _ Comment: Page 2 of 12 I ! I I ! ! j i ! I ! i I I I . I I ! t i ! ! ';' Status: Equipment

== Description:==

120V AC Instrument Breaker Panels Location: Building: AwillIaol Floor EI. ill Room, Area: 1-BT011 Manufacturer, model, Etc. Nuclear lQglstlcs Inc Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Selsmlo Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space fs provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. Anchprage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (I.e. is the Item one of the 50% of SWEL Items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?
3. Is the anchorage free of corrosIon that Is more than mild surface oxidation?

No corrosion y y y 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks In the concrete near the anchors? Y No cracking observed 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? {Note: This question only applies If the Item is Y one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification Is required.} Consistent with drawing 050041 6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seIsmic conditions? y Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? No soft targets 8. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? The conduit Is well braced. The overhead HVAC duot is braced. Cable trays are welf supported.

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Conduits and cable trays connected to the pane' are supported close to the pane!. Essentially no relative displacement expected 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations.

Is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditions y Y v y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic cond IUons that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page 1 of 8 I Status: Equipment

== Description:==

12QVAC Instrument Breaker Panels Comment: PY11 is a wall mounted panel. The panel body is bolted to two unistrut members that are each anchored to the concrete wall with two 112" concrete shell anchors. The internal components are securely mounted to the panel. Evaluated by' OKN ( lot 1/ ORe 10 ( " I (Oil.-Page 2 of8 I ! Equipment 10 No DC-1-65-E-UPS-IY11 Status: ..>r" N Equipment Class: 16 Equipment

== Description:==

120V AC Inverters Location: Building: Auxiliary Floor EL ill Room, Area: i-BTC1 i Manufacturer, model, Etc. Solidstate Contrors Inc Instructions for C9mpleting Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?
3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

Minor surface corrosion on the steel base plate y y y 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? Y No cracks obseNed 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is Y one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.) The anchorage is consistent with drawing 050053 sheet 220 6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentiaHy adverse seismic conditions? y rnteraction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? Switches on the front panel have plexiglass cover. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Conduit and cable trays are well supported. Overhead lighting has support that permits it fo sway but is positively connected for vertical/oad -no issues. It will not impact the panel. Adjacent masonry wall has been strengthened

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Conduit on top hasJlexibJe connections
10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditions
11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the equipment?

SE6 C'tlMMt1t-li B 1>f!L-nltff'L-p{uJ H/tt o/ y y y y Dt[,. IIllf/ft D/4-i l1/'lJJj Page 1 of 19 Pie-Equipment 10 No I Eqt.liprnent Class: 1'6 Equipment DescripUon: 120YAC Inverters Comment: 1\. The base flanges of Inyerter panel JY11 are welded to a 3/4" thick ste(fJ/ base plate. The basf) pfat!'J Is anchpred to the noor with 10-1" diameter expansIon anohors. The internal components In the panel are securely mounted. The mounting brackets for the transformers at the bottom left side of panel have eIght (8) locations (holes) for securing the transformers to fhe grating on lha panel bottom. Only four (4) of the holes have bolts, Similarly, only six (6) of the eight holes are uli/ized (have bolls) for securing fhe transformers on the hollom rlgbl si<;le of the panel. See Attachment 1 for disposition of IhTs as-found mounting oonfiguration. Evaluated by: D'K Date: t () '2-._---Page 2 of Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) Dia b l o Canyon Powe r Plant, Un i t.1. Equip m ent No. D C-1-65-E-UP S-IY 1 1 Attac h m e nt 1, Page 1 of 4 Licensing Bas i s Evaluation Issue: Thf1 mounting brackets for the transformers at the bottom of the panel have (8) locations fo r securing the transformer to the grating on the panel bottom. However , there were only four bolts installed in the bracket on the left and six bolts in the bracket on the right. (see sketch on Page 3). Evaluation Th i s transformer is Design Class I and seismically qualified. The seismic qualification of this component, as documented in Calc. No. ES-68-1, is based on -sha , ke table testing. A review of the specimen (which .is currently located in the DCPP Cold Machine Shop) indicates that the transformers are bolted on the bottom cabinet grating with six (6) %" diameter Grade 2 bolts. The as-found mounting condition is evaluated against the condition addressed in calculation no. ES-68-1 on page 4 of this , Attachment.. This evaluation indicates that a significant safety margin for the mounting bolts is available. as-found conditiqn of IY11 has no adverse effect on the seismic qualification of this component, so this isslje does not impact the safe operation or DCpP. ( Recommendations: -Perform an Extend of Condition review to determine if other similar transformers are impacted -Revise calculation no. ES-68-1 to address the as-found condition Notification Required: Yes (50518937) Evaluated by: PWH Reviewed by: WRH LJ..lA.M..-

c. ---I tilt 'i / I 2-.-. l b ) l"l " /2 ..

Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1. Equipment No. DC-1-65-E-UPS-IY11 According to manufacturer, Ametek Sblidstate Controls , Weight of transformer: 80-314009-90 -320 Ibs 80-314007 -90 630 Ibs The transformer on the left side is 80-314009-90 (See picture in page 2). Unit 1 Field Walk Down Sketches: 0" I/P(rf) + L R -+ +-'-+-lot) r roJ( \1.(.1'S Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4

l. ..... 1. Evaluation of IY -11 As-found Condition:

Four (4) bolts are found at the bottom of left side cabinet. The transformer is a solidi heavy, steel plated component. It can be treated as a rigid body. Therefore, the %/1 0 mounting bolts (a total of 6 bolts including 2 bolts on the top of transformer) are equally subjected to the direct shear and tension forces, and no overturning moments. Seismic Accelerations: 5% damping floor peak RRS (see ES-68-1. Sheet 38) Horizontal: 4 GiS Vertical: 2.4 GiS Equivalent Static Method: factor of 1.5 multiplies the floor peak accelerations to consider the mode and mufti-frequency. Shear due to the horizontal seismic load: e 20 * :

  • 1.5)* 2 = 640 lbs / bolt Tension due to the vertical upward seismic load: 320 * (2.4 -1) *1.5 112lbs 6 Allowable for Grade 2: Tensile strength is 60,000 psi, which is equivalent to A307 bolt. From Calc. nq. SQME-077 I Sheet 13: DE allowable for 1/211 0 A307 bolt: Tension: 4257 Ibs Shear: 15591bs ( 112)2 (640)2 Interaction Ratio: --+ --:::::.17 < 1.0 It OK" 4257 1559 4 4 y Equipment 10 No Equipment

== Description:==

Nuclear Instrumentation Regulating Transformers ._--------_ ... -...... -_ .... _---_ .. _-------Location: Building: Auxiliary Floor Ei. .1QQ Room, Area: 1-TRY11 Manufacturer, model, Etc. ----------------------_.- ._---_ ... _------------------_._----- Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provIded at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (Le, is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items requiring such verification

)? Base of cabinet is bolted to the floor slab by (4) 3/4" expansion anchors. 2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?
4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)

Anchorage is consistent with drawing in calculation ES-68-1 Attachment 6 Sheet 21 (Anchorage option A). 6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions? Interaction Effects 7. Are soft 'targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? Adjacent panel TRNM is a tall transformer panel that is anchored to the floor slab by (4) 5/8 11 expansion anchors with hex nuts. The edge distance of the flange of the channel base appears marginal (possibly as sma" as 1/8). A 3" conduit section that enters the panel near the top provides some side-to-side overturning restraint. For disposition see Attachment

1. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment?

Reinforced masonry wall immediately behind the transformer. But additional support for the wall has been provided at the base and at the top. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditions

11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the equipment?

y Y Y y y y y y Y Page lof Seismic WalkdolM1 Checklist (SWC) Status: Y . Equipment 10 No DC-1-65-E;.XF-TRY11 Equipmeht Class: Equipment

== Description:==

Nuclear Instrumentation Regulating Transformers Comment:_ Eva lua ted by' Page 2 af23 ( I I ! Equipment DC-1-65-E-XF-TRY11 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Attachment 1, Page 1 1 Potential-edge distance issues where noted on the expansion anchors associated with nearby Nuclear Measurement System Regulating Transformer No. TRNM (non-safety related). Evaluation: Panel No. TRNM is non-safety related. However, the anchorage condition may impact the SISIP evaluation of the panel anchorage (carculation no. Specifically, the distance between the centerline of the 5/8" diameter expansion anchors at the base of the cabinet and the outer edge of the steel channels forming the skid for the cabinet (see drawing no. 6014143, sheet 3) is less than the AISC Code specified minimum (1" for a 5/8 11 diameter bolt). This will result In a potential reduction in the shear load capacity of the expansion anchor connection. Impact Assessment: The issue here is not the qualification of TRNM, but the potential for SIS 1 of TRNM with adjacentTRY11 during: : an earthquake (Le., TRNM tips over and hits TRY11). . . The anchorage for non-safety related transformer no. TRNM is designed per SISIP criteria (OCIVJ.:T-14) in Civil _ Engineering calculation no. EQP-232. revision 3. Section 4.4. " ... If it Js assumed that only two of the four expansion anchors are capable of resisting the shear loading in the north-south direction (this is a conservative assumption for the bolts with insufficient edge distance) the shear/tension interaction ratio for the remaining bolts is still acceptable. This is based on removal of the following conservatisms from the calculation: -actual weight of TRNM (15321b 1600 Ib) -actual center of gravity (near base due to location of transformer inside cabinet vs. mid-height) .. consideration of dead weight counteracting seismic overturning moment (conservatively ignored in calculation) .. application of directional-specific (e.g., n/s and e/w) seismic accelerations (the largest of the two horizontal accelerations was conservatively applied In the worst direction in calculation). Therefore, TRNM will not tip over during and earthquake and potentially damage TRY11. Recommendation: Revise Calculation no. to document reevaluation. Notification Required: Yes (50510681) . Evaluated by: __ __ ________ _ __ ____ __ L Status: Equipment

== Description:==

125V DC Batteries and SanelY Racks location: Building: Manufacturer, model, Etc. C&D lCUN33 NUC Instructions for Completing Checklist -_ .. _ ... _ .......*.. -.----Floor EI. ill Room, Area: 1-BAT11 ----------_ ..... _--------- This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the followIng questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provIded at the end ofthls checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verIfication (I.e, Is the item one of the 50% of SWElltems requiring such verification)?

2, Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missIng or loose hardware? Nothing brokenJ missIng or damaged 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation? No corrosion observed 4. Is the anchorage free of vlsible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? No cracks in the concrete floor 5. 'S the anchorage configuration consIstent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies 11 the item Is one ofihe 50% for which an anchorage configuration veri:ficatlon Is required.) The rack anchorage is consistent with the drawings 496147 sheet 1. 496146 sheet 1, 458684 sheet 1,4013058 sheet 1. 6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations. is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions? InteractlQn Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? No credible interaction sources 8. Are overhead equipment. distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the eqUipment? Conduit Is well supporled. Fire water piping Is braced. Masonry wall has seismic strengthening. PA speaker and junction box are anchored to the wall. Overhead lights have safety chains. HVAC duct is anchored to the walls. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexIbility to avoid damage? Cables have slack 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations. is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditions Y y Y Y Y y Y y Y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other selsmfc conditions that could adversely affect the safety functIon of the Y equipment? Page 1 of 18 Status: Y Equipment 10 No Class: .1Q Equipment

== Description:==

125V DC Batteries and Battery Racks Comment: Battery Racks 11 A, 11 B, and 11 C are sIngle tier braced battery racks. Rack 11 D Is a two tier rack. The racks have cross bracing in the long direction and are braced and tied back to the adjacent' concrete walls in the front to back direction. The end bolts of racks 11A and 11B touch. However the plywood spacers between the two racks should prevent significant pounding forces should the two racks move out of phase with each other. §jt KN t--J '" i" I Da1a;. 10 III (tz,.D-1 '2. ORC 0 ____ __ IO/,,/l01 l..--Eyaluated by' Page 2 of 18 *1 , i Status: Eqlllprrlent Class; 12 Equipment DescrIption: 125V PC Battery Chargers Location: Building: Floor EI. ill Room, Area: 1-BTC11 Manufacturer, model, Etc. Ametek So!jdstate Controls Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of eqUipment on the SWEL The space below each .of the followIng questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of ihis checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage 1, Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, Is the Item one of the 50% of SWEL Items requiring such verification)?

2. Is 1he anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

No missing or broken hardware 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that Is more than mild surface oxidation? No corrosIon observed y y Y 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks In the concrete near the anchors? Y No craaks obselYed 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies If the item Is Y one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.) The anchorage Is consistent with drawing 050053 sheet 240 and 241 6. Based .on the above anchorage evaluations. Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions? Y Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? Selector switches are mounted on the front panel. Breaker switches are protected by plexlglass cover pfate. No credible interaotlon sources 8. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles. and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the eqUipment? Conduit and cable trays are well supported. Overhead lights can sway but are positively connected for vertical load. The lights wlll not impact the panel. Masonry walls have been strengthened

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Conduit connects to the top has a flex connection
10. Based on the above seismic Interaction evaluations.

Is eqUipment free of potentially adverse seismic Interaction effects? Other Adyerse Condmons y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other selsmic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page 1 of 14 I* t I r Equipment

== Description:==

125V DC Battery Chargers Comment: The base flanges of battery charger BTC11 are welded to vertical tab plates ihat afe in tum welded to steeJ plates embedded In the concrete floor. The Internal components are securely mounted in the panel DKN t \'" I A I. 4 l ____ -' (l {ll/ "-ORC ]f p C Evaluated by: 2of14 t--N!IU1nI'1f'lQlr"It 10 No

== Description:==

j25V DC Distribution Panels ----.-..... ,," ._""._""_._---- ."." .... " ""---.""" ..... " .. " ."." """---._._----,-- """---_. __ . " "."-------" .... """" ..... ". location: Building: Turbine FloorEI. 85 Room, Area: Manufacturer, mooel. Etc. Inswuctions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an" item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each ofthe following questions may be used to record the results ofjudgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. --_ ..* -._ ... ,"" .... ". "._-"."""""-----------". .._------""--_."" ..... ". ---_ .. ""._--"". -' ... " .* _ .... Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, is the item one of the 50% of SWEl items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

Anchored at comers of wall-mounted panel by (4) 112" through-bolts througll the 8" reinforced masonry block wall that forms the battery room. 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks In the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)
6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? Panel does not contain soft targets. 8. Are overhead equipment distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block wans not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Nearby conduit Is class 1 but most overhead oonduit and piping is class 2 and is rod or spring hung including sew, CeWand Servioe Air piping systems. All piping appears to be welded piping. 9. 00 attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? 10. Based on the above seismic Interaction eValuations, is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? " Panel Is essentially shielded by block wall on whfch it is mounted. Other Adverse Condltlons N y y N/A y y y Y. Y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page 1 of 22 Seismic WalkdolNl1 Checklist (SWC) Status: Y Equipment ID No DC-1-67-E-LC-PD15 Equipment Class: 14 Equipment

== Description:==

125V DC Distribution Panels Comment: E val u a t ed by: Page 2 of 22 I I ( . y Equipment

== Description:==

Main Control Boards (Console) location: Building: Floor EI. ill Room , Area: i:W1 Manufacturer, model, Etc. Instructions for Completing Checklist ThIs checklist may be used to document the results of the SeismIc Walkdown of an Item of equipment on the SWEl. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (I.e, Is the item one of the 50% of SWEL Items requiring such verification)? , . ' . N 2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

y No bent, broken} or missing hardware 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that Is more than mifd surface oxidation? y No corrosion observed 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? Y No cracks obselVed in the area that could be viewed. Carpet In the control room was not pulled up.* 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item Is N/A one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification Is required.) 6, Based on ihe above anchorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic condilions? y Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? No credible interact/on sources. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, oeiling tiles. and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Suspended ceiling Is hung by a braced unistrut system. The lighting over the control consoles and vertical boards are Independently hung. The HVAC duct Is braced and the registers are Independently rod hung. No masonry walls. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Cables come tip through the floor. Adequate flexibility.

10. Based on the above seismic Interaction evaluations, is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic Interaction effects? Other Adverse ConditIons y y Y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment?

Page 1 of 17 I !- Equipment

== Description:==

Main Control Boards (Console) Comment: The panel Is welded to steel pJates embedded In the concrete floor. The Internal hardware Is securely mounted. The length and spacing of the welds to the embedded plates were confirmed by probing under the panel base cove. The existence of lhe welds joining the tab plates to the panel base channel was confirmed by locating the heat scorch marks on the Inside face of the base channel Evaluated by' SMM Page 2 of 17 y Equllpmlent ID No

== Description:==

Main Control Boards (Vertical) location: Building: AoorEI. jAO Room, Area: .l::l!fli Manufacturer, model, Etc. InstructIons for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. AnchQrage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (I.e, Is the item one of the 50% of SWEL Items requiring such verificatIon)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

No broken, bent, or missing hardware 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that Is more than mild surface oxidation? No signs of corrosion observed. N y y 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks In the concrete near the anchors? Y No cracks observed In visible areas. We did not pull up control room carpet. 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the Item Is N/A one of the 50% for whIch an anchorage configuration Verification Is required.)

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse selsmio conditions?

y Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? No credible Interaction sources. a. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and fightlng. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Suspended ceiling is hung by a braced un/strut system. The lighting over the control consoles and vertical boards 8re independently hung. The HVAC duct is braced 8nd the regIsters are Independently rod hung. No masonry walls. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoId damage? Cables come up through the floor and have adequate flexibility.

10. Based on the above seismic Interaction evaluations, Is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic Interaction .effects?

Other Adverse Conditions y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page 1 0129 Equipment

== Description:==

Malo Control Boards (Vertical) Comment: . The panel is welded to steel plates embedded In the concrete floor. The Internal hardware is securely mounted. The pane/Is bolted to the adjacent vertical board. The length and spacing of the welds to the embedded plates were confirmed by probing under the panel base cove. The existence of the welds JoinIng the tab plates to the panel base channel was confirmed by locating the heat scorch marks on the Inside face of the base channel. y Page 2 of29 y Equipment

== Description:==

Hot Shutdown Panel --_._---..... _----_ ....... _---location: BuildIng: FloorEL 100 Room, Area: 1-TRY11 Manufacturer, model, Etc. Westinghouse Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the foilowing questions may be used to record the of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. [s the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

The panel is anchored to a structural wide-flange frame by (4) 5/8" bolts both front and back. The outer flange of the wide-flange beam is anchored to the concrete floor slab by (6) 5/8" embedded studs both front and back. There are (2) additional anchor stUds for the Inner flange that are located opposite the (2) center studs both front and back which could not be seen (See drawing 443480-1).

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

y y y 4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? Y 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies If the item is Y one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is reqUired.) Anchorage;s consistent with draWing 443480-1 and calculation sketch IS-04 sheet 41. 6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions? y Interaction Effect§, 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures?

8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment?

Conduit and HVAC ducling is rigidly supported. Room lighting is supported by ball and socket connections. ReInforced masonry wall has additional support both at the base and top. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Connections are rigid conduit. 10. Based on the above seismiC Interaction evaluations, is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditions y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page 1 of 29 Seismic Walkdo\M1 Checklist (S\IVC) Status: Y Equipment 10 No DC'-1-96-E-PNL-HSP Equipment Class: 20 Equipment

== Description:==

Hot Shutdown Panel -----_., --Comment: Includes CCW Pump CoiJtrol Switch DC-1-14-E-S-CCWP1-CSH which was reviewed. Eva lu al e dby: TRK * ./ f J ,') Date: DRG t. tJ n /J1 IO/U3(lb/0 Page 2 of29 EQUlipmlent Class: _.-.. _ ..... -.... ----------------- location: Building: Auxiliary FloorEt 85 Manufacturer, model, Etc. Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic WaJkdown of an Item of equipment on the SWEL. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for QO'cumenting other comments . . _._-... --_ .. -_._-------_._ .. ----------_ .. _._-._ ............ -.-.---.. -_ .... _._----_ .. _-_ ... -.. .. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verIfication required (i.e, Is the Item one of the 500/0 of SWEl items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or toose hardware?

Anchorage to the concrete wall consists (2) tabs that are welded to the back ofthe cabinet near the top and bottom comers and are bolted to Unlstrut sections by 1/2" bolts and spring nuts. The Un/strut sections are In tum bofted to the concrete wall by (3) 112" expansion anchors. 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item Is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)
6. Based on the above anchorage evaluatIons, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditioQs?

Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? Soft targets conSist of runs of stainless steel tubing to the panel which (un along the wall. B. Are overhead eqUipment. distribution systems. ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonl)' block. walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Overhead conduit and CCW piping are well supported. Room lighting is secured to wall-mounted Unistrut sections by ball and socket connections.

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Tubing and panel mounted on common wall. 10. Based on the above .seismic Interaction evaluations, Is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Qther Adveme Conditions
11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the equipment?

Minor housekeeping issues In room wifl not affect function of panel. N y y y N/A y y y y y y Page 1 of 13 Seismic Walkdown Checklist (5'JVC) Status: Y Equipment 10 No DC-1-96-M-PNL-PM-101 Equipment Class: Z.Q Equipment Description

Mechanical Panel No PM-101(.Component Cooling Water Supply Header Instrumentation)

Comment: Includes Flow Transmitter DC-1-14 T-FT-65 which was reviewed. Eva l uated by; TRK ORC /ttl//';tj 10 Page 2 of 13 Status! Y Equipment Class: 2.Q. . Equipment Desorlption: Mechanical penel NQ PM-1 Q::(SJeam (Jenerator No 1 Instrumentatipn) Location: Building: FloorEI. 85 Room, Area: Manufacturer. model, Etc. Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist maybe used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdowh of an Item of equipment on the SWEL. Tr,e $pace below each of1he fonowing questions may be used to racord the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provi(jedat {he end of this checklist for documenting other comments. AnchQrage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, Is the ilam one of the 50% of SWEL items requJring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent. broken. mIssing or loose hardware?

All anohors are present and securely fastened.

3. Is the anchorage free of corrosIon that Is more than mild surface oxidation?

Panel feet had recently been replaced and show no signs of corrosion.

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? No cracks are vIsible. 5. Is the anchorage configuration 90ns!stem with plant documentation? (Note: This question only appftes if the [tern is one of the 50% for whIch an anchorage configuration verifioatlon is required.) , Dra..wings show 5/8/1 expansion bolts connecting struts ta mounting plate. As built conditions Sl10W normal 5/8" bolts. Judged to be ok due to equiva/ont capacities.

Base 8nchors are (6) 5/8" bolls (3 on eaoh side of paneQ. 6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, Is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions? Interact1Qn Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby equipment or structures? No credible sources far Impact. S. Are ovarhead equipment! distribution systems, ceiling Illes, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the eqUipment? No overhead eqUIpment ceiling tiles, ligilting, or masonry bloc/( walls. Piping above is mounted securely.

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Flex conduit sheathIng behind panel does not entirely cover fnterlorwiring at cotmecf/on, see photo on page 10. See Attachment 1 for d;sposltion. . 10. Based on the above seismic interaotlon evaluations, is equipment of potentially adverSe seismic Interaatlon effects? No seismic Interaotion Issues. Qther Adverse Conditions
11. Have you looked for and found no other selsinlc conditions that could adversely affect the safety funotion of the equipment? . See question #9 notes. y y y y y y y y y y y Page 1 of 11 status: Y Equipment ID No PC-1-96-M-PNL-PM"103 Equipment Class: 2.Q Equipment

== Description:==

Mecbanlcal Panel No pM.1Wsteam Generator No 1 Instmmentafion} Comment: Illcludes sUbcomponent DC-1-04-1-T-PT .. S14. Evaluated by; KTM SMM Page:2 of11 Seismic Walkdown Checklist (SWC) Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit-L Eq u ipm e nt No. D C-1-96-M-PNL-P M-1 0 3 A tta chme n t 1, P age 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Conduit feeding into bottom of Panel No. PM-103 has a section of flexible conduit that has come loose at the connection Insulated conductors are exposed. Evaluation: The purpose of the flexible conduit is to protect the insulated conductors from environmental and mechanical damage. Based on the FLOC data for the panel, environmenta " 1 qualification is not required and the location of the conduit beneath the panel provides protection from mechanical dam" age. Based on the length and estimated weight of the flexibfe conduit, earthquake-induced motion should not result in damage to the caples. Therefore, this condition does not impact the safe operation of DCPP I but the flexible conduit should be repaired. Notification Required: Yes (50508675) Evaluated by: l!.L<).AM. f?,. Reviewed by: Q ( L¢o//.e.- EQlJlfPrrlent 10 No Location: Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 1QQ Room, Area: Manufacturer, model, Etc. instructions fur Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the SeismiC Walkdown of an item of eqUipment on the SWEL The space each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. AddHional space is provided at the end of this for documenting other comments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (Le. is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

Anchorage to the concrete wall consists (2) tabs that are welded to the back of the cabinet near the top and bottom corners and are bofted to Unlstrut sections by .1/2" bolts and spring nuts. The Un/strut sections are In tum bolted to the concre.te wall by (3) 112" expansion anchors. 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that Is more than mild surface oxidation?

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent With plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item Is one ofthe 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)
6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismiC conditions?

Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from impact by nearby eqUipment or structures? Soft targets consist of runs of stainless steel tubing to the panel which run along the wall. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting. and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the eqUipment? Overhead conduit and cable trays are rigidly supported and form a ceiling over the panel related to Items located above. Conduit junc.tion boxes are conduit mounted. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? CondUil is rigid and stainless tubing has adequate flexibIlity.

10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations, is equipment free of potentially adverse seismic interaction effects? Other Adyerse Conditions N y y y NfA y y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment?

Page 1 of 14 I Seismic walkdolNl1 Checklist (SWC) Status: Y Equipment 10 No PC-1-96-M-PNL-PM-185 Equipment Class: 2Q Equipment Description

Mechanical Panel No PM-18[Condensate Storage Tank Instrumentation)

Comment: Includes Level Transmitter DC-1-16 T-L T -40 which was also reviewed. Evaluated by: /&'J /1¢f'2.Q/-:2. 10/10 (Zo/l,. Page 2 of14 I y I::qlutpfnellt Oescription: Mechanical panel No. pM-ZflReactof level!Wide Range Pressure Instrumentation) location: Building: FloorEI. 85 Room, Area: Manufacturer, model, Etc. ----------------- ..... __ ._ ..* _._--Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEL The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end ofthis checklist for documenting other comments. AnchQrage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (i.e, is the item one of the 50% of SWEL items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent, broken, missing or loose hardware?

Anchorage to the floor slab consists of (3) 318" anchor bolts on either side. In addition, (2) tabs thai are welded to the back of the oapinet near the top comers are bolted to a Unistrut section by 112" bolts and spring nuts. The Un/strut section Is in turn bolted to the concrete walJ by (3) 1/2" expansion anchors. 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation?

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the !nchOrage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verrtication is required.)
6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations.

is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions? Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby equipment or structures? The panel only houses (4) transmitters and there are no soft targets except for the stainless steel tubing running to/from the panel. The tubing runs along the waJl. 8. Are overhead eqUipment, distribution systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry: block wans not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Piping, conduit and junction boxes are well supported. Room lighting fixtures are hung from pipe sections with robust hook or ball and socket connections.

9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? All cabinet e/ectrical connections are rigid conduit. Pneumatic lines are small diameter stainless steel tubing that are adequately flexible.
10. Based on the above seismiC interaction evaluations.

Is equipment free of potentially adverse seismIc Interaction effects? Other A.dyerse Conditions N Y y y N/A y y y y y 11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the Y equipment? Page lof12 Seismic Walkdo1Nl1 Cheddist (SVVC) Sta tu s: y Equipmen t 10 No DC-1-96-M-PNL-PM-79 Equipment Class: Equipment Description

Mechanica!

panel No. PM-IgReactor LevellW;de Range Pressure Instrumentation) Comment: Includes Pressure Transmitter DC-1-07-/-T-PT-403 which was reviewed. Evaluated by: ------..*.. _.-------- -:2.0/2-t o/18/ ZOIl-Page 2 of12 m;;;;NI'li"""I'\.alr'lt 10 No I::QIL.llplmem

== Description:==

process Control and Protection System -Process Control Racks location: Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 12.§ Room, Area: 1-EAGlE21 Manufacturer. model, Etc. Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the Seismic Walkdown of an item of equipment on the SWEl. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for dqcumenting othercomments. Anchorage

1. Is the anchorage configuration verification required (Le, is the item one of the 50% of SWEl items requiring such verification)?
2. Is the anchorage free of bent. broken, missing or loose hardware?

Anchorage consists of (4) 3116" welds that are 2-112" long and space"d 6" on center both front and back. 3. Is the anchorage free of corrosion that Is more than mild surface oxidation?

4. Is the anchorage free of visible cracks in the concrete near the anchors? 5. Is the anchorage configuration consistent with plant documentation? (Note: This question only applies if the item is one of the 50% for which an anchorage configuration verification is required.)

Anchorage is consistent with drawings 050053-66.

6. Based on the above anchorage evaluations, is the anchorage free of potentially adverse seismic conditions?

Interaction Effects 7. Are soft targets free from Impact by nearby eqUipment or structures? Nearby panels also welded to false floor I-beams. 8. Are overhead equipment, distribl:ition systems, ceiling tiles, and lighting, and masonry block walls not likely to collapse onto the equipment? Overhead conduit and cable trays are rigidly supported. Room lighting is hung by threaded rod connected to Unistrut sections embedded in the ceiling. 9. Do attached lines have adequate flexibility to avoid damage? Electrical connections at the top of the cabinet are rigid conduit. 10. Based on the above seismic interaction evaluations. is eqUipment free of potentially adverse seismic Interaction effects? Other Adverse Conditions

11. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the eqUipment?

Large overheadjuncfion box is anchored to the ceiling by (4) 112" expansion anchors. N y y N/A N/A y y y y y y Page 10f26 Seismic WalkdollUl1 Cheddist (SWC) Status: Equipment ID No DC-1-99-I-PNL-RN01A Equipment Class: 18 Equipment Description

Process Control and Protection System -Process Control Racks Comment: A upgraded internal structure supporting the control/ers and other components has been designed Bnd Installed.

The new internal structure has been analyzed and seismically qualified. Bjalualed by" Date: Z. ORe iH II 0 __ .iJIl!: __ _ IO/z-I/ZOIL y Page 2 of 26 1 : AWC Number Number of AWC Number Number of Checklist pages of LBEs LBE pages O-DFOVAULT 1 1 1 O-FCV-601 1 0 0 O-FP1 1 0 0 1-8700A 1 0 0 1-AFWP1 1 1 1 1-AFWP2 1 2 2 1-ASP1 1 0 0 1-BAT11 1 0 0 1-BFE-1 1 0 0 1-BFE4 1 0 0 1-BFS-31 2 2 2 1-BTC11 1 0 0 1-CCP1 1 0 0 1-CCP3 1 0 0 1-CCWHE 1 1 2 1-CCWP1 1 0 0 1-CCWST1 1 9 9 1-CP-35 1 1 1 1-CR-35 1 0 0 1-DEG-11 1 1 1 1-DEG-ES-11 1 0 0 1-E43 1 3 3 1-EAGLE21 1 0 0 1-EJ2 2 0 0 1-FCV-365 1 0 0 1-FCV-37 1 0 0 1-FCV-41 1 0 0 1-FCV-641A 1 0 0 1-FCV700 1 0 0 1-FWHRA38 1 0 0 1-HT -EH-29A 1 1 1 1-LCV-110 1 1 1 1-LCV-112B 1 2 2 1-LCV1-15 1 0 0 AWC Number Number of AWC Number Number of Checklist pages of LBEs LBE pages 1-LD30 1 0 0 1-LPH47 1 0 0 1-LPH65 1 0 0 1-LT-102 1 0 0 1-MUWTP1 1 0 0 1-PD15 1 0 0 1-PM-79 1 1 1 1-PM-101 1 0 0 1-PM-103 1 3 3 1-PM-185 1 0 0 1-PNL-ARP 1 0 0 1-RHE1 1 1 1 1-RHRP2 1 0 0 1-RNAR-A 1 1 1 1-RNCI1 1 0 0 1-RV-3 1 2 2 1-RV-13 1 1 1 1-SFPHE1 1 0 0 1-SFPP1 1 0 0 1-SIP1 1 0 0 1-SSPS 1 0 0 1-SWHE1 1 0 0 1-TE117 1 0 0 1-TRY11 1 0 0 1-VB1 1 0 0 Note: Pages include applicable portions of the checklists and LBE required by EPRI 1025286 guidelines. Status Y Location: Building: CPSE Floor EI. 85 Room, Area: O-DFOVAULT for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) t" \ \ fI fi'V' .,1.$0 ta]Lotltf--

2.00es anchorage of equipment the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y. U-bolt on a pipe support downstream of valve deg-O-25 has mild corrosion on the unders;de nuts. Other conduits and misc components were securely anchored. See Attachment No. 1 for disposition. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adeqUate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Lights anchored, oonduits, un;-struts anchored. No HVAC or cable trays in the vault. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g., cening tiles and lighting)? The components attached to the walls and ceiling were adequately secured, no adverse spatial interaction were noted. S. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? Components in the room are securely anchored with adequate spacing. 6. Does it appes:r that the area is free of potentially adverse seismIC interactions that could cause fire in the area? No ignition source noted. DFO is in the tanks outside the vault. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interacUons associated with housekeeping pracHces, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? None noted Y y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? The area is an underground vault (confined space), normally locked. The components in the area were seourefy fastened and no potential seismioalfy induced system interaotions were noted. Comments This area incfudes and DC-O-21-P-FL-DFOTF2 Evaluated by: Date: ltt>>1 /!..tli 't--Jahangir Page 1 of 7 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Building: West Buttress Floor EI. 77 Room, Row/Cot: O-DFOVAULT Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Diesel Fuel Oil (DFO) Vault 0-2/ e/ev. 77 ft., corrosion was noted on one U-bolt on fine number 2599, support number 20-85R. Evaluation: This U-bolt anchors the 2" diameter DFO line #2599 to the three way support 20-85R, as shown in drawing number 049318, sheet 11 OB, section D. Note that this entire support drawing is shown in drawing 049318 sheets 107-109 and all series 110 sheets (A-J, X, and Y). Based on a visual inspection, there is no indication of reduction of cross sectional area on the U-bolt, and the corrosion is considered light. For these reasons/ in the current condition the support is still capable of performing its intended function, and there is no impact to operation of the DFO system. Recommendation: To minimize future impacts, engineering recommends that coatings repairs be performed on this U-bolt. Notification Required: Yes (50509119) Evaluated by: __ _ Reviewed by: ... --"-,c::>=*.-p- ...... Status Y Location: Building: Intake Floor EI. ::::a: Room, Area: Q-FeY-6Ql Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

No Issues were Identified. 2.00es anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y Anchorage of equipment appeared to be in good condition. 3.Based on visual inspection froITl the floor, do the cable/condu!t raceways and HYAC dueting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports Is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Conduit appeared to be adequately secured. No HVAC dueling in the area. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e,g., ceiling tiles and lighting)? No seismic spatial interaction issues were Identified.

5. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause flooding or spray y In the area? No fire piping in the area. 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire in the area? No flammable sources in the area. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

Ladder leading up to the area was chained at the top to prevent it from toppling. y Y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No issues were identified. Comments Evaluated by: Date: lol tGI Page 1 of 6

ii, Status Y Location

Building: FloorEI. ill Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEl items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist,for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of eqUipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

All anchorage appeared to be in good condition. 2.008S anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y No s/gnffjcant corrosion was found on any anchorage. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports Is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? HVAC dueling appears to be adequately secured. 4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatiallnteractions with other equipment in the Y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)? No potentially adverse spatial interaction issues were identified. A light was found to be ehain hung at east end of room. but no safety related equipment was in the vicinity.

5. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause flooding or spray y In the area? All fire water piping appeared to be adequately secured. No sprinklers in the area. 6. boes it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? No credible sources that could cause a fire were Identified.
7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interact[ons associated with housekeepIng practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

All temporary equipment were stowed in proper locations and anchored to supports. Y y 8. Have you looked for and found no other conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No issues were identified. Comments Includes DC-O-18-M-PP-FP1. Evaluated by: KIM _________ __ Date: Page 1 of 10

  • 1. Status Y Location:

Building: FloorEL n Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditrons (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

All anchorage appeared to be in good condition. 2.00es anchorage of equipment [n the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y No degradation noted. 3.Based on visual Inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supportsJs adequaie and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be insIde acceptable limits)? Ventilation duct is unsupported over approximately a 10ft span. Judged not to have adverse affects due to fixed anchorage at both ends. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spaUal interactions with other equipment in the area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)? No seismic spatial interaction issues were identified. y 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y In the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y No credible sources were found. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices. storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffOlding, lead shielding)? Adequate chains provided and installed on ladder storage area in the corner of the room. Y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No issues. Comments Evaluated by: Date: \ Page 1 of 4 Location: Building: AuxHiary Floor EI. 100 Room. Area: Status N Instructions for Compl&ting Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the an::ia near one or more SWEL Items. The space below ee.ch of the foHowing questions may b-e used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments, -------------------

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the -area appear to be free of potentially adverse seIsmic conditions (ifvisibie Y without necessarily openin9 cabineis)

All anchorage appears to be free from adverse conditions, 2.Does anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y No degraded conditions were identified. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ductlng appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g .* condition of supports Is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Ths veble rat:$ways and HVAC ducllng are free from potentially adverse seismic conditions.

4. Does it appear that the area is free (If potentlaUy adverse seismic spatiallnteracUons with other equipment In the y area(e.g., cening tiles and lighting)?

No issues with equIpment were identified.

5. Does It appear that the a rea Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray N in the area? Fire water piping line is cantilevered about 10 feet; with a sprinkler head qlearance of about 2 11 , The fire wafer piping could easfly be pushed 80 that the sprinkler IIead could impact a nearby conduit. Line is located direotly to the east of pump See Aflachmenf 1 for disposition.
6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire In the area? No oredib/()

saurOM for fire were identified, Hydrogen line appears to be welf supported.

7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse s.elsmlc Interactions associated with housekeepIng practices, storage of portable eqUipment, and temporary installations (e.g, scaffolding, lead shielding)?

No temporary or portable equipment Issues were found. y y 8, Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No other issues were identified. Comments Includes and Evaluated by: Page 1 of 13 Power Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 100 Room, Row/Col: 1-AFWP1 -------Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: A potential seismically induced water spray interaction was noted for a fire sprinkler directly to the east of pump no. DC-1-03-M-PP-AFWP1. The gap between the connection for a sprinkler head at the end of a run of 1-112" sprinkler piping and a rigid iron conduit fitting is approximately 2 inches. Since the sprinkler piping is rod-hung, and the sprinkler head is at the end of an approximately 10 foot long branch line, induced swinging of the sprinkler piping could potentially result in an impact between the pipe connection or protective cage on the sprinkler head} and the conduit fitting. Evaluation: An assessment pertormed by Piping Design Engineering indicates that the predicted Hosgri seismic displacements for the sprinkler piping exceed the available clearance. Therefore, the pipe connection will potentially impact the conduit fitting during a large earthquake. The predicted stresses in the pipe connection associated with the postulated impact are significantly less than the allowable stresses, so the pipe will not be damaged. However, since the sprinkler head is located very near the point of postulated impact, it is possible that the sprinkler head will be actuated, resulting in water spray in the turbine driven AFW pump room. The walkdown indicates that there is no safe shutdown electrical equipment within the spray zone. 3ince the flooding analysis for the AFW pump rooms considers the water associated with actuation of the fire suppression system (which includes this sprinkler head), this condition is enveloped by the flooding analysis. Note that the conduit fitting that could be impacted by the sprinkler piping is very robust, and well supported by the attached conduit and conduit supports, so the potential impact will not result in damage to the conduit system. Therefore, the potential impact between the fire sprinkler piping and the conduit will not affect the safe operation of DCPP. Recommendations: Consider adding lateral bracing on the sprinkler line to prevent potential impact with the conduit fitting. Notification Required: Yes (50519442) Evaluated by: _-=wC!..!r..!...!h.!::..5_--=:. ___ ___ ________ _ Reviewed by: _____ ....:1.4....;::='O:.r/..1-( b-5::--------- y Location: Building: Floor EI. .1.QQ. Room, Area: 1-AFWP2 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the (ollowing questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seIsmic conditions (If visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) 2.00es anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of signlfioant degraded conditions?

Y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ductlng appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? Sheet metal shroud over fire sprinkler has about 11211 clearance from adjacent rod-hung HVAC duct. Differential displacement between the duct and fire sprinkler could cause the duct to impact the sprinkler shroud and break the sprln/(/er, causing flood and/or spray to nearby equipment. The HVAC duct;s rigidly supported about 4' away from the sprinkler at a wall penetration. Review of the duot and firewater pipe support oonfiguration indioates that these items are rigidly supported and will not displace slgnlficanlly. See Attachment 1 for disposition.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment In the y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?
5. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray Y in the area? 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that CQuid cause fire in the area? Y 2" hydrogen line with welded guard pipe runs overhead.

Appears to be adequately supported.

7. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeepIng Y practices, storage of portable eqUipment, and temporary Installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?
8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? An electrical instrument on Is In contact wlfh a small manual valve (FW-1-173).

Both are rigidly supported and differential motion between the two Is judged unlikely. . Comments Includes DC*1-03-M-PP-AFWP2. Leaking sprln/(/er line fitting noted on fire piping at north end of room. See Attachment 2 for dIsposition. Evaluated by: Date: ,0' JJt /2-Pagel of 12 Diablo Canyon Power Plant t Unit.-1 Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 100 Room, Row/Col: __ Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Sheet metal. shroud over fire sprinkler has about 1/2" clearance from adjacent rod-hung HVAC duct. Differential displacements between the duct and tire sprinkler could cause duct to impact the sprinkler shroud and break the sprinkler, causing flood and/or spray to nearby equipment. The HVAC duct is rigidly supported about 4' away from the sprinkler at a wall penetration. Evaluation: The layout of this ducting in question is shown in drawings 59630 and 515668. The sprinkler head in question is located dIrectly North of support # 20, underneath the 46"x14') duct run. There are three rigid duct support numbers 59360-19, 20, and 21 (see drawing 515668) that restrain the ducting in this area. Support # 19 anchors the duct to the nearby wall and support #'s 20 and 21 are axial supports on perpendicular sections of attached ducting. As shown in the duct support drawings, all of these supports act as anchors for the duct in the N-S direction. Therefore, the horizontal displacement of this duct in the N-S direction will be very small. The firewater piping has a rigid support located within one foot of the end of the pipe where the sprinkler head is attached; therefore, the displacement of the firewater pipe at this location will also be very small. Since the clearance has been identified as about '!1t, and the differential displacement between the sprinkler head and the duct will be minimal, this is adequate clearance to allow for this displacement and not cause an interaction rherefore, this condition is judged acceptable as is} and no interaction is possible. References used in this evaluation:

1. Dwg. 59360-1, Rev. 29, UVentiiation Plan EI. 100'-0.' Area K, GE, GW, & J" 2. Dwg. 515668-1, Rev. 2, "HVAC Duct Support Locations Plan Area K, GE, GW, & J EI. 100'-0"" 3. Dwg. 471431-1, Rev. 4, "HVAC Duct Support Location Orientation Index" 4. Dwg. 6000956-1547 to 1549, and 2024 to 2028, Rev. 1, "HVAC Duct Support Details n Notification Required:

No. Evaluated by: __ Reviewed by: ____________________ Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Building: Auxlliary Floor EI. 100 Room, Row/Col: __ 1_-A_F_W_P_2 __ Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Leaking sprinkler line fitting noted on fire piping at north end of room. Evaluation: The leak rate is very small and there is no sign of equipment damage from water at this time. Therefore, this condition does not impact plant safety, but should be repaired. Notification Required: Yes (50508618) Evaluated by: __ ___ _____________ _ Reviewed by: __ __ bO--!:-(---,1 'l:......:c /_l_2--___ ---'-_________ _ location: Floor EI. :2...1 Room, Area: Instructions for Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is checklist for documenting other comments. y below each of the at the end of this 1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) No structural Issues. 2.Doe5 anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y No Issues were identified. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g .* condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be adequately secured. See DC-1-23-M-BF-E-103 SWC far details on a nut that is not fully engaged. No structura/lssues to note. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y areaCe.g., ceiling tiles and lighting}? Spatia/Interaction Issues have been addressed In DC-2-23-M-BF-E-103 SWC and DC-1-17-M-PP-ASP1 SWC. 5. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray Y In the area? Na potential adverse seismic interactions were Identlfled that could cause flooding ar spraying.

6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire in the area? No potentlaf sources for fire in the area. 7. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding.

lead shielding)? Na temporary equipment in the area. y y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Na ather Issues were Identified. Comments Includes DC-1-17-M-PP-ASP1 and DC-1-23-M-BF-E-103. Evaluated by: Date: Page 1 of 6 Status Y location: Building: Auxilia'Y F!oorEL ill Room,Area: 1:I2AI11 instructions 'for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL Items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabfnets)

Battery racks are weI/anchored 2.00es anchorage of equIpment In the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y No significant degradation 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentiafly adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports Is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? Conduit is well supported. HVAC duct is supported at the walls. Fire wati3f piping is welJ supported.

4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seIsmic spatial Interactions with other equipment in the Y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Overhead lighting is hung by chains with closed hooks and has a safety chain. 5. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismIc interactrons that could cause flooding or spray y In the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y 7. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions associated with housekeeping practices. storage of portable equlpment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding. lead shielding)? No other jtems stored In the battery room. y B. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? PA speaker Is anchored to the wall. Comments Includes Evaluated by: Date: /0 /1'1 (.0 rl-Page 1 of 6 . i Status Y Location: BuHding: Auxiliary Floor EI. 140 Room, Area: -----------

_.,----_._._---._

... _-_. __ .* Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equfpment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

No adverse seismic conditions were identified. 2.00e8 anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Mild surface corrosion on DC-1-23-M-BF-£-1 skid and anchor bolts. Mild surface corrosion on backdraff dampers. No structural issues were identified. y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueling appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fitl conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptabre limits)? No HVAC dueting above the fan. Raceways in area are adequately supported.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse sersmlc spatial interactions with other equipment In the y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Lighting is rod hung wUh a bafl and socket jOint on one end and an S-hook on the opposite end 01 the fixture. Seismic Interaction is judged to be incapable of damaging equipment or soft targets. 5. Does rt appear that the area is free of potentially adverse se1smic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? No fire water piping in the room. 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire in the area? No flammable sources were Identified.

7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices.

storage of portable equipment. and temporary installations (e.g, scaffolding, lead shielding)? No temporary equipment in the area. y y 8. Have you tooked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety funcUons of the Y equipment in the area? No Issues were identified. Room relatively open with minimal sources. Comments Includes DC*1-23*M-BF*E*1. Evaluated by: Date: Page 1 of 7 y Location: Floor EL 140 Room. Area: Instructions for Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Fan DC-1-23-M-BF-E-4 is the only equipment item in tile room. Reviewed conduit, cable trays} instrument tubing, room lighting, HVAC ducling, and HEPA Filter system. 2.Does anchorage of eqUipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g .. condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Conduit and HVAC ducting are rigidly supported.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the Y area{e.g .* ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Room lighting is either wall mounted or hung from the ceiling by pipe sections with ball and socket connections. HEPA filters are well restrained.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment.

and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? Area is clean. S. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-23-M-BF-E-4. Evaluated by: Date: IP/;'f/W) /D /18/ ZiJ IL Page 1 of 8 Status Location: Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 140 Room, Area: Instructions for Compl&ting Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. t Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) Anchorage of backdrafl dampers mounted to the wall have some bolts that have been sheared off, see photos on pages 6 and 7. 1 anchor bolt has been sheared off on each side of damper BD-59 for fan 8-31 and 3 anchor bolts have been sheared off (2 on the left side facing the wall and 1 on the opposite side) for damper 80-60 attached to fan S-32. A post walkdown investigation yielded documents that validated the design basis for damper BD-59 and damper 80-60 in their as found conditions. Missing bolts had already been identified and resolved in AIR A0289408 for 8D-59 and AIR A 0289449 for 80-60, which validates the current state of the anchoragefor both dampers. Drawing 663501-21 (Note 14) also mentions the missing studs from both 80-59 and 80-60 wall mounts. Cracks are visible near fan belt shroud support. Judged to be ok. This is a dead load support and is not pettinent to the seismic capaoity of the equipment itself. Adhesion on 3 relay cable mounts have degraded. Not a seismic concern (does not affect fan operation nor is the cable a credible source). System engineer notified. 2, Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Frame between air filters and fan room are corroded. See Attachment 2 for disposition. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions {e.g .* condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the area{e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)? Lighting near filters are chaIn hung and could hit the filters during a seismic event, see photo on page 12. It is judged that the small weight of the fights would not have an adverse effect on the filters. This being said, the lights should be either removed or have the chain shortened for the purpose of good practice. See Attachment 1 for disposition.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area? Fire pipIng is well supported with no potential interaction effects near sprinkler heads. 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions

'that could cause fire in the area? No flammable piping or other items of concern in the area. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? No temporary items in the area. Y Y JIll IIhfJ'Y' KTM Y Y y 8. Have you looked for a.nd found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Page 1 of 13 location: Bulldlng: FloOf El. .MU Room, Area: Comments Inc/odes Evaluated by: Page 2of13 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 140 Room, Row/Col: 1-BFS-31 -------Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: An overhead fluorescent light fixture was found resting against the S-31 Fan filter bank. This is a potential SISI issue, as the light fixture could swing into the filters in a seismic event. Evaluation: The light fixture is attached to the ceiling with small chain. It is relatively lightweight and its shroud is very flexible. The filters are mounted on robust structural frames. It is judged that if the light fixture were to swing into the filter frames during a seismic event) since the light fixture is of lighter weight and thinner sheet metal type construction there would be minimal damage to the filter frame, and the function of the filters would not be impacted. Additionally, there would be no blockage of airflow from this light fixture. Therefore, this condition does not impact the operation of DCPP, but it is recommended that this light fixture be raised up to a level that is above the filter banks, similar to U-2 equivalent. Notification Required: Yes (50509024) Evaluated by: ____ _ Reviewed by: __ D....:R.,:...C;;,....-* __ _____ ___________ _ Diablo Canyon Power Plant, -1. Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 140 Room, Row/Col: __ 1_-B_F_S_-_3_1 Attachment 2., Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Corrosion was noted on abandoned structural steel members located along the north wall of this room. These frames are abandoned in place, and were originally installed to support auxiliary steam piping for heating the inlet air into the room. This piping has been removed. Evaluation: There is no impact to the operation of DCPP, since these ffcames are abandoned in place and no longer used. These structural steel members are near the filter banks for the 8-31 fans; however, the location and amount of the corrosion does not impaot their structural integrity during a seismic event {self weight only; no items are attached to these frames}. Therefore, no SISI concerns exist. The coatings on these frames should be repaired or they should be permanently removed since they are abandoned. Notification Required: Yes (50509025)

valuated by: _-=-S:..:..:.:MM=-=-=--

__ Reviewed by: __ D_R_C._' ___ jffi-fk-+.L..--I-a_ . ____ '_0 ____________ _ Status Y location: Building: F!oor EL ill Room, Area: j*BTCH --------_. __ ._----_ .. __ .---_._---_ ... -.. --_. __ . __ . Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk.-by near one or more SWEL Items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at 1he end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

The anchorage of components in the area do not show adverse conditions 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of sIgnificant degraded conditions? y No significant degradation observed 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? Conduit and cable frays are well supported. Lighting is conduit hung. It can sway but can maintain vertical load capacity.

4. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment In the Y area(e.g'l cerling tiles and lighting)?
5. Does It appear that the araa is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?
8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? PA speaker, warning light, and emergency light are supported and are unlikely to Impact the essential equipment in the room even If the anchorage were to fail Comments Includes DC-1-65-E-UPS-/Y11, DC-1-67-E-BTC-BTC11, and DC-1-67-E-LC-SD11 . Evaluated by: Date: /ol!,!u J '2 101/1/ ZfJIl.-Page 1 of 8 Status Y LocaUon: Building:

Auxiliary Floor EI. 73 Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y wlthout necessarily opening cabinets)

No adverse anchorage conditions were seen. 2.Doe8 anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of signiftcant degraded conditions? y No corrosion was seen In the area. 3.Based on visuallnspec!ion from the floOf, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueling appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fiU conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? All overhead distribution systems appear to be adequately restrained. HVAC ducting and firewater piping are adequately restrained with seismic supports.

4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g., cening tiles and lighting)?

Piping extending from pump Js about 1" from monorail. Judged not to be a seismic concern due to the rugged supporls of both the monoraH and the piping. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? Sprlnkfer cover is near a monorail support. Judged not to be an adverse seismic interaction issue due to the rugged supports near the proposed point of contact. . 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? No flammable sources in the area. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment. and temporary Installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? Monorail crane had its chain securely slowed in B wall mounted box. No other temporary or portable equipment. y y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment In the area? No Issues. Comments Includes DC-1-08-M-PP-CCP1 and subcomponent DC-1-08-M-PP-AP1. Evaluated by: Date: 1illd

    • , *** /. *. *. -.--. £MM 7£=/(-1:>

Page 1 of 13 . i Status 'Y Location: . Building: Floor El. 73 Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

All anchorage visible from floor appears adequate. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y No degraded conditions in the area, 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Conduit in the area are anchored securely to the walls or ceiling. 4. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)? No potentially adverse seismic spat/al interactions in the area. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? Fire piping Is about 114" from conduit. Fire piping and conduit span about 8' between restraints. Seismic interaction is judged not to result in a rupture of the fire piping. 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? No sources in the room were identified. y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1 M-PP-CCP3.

Evaluated by: Date: 10/1 S/()-e>> Page 1 of 5 Location: Building: Turbine Floor EI. 85 Room, Area: l-CCWHE Instructions for Gomp,letllng Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewed room access monitor, room lighting, emergency lighting, reinforced masonry wall, fire water piping, SCW piping, cable trays, conduit, and junction boxes. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y 3.Based on vIsual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g .* ceiling tiles and lighting)? Virtually all components in the area have no soft targets or are located in places that preclude impact from falling hazards. The only credible falling hazard appears to be the fluorescent tubes in the room lighting fixtures but these are of no impact on the components of interest in this evaluation.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y There are a few cases over the hal/way area where the rigidly supported fire protection piping is in contact or in close proximity to larger fluid piping lines that are supported on rod-hung trapeze. It is judged that the relative displacements will be small. For disposition see Attachment
1. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with hOllsekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?
8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Reinforced masonry wall includes additional reinforcement at base and at the top. Comments Includes DC-1-14-M-HX-CCWHE1, OC-1-14-E-P-VOM-CCW-1-FCV-430, OC-1-14-/-E-TE-6, DC-1-17-P-VOA-SW-1-FCV-602, and DC-1-25-M-TK-BUAS-602.

Evaluated by: IBK// K8 Date: /O/I¥j '2012..-IOJ2G/1 lof30 Diablo Building: Turbine Floor EI. 85 Room, Row/Col: __ 1-,--_C_C_W_H_E __ Attachment it Page 1 of 2 Licensing Basis Evaluation A potential source of seismically Induced flooding was identified for Unit 1 CCW Heat Exchanger Room. Specifically, the clearance between an overhead thread-fitting fire water pipe and a service cooling water pipe may be insufficient to prevent physical interaction during" an earthquake. Assessment of As-Found Condition The following assessment of the potential piping interactions are based on visual inspection of the piping systems (i.e. Fire protection and sew piping and their support arrangement) and seismic engineering experience and judgment as described below. The smaller 3" threaded fire protection piping may be impacted by the movement of the larger sew piping 0" diameter). However, it is judged that the anticipated movement of the sew pipeline will be relatively small. This is because the sew piping system consists of two identical lines, one on top of the other, that run through wall penetrations above the entrance doorway at one end, are supported by a two-level trapeze at an intermediate point not far from the potential impact point, and then bend to the south running through what appears to be a fire barrier rather than a concrete wall. Because of the supporting system configuration, the small gap (approx. 1/8") between the SCW and fire protection line, it is anticipated that the sew piping will not be able to develop significant inertia and therefore the contact with the fire protection piping will be a low level impact. Although earthquake experience shows that the threaded FP piping may be susceptible to leakage due to severe pipe Impacts; in this case any potential leakage Is not anticipated to cause any damage to safety related components based on visual inspection of the area. Any potential spray onto the floor Is anticipated to go through the floor drain and under the security door out of the room. Also the pit under the HX in which Safety related equipment is located Is surrounded by a 6" curb. Therefore it Is not expected that significant water will enter the Pit under the HX. In conclusion the proximity of the FP piping to the sew piping is not anticipated to create a condition that can cause seismic induced flooding concerns for components attached to the eeWHE (Le. FCV* 602). The second noted anomaly was the contact between the same FP piping downstream at another location approximately 9' east of the above discussed location. However at this location the pipe is reduced to 1" and it is judged that the piping is flexible enough to deflect to accommodate vertical movements from the larger pipe above, and as such it is not anticipated to create a concern for safety related components. The piping systems addressed here are all non-safety related and built to applicable FP code and or ASME b31.1 piping. The power piping (non-seismic) have generally performed well during earthquakes and as such their behavior is not of significant concern. As noted above the concern here has to do with threaded joint used in FP that may cause a leak due to deflection. In this case any potential leakage is not anticipated to cause damage to Safety related components and/or create flooding concerns in this area. Building: Floor EL Notification Required: Yes (50509856) Evaluated by; Reviewed by: __ -/-Atta.chment if 2 of 2 Status Y location: Buitding: FloorEI. Room, Area: j*ccwe1 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checkflst for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

All anchorage appears to be in good conditfon. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y No corrosion is present. 3.Based on visual inspection from the flo art do the cabfe/conduit raceways and HVAC ducling appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? All HVAC and conduit are properly anchored.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Interactions with other equipment in the y area{e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

No issues were identified other than those already addressed in DC-1-14-M-PP-CCWP1 SWC, 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y In the area? Sprinkler head Is less than 112" from pipe "vital HDR b clg wir supply to CCW pump". Fire water piping and CCW pIping are judged to be rigidly anchored and will not interact to cause spraying in the area. 6. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? No credible sources in the area, 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactrons associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment. and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding. lead shielding)? A light fixture is chain hung and is touching the monorail support. It is judged to be incapable of damaging the support in a seismic event. . Y Y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No other ;ssues. Comments Includes DC-1-14-MMPP-CCWP1 and SUbcomponent Evaluated by: Date: . 161 { 51 cNDic>-Page 1 of 13 I I Canyon Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 163 Room, Row/Col: __ 1-_C_C_W_S_T_1 __ Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Severe corrosion was noted on the mounting skid and anchorage for Centrifugal Chiller Pump No. PP-170B. Evaluation: The extent of corrosion is sufficient to compromise the structural integrity of the pump anchorage to the Auxiliary Building roof. However, since the pump is not safety related, and there are no vulnerable SISIP targets in the vicinity, failure of the pump's anchorage during a seismic event will not compromise the safe operation of DCPP. Repair/rep/ace the mounting skid and anchorage for this pump, including repainting, as necessary. Notification Required: Yes (50513394) E val u ated by: --...-'---II"-'----r-lIr-Hf------'" Reviewed by: Canyon Power Unit Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 163 Room, Row/Col: Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Significant corrosion was noted on Level Transmitter No. L T-116 and its support .. Evaluation: Attachment

6. Page 1 of 1 Per the FLOC data for this level transmitter, it is Design Class I, but is only seismically qualified for pressure boundary/structural integrity.

Based on a visual examination, the corrosion is considered to be surface corrosion, so it will not impact the integrity of the transmitter during a seismic event. Recommend that the transmitter and its support be prepared and recoated. Notification Required: Yes (50513930) Evaluated by: __ Reviewed by: ______ __ --__ Power Unit Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. . 163 Room, Row/Col: 1-CCWST1 ------- Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Significant corrosion was noted on several of the pipe supports associated with piping attached to the CCW surge tank. Evaluation: The pipe supports are safety related and seismically qualified. However, based on visual examination, this is surface corrosion and does not impact the structural integrity of the supports at this time. Recommendations: The appropriate design change vehicle is required to provide appropriate drainage paths to prevent the pooling of water in the supports. Corroded areas should be prepared and recoated. Notification Required: Yes (50514690 (Design Change), 50514351 (preparation and recoat)) by: Reviewed by: Diablo Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 163 Room, Row/Col: 1-CCWST1 -----"---=--'----- Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Significant corrosion was noted on Level Switch No. LS-321 Evaluation: Per the FLOC data for this level switch it is Design Class I, but is only seismically qualified for pressure boundary/structural integrity. Based on a visual examination, the corrosion is considered to be surface corrosion, so it will not impact the integrity of the switch during a seismic event. Recommend that the level switch be prepared and recoated. Notification Required: Yes (50514350) Evaluated by: Reviewed by: Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 163 Room, Row/Col: __ 1-_C_C_W_S_T_1 __ Attachment Q, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Significant corrosion was noted on a support for the Control Room Pressurization Duct, north-east of the CCW Surge Tank. Evaluation: The CRPS duct and supports are Design Class I and seismically qualified. Visual examination indicates that this is surface corrosion, and does not impact the structural integrity of the support at this time. Recommend that the duct support be prepared and recoated. Notification Required: Yes (50514691) Evaluated by: __ Reviewed by: ______ Unit Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 163 Room, Row/Col: --------1-CCWST1 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Through-wall corrosion was noted on the box for Switch No. FS-50471 north-east of the CCW Surge Tank. Evaluation: The switch is Design Class I and seismically qualified for structural/pressure boundary integrity. However, the function of the box is to protect the switch from the environment, so the corrosion of the box will allow water to reach the switch, but will not impact the ability of the switch to perform its function at this time. Recommend that the box be repaired or replaced and recoated. Notification Required: Yes (50514692) Evaluated by: Reviewed by: ______ _____ Power Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 163 Room, Row/Col: __ 1-_C_C_W_S_T_1 __ Attachment.§, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Surface corrosion was noted on the base plate for the support for Pressure Indicator No. PI-2031 and Pressure Transmitter No. PT-850. Evaluation: The Pressure Indicator and Pressure Transmitter are Design Class I and seismically qualified for structural/pressure boundary integrity. Visual examination indicates that this is surface corrosion and will not impact the structural integrity of the support at this time. Recommend that the support steel, including base plate, be prepared and recoated. Notification Required: Yes (50514693) Evaluated by: L-=---Il, il-lf--!IL=--- ___ _ Reviewed by: _____ __ Power Building: ___ --"-_ Floor EI. 163 Room, Row/Col: __ 1-_C_C_W_S_T_1 __ Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Surface corrosion was noted on the conduit clamps associated with numerous conduits on the roof to the east of the CCW Surge Tank. Evaluation: Based on the fact that the conduits are color-banded, they contain vital electric circuits. Therefore, the conduit supports are Design Class I. Visual examination indicates that this is surface corrosion and will not impact the structural integrity of the clamps at this time. Recommend that the clamps be replaced. Notification Required: Yes (50514743) Evaluated by: Reviewed by: FlamEI 154 Area: used to document the results of the area be used to record the results of judgements other comments near one or more SWEL items, The space findings, Additional space is provided at the Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free potentially adverse seismic conditions (if necessarily opening cabinets) Reviewed conduit, fire water piping, refrigerant tubing and motor dn'ven fans, and cable trays. are cantilevered off the ventilation dueling. of the damper. See Au'ac)!unleht 2,00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free significant degraded conditions? 3,8ased on visual inspection from the fioor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueling potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g" condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions appear to be inside acceptable limits)? to be free of trays Cable trays, conduit, and HVAC ducling all have rigid supports. Panels and junction boxes adequatefy anchored to racks, wallS, or ceiling, Components on masonry wall employ through-bolts. Does it area(e.g,. the area is free of potentially adverse seismic'spatial interactions with other equipment in the tiles and lighting}? Room iighting employ ball and socket or embedded Unistrut connections to the ceiling. 5. Does it appear tI-lat the area Is in the area? of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray One sprinkler head near the norlhwesi comer of the room is touching the canvas wrapping for 8 duct. based on the support for the fire piping and the duct configuration at the contact point, it is judged that the contacl will not resull in breaking of the sprinl<Jer head or Joss of fire water (rom the pipe. 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the are.a? 7. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e,g. scaffolding. lead shielding)? Temporary scaffold adjacent to Ibe filter is properly restrained and file paperVlOrn is current. 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the eqUipment in the area? There are numerous hair-fine cracks In the floor which appear to be the result of floor vibration from tlte vadous rotating machinetY located in the room. It appears that several of the cracks were at one time ground out to determine depth and extent of the cracking. Tllese were refilled with some (ann of epoxy-grout mix lure. None these are related to anchorage installation. Incfudes DC-1-23-E-PNL -eRG 1. DC-1-23-M-BC-CP-35, DC-'1-12-M-BF-S-35, OG-1-23-P-D-VA lr 1-MOD-t 0, DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-9, and Evaluated by: each the of this y y y y y of 13 Auxiliary EI. 154 Attachment 1 of Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Motor Operated Damper DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-12 was modified by adding structural steel channel stiffeners (approximately 19# per linear foot) on the top and bottom of the damper. The channel sections also extend to and stiffen the damper immediately adjacent to MOD-12 (DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-12A). Reference PG&E Drawing 59353 for a layout of the dampers. The concern is that the heavy channel stiffeners adversely itnpact the seismic qualification of the ducting/duct suppa/is associated with the MOD Dampers. Evaluation: A similar issue is identified for damper no. VAC-1-MOO-10 in SWC OC-1-23-P-O-VAC-1-MOO-10. As discussed in the License Basis Evaluation for VAC-1-MOO-10 (Attachment 1 of SWC OC-1-23-P-O-VAC MOO-10) a review of the seismic qualification calculation for the ducting/duct supports associated with the MOO dampers (Calculation No. HV-86, Rev. 0) indicates that the additional mass of the channel sections was not considered in the qualification of the ducting/duct supports. A mark-up of the calculation was prepared to account for the extra mass (included with Attachment 1 of SWC OC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-10). The mark up demonstrates that the ducting/duct supports would remain seismically qualified (with significant margin) if the additional mass from the channel stiffeners is considered. Therefore, this condition has no impact on the safe operation of OCPP. Calculation HV-86 will require formal revision to account for the additional mass from the channel stiffeners. Notification Required: No, but Notification No. 50519795, which was written for SWC-DC-23-P-D-VAC MOO-1 0, tracks the revision to Calculation no. HV-86. Evaluated by: __ __ ________ _ Reviewed by: __ ______ ______ ________________ ___ Location: Building: Floor EI. 154' Room, Area: Instructions for Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewed room lighting,emergency Iigl7ting batteries, masonry wall, conduit, fire water piping, copper piping, and adjacent Class 2 Communication Room Chiller. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y Moderate corrosion exists on pneumatic actuators, copper tubing, copper piping and anchorage at various locations in the room 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor. do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Conduit, and Piping (fire water and copper) are well anchored.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the Y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Room lighting includes safety chains. Batteries for outside emergency Iigl1ting are supported by Unistrut members bolted to the concrete wal/. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding. lead shielding)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments A relatively large number of sheet metal screws attaching the access cover plates for the Communication Room Chiller are missIng (Class 2 component).

Even so the access panel is adequately held in place. -Evaluated by: Date: //!:J /1¥/"2.,gI'2.. iO /18/l0IL ---------Page 1 of 17 Location: Building: Turbine Floor EI. 85 Room, Area: 1-DEG-11 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area following questions may be used to record the results of judgements checklist for documenting other comments. near one or more SWEL Items. The space below each of the findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this 1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) Reviewed room lighting fixtures, emergency lighting, conduIt, Halon system including signal lighting, crane rails, water piping, Class 1/ air start.compressor and supporting equipment, fire extinguishers, and speakers. 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition bf supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? No HVAC dueling or cable trays in room. AfJ e/eclrieallines are contained within conduit which is welf supported.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions wIth other equipment in the y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting}?

Room area lighting fixtures are restrained by a lin/( to supporting structure bolted to the oeiling. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. D09s it appear that the area (s free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y The Lube Oil and Fuel Oil systems contain combustible materials. The lube oil piping runs are short and adequately supported. The fuel oil is contained in a tank that is contained within the frameworl< of the skid system. Again short piping runs are adequately supported.

7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?
8. Have you lool<ed for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment In the area? Fire extinguisher near door rests in a wall bracket with one bolt into the concrete wall but is not restrained against uplift. Could potentially lift out of bracket If vertical acceleration is greater than 1 g. Extinguisher could also fall if bracket is bent or if prying action causes anchor bolt to fail. Potentiaf targets are the DEG Exoitation Cubicle (approximately 2.5' away) and the Gauge Panel portion of the DEG Control Panel (approximately 4' away). For disposition see Attachment
1. Comments InclUdes DC-1-2'I-E-PNL-SED11, DC DC-1-21-P-FL-CAF1, and Evaluated by: . ...... i? ORe Date: Page 1 'of 17 k Diablo Power Plant, Building:

__ T_ur_b_in_e_ Floor EI. 85 Room, Row/Col: __ 1-_D_E_G_-1_1 __ Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: The support mounting configuration of the fire extinguisher located in Unit 1 EDG 1-1 room T85. 02-1) may cause the fire extinguisher to dislodge from its support and fall to the concrete floor. Since the fire extinguisher contains pressurized gas, impact with the floor could damage the valve, nozzle, or regulator, resulting in the extinguisher becoming a self-propelled missile which could adversely interact with the adjacent safety-related Excitation Cubicle and DG Control Panel. Evaluation of As-Found Condition The fire extinguisher is supported per manufacturer design. It is hooked onto an ilL" shape bracket which, in turn, is anchored to the concrete wall with multiple anchor bolts. The fire extinguisher is Design Class II and is not seismically qualified. Therefore, a seismic evaluation has not been performed for this mounting detail. The fire extinguisher is located in the Emergency Diesel Generator (EOG) Room at elev. 85' in the Turbine Building. Per OCM C-17, Attachment B, the Zero Period Acceleration (ZPA) of the floor response spectra for this location is 0.54 g in horizontal direction and 0.5 g in vertical direction. Since the vertical acceleration is less than 1.0 g, the fire extinguisher will not uplift from its support. In addition, the horizontal acceleration at this elevation is not sufficiently large to cause rocking motion severe enough for the fire extinguisher to be dislodged from its support. Therefore, it is unlikely that the fire extinguisher will become dislodged from its support, impact the concrete floor and become a missile that could impact the Excitation Cubicle or Control Panel during a seismic event. Based on the above assessment, the fire extinguisher is adequately restrained. Recommendation: Acceptable as-is. Notification Required: No Evaluated by: _-"W...:..:R:.....:.;H:......:..- __ ___ __ ",,.--___ l'----t--;;;;.......:::.-ii--"--=---- Reviewed by: ____ ___ ______ _ Location: Building: Turbine Floor EI. 107 Room, Area: 1-0EG-ES-11

'-'

Instructions for Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings.

Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Room is viftually empty. Masonry walls are reinforced and seismically qualified. 2.00es anchorage of eqUipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of N/A potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g" condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other eqUipment in the y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)? Lighting fixtures are adequately restrained from fa/Hng into jacket water radiator air flow straightener.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housel<eeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?
8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-21-M-MISC-ES1.

Evaluated by: Date: ID/18/WI0 Page 1 of 11 Status Y Location: Building: AUXiliary FloorEI. Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following ques1ions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additiona! space Is provlded at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equtpment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Some mfnor surface corrosion on the base plates of tf1e supports for the back draft damper and exf1Bus( duot. Surface corrosion observed on the back draft damper body ana on the bafts oonnecting the duct to the fan. The corrosion on the bacf<drafi dampers is already addressed in SWC 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Surface corrosion observed on anchor bolts for adjacent duct supports. Surface oorrosion observed on duct leavg the Turbine Bldg. See Attachment No.3 for disposition. . y 3.Based on vIsual inspection from the flOOf r do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueling appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g .* condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? Surface corrosion on conduit clamps holding oonduit to the roof deck. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adVerse seismic spatial interactions with other eqUipment in the y area(e.g., ceiling tries and lighting}? No credible interaction sources. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? No likely flood sources. The CCW Surge Tank is designed for seismio loading. 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentiaUy adVerse seismic interactions that could cause fjre in the area? y No likely fuel sources. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse. seismiC interactions associated with 'housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic oonditions that CQuid adversely aff*lot the safety functions of the Y equIpment in the area? Oomments Includes and insulation on copper pipe feeding air conditioning unit AC-434 is degraded.

See Attachment No. 1 of disposition. Conduit clamps holding floor mounted conduit and expansion anohors show surface e.o/TOs/on. See Allacllment No.2 for disposition. Evaluated by: Page 1 of 14 Diablo Canyon Power Unit Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. ___ Room, Row/Col: ___ 1_-_E4_3 __ _ Attach ment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Loose/degraded insulation on copper refrigerant lines associated with Air Conditioning Unit AC-434. Evaluation: The affected Air Conditioning unit is not safety related and not seismically qualified. Therefore, this condition does not impact the safe operation of DCPP. Recommendations: Repair/replace insulation. Notification Required: Yes (50510495) Evaluated by: Reviewed by: Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 163 Room, Row/Col: ___ 1_-_E4_3 __ _ Attachment Z, Page of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Corrosion on HVAC ducts and duct supports, including base plates and anchor bolts, in the vicinity of Fan No. 1-E43. Evaluation: The ducts and duct supports are safety related and seismically qualified. Based on visual inspection, the condition is surface corrosion and does not impact the structural capacity of these components at this time. Recommendations: Prepare and recoat ducts and duct supports. Notification Required: Yes (50514796) Evaluated by: -----;r--r+-rt----'------' Reviewed by: _________ Diablo Canyon Power Unit Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 163 Room, Row/Col: __ 1.:;....-_E4_3 __ _ Attachment Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Corrosion on conduit support clamps and expansion anchors for conduits in the vicimly of Fan No. 1-E43. Evaluation: The conduit supports are safety related and seismically qualified. Based on visual inspection, the condition is surface corrosion and does not impact the structural capacity of these components at this time. Recommendations: Prepare and recoat conduit supports, replace corroded clamps as necessary. Notification Required: Yes (50514797) Status Y Location: Building: Floor EL m Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the fonowing questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklfst for documenting other comments.

._ ...* _ .. _._ .......... , ............ _,-1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y No degraded anchorage observed. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floOf, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ductlng appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? Conduit, cable trays, and ducts are well supported.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially a.dverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g., celling tiles and Hghting)?

Some overhead lights are hung with 3/8" threaded rod anchored to a spring nut in a unistrut embedded in the concrete stab above. Other lights are hung wIth chains with closed shooks 5. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y '. No likely flood or spray sources. Fire protection In this room is provided by a Cardox system. 6. Does it appear that the area IS free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire In the area? 7. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions assocIated wrth housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? No portable or temporary Items noted. y y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment In the area? Comments Includes DC-1-36-f-PNL-RNP1A, and DC-1-99-/-PNL-RN01A. Evaluated by: Date: 1 c). I {'7 ( 'l.D 11.. 1{J/11/z.o /L Page 1 of 5 Area VVOiIlK**5V Checklist Sheet 1 of7 Status: _Y_ Location: Bldg. Auxiliary Floor EL -=-10=0,,-1 Room, Area 13 ______________ _ Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results ofthe Area WalkMby near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgments and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of the checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if Y visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

Note: see "Comments" section of AWe for definition of sides:

  • West Side: There is no equipment in this area, but the massive Fuel Transfer Tube radiation shield blocks, anchored to the concrete walls, do not exhibit any adverse conditions.
  • East Side: There is not equipment at the bottom of the fuel transfer canal that is in-scope ofthe seismic walkdowns.
2. Is anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

Y .. West Side: The anchorage for the Fuel Transfer Tube radiation shield blocks shows signs of minor surface cOlTosion, but is acceptable. .. East Side: There is not equipment at the bottom of the fuel transfer canal that is in-scope of the seismic walkdowns.

3. Based on a visual inspection fi'om the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear Y to be free ofpotential1y adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of support s is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? .. West Side: There are several conduits attached to the ceiling in this area which visually appear to be adequate.

There are no HV AC ducts in this area. .. East Side: There are various HV AC ducts and electrical conduits located above the Fuel Transfer Canal that are attached to the underside ofthe roof of the' Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure. There items are free of adverse seismic conditions.

4. Does it appeal' that the area'is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other Y equipment in the area (e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

.. West Side: There is one light fixture in this area, but there are no targets located near the fixture that could be affected by spatial interactions. There Fuel Transfer Tube radiation shielding is adequately anchored to the concrete to prevent spatial interaction. .. East Side: There are no ceiling tiles in this area, but there various light fixtures, HV AC ducts, and electrical conduits located above the Fuel Transfer Canal that are attached to the underside of the roof of the Fuel Handling Building Steel Superstructure. In addition, the reach rod for the Fuel Transfer Tube 20" dia. gate valve (SFS-1-50), is attached to the west wall of the Fuel Transfer Canal. These items appear to be adequateJy supported to prevent spatial interaction.

5. Does it appear that the area is free ofpotentiaHy adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding Y or spray in the area?
  • West Side: The Fuel Transfer Tube, which is filled with water during fuel handling operations, is the only fluid containing pipe in the area. This is a Design Class I, seismical1y qualified pipe, and is designed to not break and leak during a seismic event. II East Side: There are no fluid-containing piping systems in this area, other than the pipe used to fill the Fuel Transfer Canal. Since the Fuel Transfer Canal is designed to be filled with water during fuel handling activities, flooding is not an issue. 13 If the room in which the SWEL item is located is very large (e.g., Turbine Hall), the area selected should be described.

This selected area should be based on judgment, e.g., on the order of35 feet from the SWEL item. Location: Floor EI. 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause a fire in the area? West Side: There are no systems containing flammable liquids or gases in this area. East Side: There is hydrogen piping (yellow) running along the west wall of the fuel handling area. These pipes are well supported and should not be damaged during anea11hquake.

7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of equipment, and tempormy installations (e.g.; scaffolding, lead shielding)?
8. West Side: Several sand bags were noted sitting on the floor. They do not present a seismic interaction threat. East Side: No issues noted. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety function of the equipment in the area? Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Sheet 2 of7 Status: y y y This Awe applies to the area around the Fuel Transfer Tube (FTT) expansion joint, which is divided into two sub-areas (see figure on sheet 3):

  • West (Seismic Gap Side) -this is a small empty room in the Auxiliary Building, located between the west wall of the Fuel Handling Area of the Auxiliary Building and the exterior shell of the Containment Structure.

This is the location where the walkdown of the expansion joint was performed (SWC no. DC-1-42-M-EJ-FTC-I-EJ2).

  • East (Fuel Transfer Canal Side) -this is a 40 foot deep, narrow channel adjacent to the Spent Fuel Pool, with the expansion joint located at the bottom of the canal (elev. 99'-6"). This area is currently dry, but is not readily accessible) so the inspection was performed from the floor at elev. 140' and from the Fuel Handling Building crane access platform above elev. 140'. Evaluated by: wrh Date: 13 If the room in which the S WEL item is located is very large (e.g., Turbine Hall), the area selected should be described.

This selected area should be based on judgment, e.g., on the order of35 feet fi.-om the SWEL item. Status Y Location: BUilding: Auxiliary Floor EI. 85 Room, Area: 1-FCV-365 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-bY near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of jUdgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

Y 3.Based on visual inspection fromJhe floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports Is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? 4. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Interactions with other eqUipment In the y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray Y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding.

lead shielding)? B. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-14-P-VOA-CCW-1-FCV-365 and DC-1-09-P-VOM-S/-1-8805A. Emergency lighting has no cable but it has been analyzed as-is. Evaluated by: Date: Page 1 of 3 location: Building: Floor Et ill Room, Area: Status Y Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area near one or more SWEL items, The space below each of the foHowing questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentiallY adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Anchorage in the Brea appears to be In good condition. 2.D09S anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of Significant degraded conditions? Y Mild corrosion was found on some anchorage. Judged to be ok. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducling appear to be free of N/A potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spaUallnteractions with other equipment in the y area(e.g., csrling tHes and lighting)? No seismic interaction issues. 5, Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? The area is free of potentiai adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray. 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? No credible sources that could cause a fire In the area. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? No temporary equipment in the area. y y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No Issues were identlfied. Comments Includes Valve MS"1-2017 appears to be leaking steam. GIfP;v

2. '1) Evaluated by: .IITM Date:

SMM Page 1 of 3 location: Building: Pipeway Floor EI. ill Instructions for Completing Checklist Room, Area: Status Y 1-FCV-41 This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEl items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

Y 3.8ased on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ductlng appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g .. condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the Y area(e.g., celling tiles and lighting)?

5. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause flooding or spray Y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?
8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment In the area? Floor grating In area Is generally well attached to structure.

Comments Includes DC-1-04-V-MS-1-FCV-41. Evaluated by: Date: Page 1 of 6 Status Y Location; Floor EL Q2. Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist ThIs checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL Items, The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Hping and RHR pump 1-1 are well supported 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y No significant degradation obselVed. 3.Based on visual Inspection from the floor, do the cabfefcondult raceways and HVAC ductlng appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be InsIde acceptable limits)? Duct and conduit are well supported

4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g., ceiling tues and lighting)?

Lighting Is conduit hung with a ball and socket connection at the ceiling. No interaction Issues. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potenttaUy adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire In the area? y No likely sources 7. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping' practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary Installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? No concerns. ExtensIon cords are restrained to steel support by cable ties. Crane hoist chains are restrained. y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic condiUons that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1*10-P-VOM-RHR-1-FCV-641A Evaluated by: Date: { { I 1'"2.. Page 10fl0 Location: Building: """"""'""'"""""'<...J. Floor EI. 100 Room, Area: 1-FCV700 .-.. -.-----Instructions for Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewed piping, conduit, cable trays, junction boxes. and area lighting. 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor. do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Piping, conduit and cable trays are rigidly supported. Some piping in the area is rod-hung and flexible, but no safety related components are underneath. Wall mounted junction boxes are small and adequately supported. Room lighting fixtures are hung by chains. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other eqUipment in the Y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?
8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? All conduit runs connected to both the Reactor Building wall and tlte AUXiliary Building room ceiling have flexible connections.

Comments Includes DC-1-23-P-VOS-VAC-1-FCV-700. Evaluated by: Date: 1O/18!WfL Page 1 of 13 Status Y location: Building: FloorEL ill Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

See SWC for loose anchorage. All other anchorage in the area appears to be In good condition. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of stgnificant degraded conditions? Y No degraded conditions were identifled. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor. do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e,g.] condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? HVAC dueling and raceways In area appear to be adequately secured. 4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Interactions with other equipment In the y area(e.g,, ceiling tiles and lighting)? See SWC for interaction with fire hose reef and valve. No other interacUon issues were identified.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? See DC-1-18-F-HR-FW-120-A38-1 SWC for issues about nre hose reef anchorage and seismic fnteraction with the valve, 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire In the area? Y No credible sources that could cause a fire were identified.
7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices.

storage of portable equipment. and temporary installations (e,g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? Area is free of SI targets where temporary equipment was kept. Tool boxes in area were removed while performing inspections. . y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No other issues were identified. Comments Includes DC-1-18-F-HR-FW-120-A38-1. Evaluated by: Date: Ib/15/J.cl&- Page 1 of 13 location: Building: Floor EI. 100 Room, Area: 1-HT-EH-29A Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEl items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of eqUipment In the. area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewed room lighting, fire extinguisf1er, conduit, junction boxes, I-IVAC dueling, filters, and blowers. Three sides of the room and tile ceiling are formed from sheet meta/InsUlated panels that are connected at the seams. 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Base frame for blower 18-150 located on the southeast comer has moderate surface corrosIon with minor mater/al loss. Minor surface corrosion on floor baseplates and anohor bolts In room. For disposition see Attacl1ment

1. y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ductlng appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? . No cable trays in room and conduit ;s generally well supported.
4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Ughting fixtures are supported from lighting conduit which is adequately anchored from the s/lee( metal panels that form the ceiling of the room. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that CQuid cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with hqusekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding. lead shleldihg)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely effect the safety functions of the Y equipment In the area? Comments Includes DC-1-23-E-HT-EHft29A.

Evaluated by: Date: /0 S / "Z-Page 1 of 12 Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: DiabJo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1. 100 Room, Row/Col: 1-HT-EH-29A Seismio supporl for Supply Fan 1 S-150 has moderate surface corrosion. Evaluation: Attachment

1. Page 1 of 1 In its current condition this support can perform its intended design function as there is no appreciable metal degradation affecting structural capacity of the steel. Recommendation:

The coating needs to be cleaned, inspected and repaired. Notification Required: Yes (50511305) Evaluated by: __ ________ ____ _ Reviewed by: __ ____ _______ _ y Location: Building: Floor EI. ill Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of eq uipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Some minor corrosion on conduit supports judged insignificant. 2.009S anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y 3.Based on visual Inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g .. condition of supports Is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? 4. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y erea(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire In the area? y 7. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices.

storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safely functions of the Y equipment in the area? Valve FW-1-200 appears to be signlfioantly corroded (shown on page 6). Attachment 1 addresses the corrosIon on valve FW-1-200.

Comments Includes DC-1-03-P-VOH-FW-1-LCV-11 0 and DC-1-03-P-VOM-FW-1-LCV-1

06. Evaluated by: Date: 10-lof6 Canyon Power Plant f Unit Building:

Pipeway Floor EL 115 Room, Row/Col: __ 1-..::;L:...=,C.....:...V_-1:....,:1-=-O __ Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Valve no. FW-1-200 appears to be significantly corroded. Requires further evaluation cleanup, or repair. Evaluation: This valve is related (Design Class IlfQA Class N), so the condition does not impact plant safety. Based on a review of the extent of corrosion, the current condition is not sufficiently severe to impact the ability of the valve to perform its design function (retaining the pressure boundary of the piping system) or allow the valve to fail during an earthquake in such a way that it could impact SISIP targets in the vicinity. Therefore, this condition does not impact the operation of DCPP, but should be cleaned and repainted. Notification Required: Yes (50508517) Evaluated by: _____ _ Reviewed by: ___ 1 1 -I I j **1 ) I t Area' .. (AWC.-.:..........* FloorE:.1. 100 Room, 1-LCV112B histructions,for Completing Checklist thJ§cb:eckli$t may to doq!.lmeilt the rEjsults ,of W!3lk.;.bY .ofmore SWEL it?ms;ThFl

?P9-C,? t!.elbw: 'fgl[oW.JJJ9

'questions may be, u:sed 10 record' the results ofjLrtlgemeilts:'c;I'hd Additronal.space is provided aUlle . c;heckli$t Torqocuinenting othercominents. ' 1 .. ,p'c;ie.s th,e. of equipment i'n thsl')reaappearto,beJree' of potentlafly'adverse s,elsmlc conditions (ifvis!l;Jle. y w1th9ut cabinets) , Conqum pipe, and are well suppdtled. anohorage of In the area t;I,p.pt;ar to be freE} . Only some rrjin6rsutface corrosion on sofTie ilaive supp0rls. y 3;aasedon visualinspectibnfrom the flCior, 'do the cablelconduit raceways a:rid, HVAC duCUnga'ppea'r'io be. fr.ee of Y condJtjdil ofsuppprts' (sacteqpa'tin3tid Jill cond'mons of cabJeJrl:lY$ appeado q:$ inside limits)? i'l/o cable frays. HVAC duct is braced. GonduiUs well supported. 4.; Does ltappe.ar thatiheare.a'is free of pcitentlaJly adverse seishllc'spatiallnt¢tactions wHt\other equipITlent;i/i lh\:i y tiles lighting)? '. . Overhead iightitig 'is restrained bya sE!fety dhain . .£mergeilcY1IgHting enc/restrained by a:steel cable. " '5. th?lfthe area Is free of potentially adverse seismlo that,aolild fiooqlng ,or.spray y In the area? 6. Does thatlM area is free of potentially adVerse seisinlc:int!3radtlons ih$t, c;:duldcEiiJse fire ih:the area? y 7 ,:D065 itaPPt:!.sr area is free of !'lqverse Y practfdesi storage ofportable equipment,ana temporsry Installations {e.g. sc@.ffoldlng, lead,shleldh'lg)? 8, ;f;laye 'IQ9f<ed' for and found no otherseismlc,G9nditions that courd saf¢1y fvnotl<::ml? of the Y equipment in the'area? IneitiC/es and bC-1 .. .. 110A. . , PG&li'lp 'eiiafiJa f(7 the ne*id forprc;}teCting the ';;ootmou.h(ed irahsiniiter'PT {Z8.. Se.a for.dl§positlon. phone hand seiCQuld fait and hit Hmlt.switch.es for 6.\16$-1 Sei3 No', 1 fbrdisPQ,silloi1. Evaluated by: Diablo Power Plant, Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 100 Room, Row/Col: 1-LCV-112B Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Telephone handset could fall during an earthquake and impact limit switches for valve no. CVCS-1-FCV-137. Evaluation: SISIP Manual Appendix 5 (SISIP Target Valves and Instruments) indicates that valve no. CVCS-1-FCV-137 is not a SISIP target. Therefore, this potential interaction is exempt from the SISIP. Notification Required: No. Evaluated by: Reviewed by: __ __ __________ ______________________________ __ Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Diablo Canyon Power 100 Room, Row/Col: _1 1-LCV-112B

Page 1 of 1 Floor mounted transmitter no. FT-128 is vulnerable to impact from foot traffic or moving tools. Evaluation: FT-128 is Design Class I and Seismically Qualified. Based on a PIMS search of Action Requests and a SAP search of Notifications related to this component, there is no evidence that the transmitter has been impacted or damaged in the past due to its exposed location. Therefore, this issue does not represent a problem with the configuration of the plant. Recommendations: No action required. Notification Required: No. Evaluated by: O----;If---i'/..;;..v+!_J ].&;:;;.;./ ____ _ Reviewed by: __ _______ Pt'-z----- __ Status y. Location: Building: Floor Ef. ill Room, Area: 1*LCV115 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of iha area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of thIs chackllst for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cablnets)

All anchorage in the area appears to be in good condition. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y No corrosion or other degradation was Identified In the area. 3,Based on visuallnspectlon from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueling appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e,g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable IJmlts)? All cable/conduit raceways are properly anchored. No trays appear ovedilJed.

4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment In the y area(e.g" ceiling tiles and lighting}?

Fire water line Is 112" from a pipe hanger on Steam Generator Blowdown piping. Pipe supporl has been etched out In order to gain adequate clearance. Not judged to be an issue due to the robust restraints of both the fire water piping and the pipe support frame. 5. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? . All the fire piping looks to be adequately secured with no interaction issues. See question 4 notes for more detail. S. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire In the area? y Two hydrogen lines In area appear to be adequately secured. 7. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismIc interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable eqUipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shIelding)? Mobile cart (rad monitor) has its wheels locked with a stopper under ona of the wheels. Ladders have been properly stowed In a designated ladder storage area. Air monitor is small and located >5 ft from any targets. Y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No issues were Identified. Comments Evaluated by: Date: Page 1 of 13 Status Y Location: Building: AuxfUary Floor EI. ill Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL ltems. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

All anchorage appears to be in good condition. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of signiffcant degraded conditions? y No corrosion is present. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Aft cabfe/conduit raceways and HVAC ducling appear to be properly secured. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment In the y area{e,g" ceiling tires and lighting)? Lights are rod hung and could Impact conduIt and cable trays. Judged to be incapable of damaging either the conduit or the cable (rays, BaJl and socket type Joints restrain lights from falling. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y In the area? No fire water piping in the area. 6, Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? No credible sources that could cause a fire were found. 7. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? No temporary equipment In the area. y y 8, Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No issues were identified. Comments Includes OC-1-04-LD30. Evaluated by: Date: ) 0/ Page 1 of 7 Status Y location: Building: Floor EI. 1QQ. Room, Area: 1-lPH47 Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of jUdgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabfnets)

All anchorage appears to be in good condition. 2.Does anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y No corrosion was ldent;(;ed in the area. 3.Based on visual inspection from the ffoor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g" condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? All conduit and HVAC dueling appear to be properly secured. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse sejsmic spatial interactions with other equipment in the Y area(e.9 .* ceiling tiles and fighting}? Ughts are rod hung and are incapable of damaging nearby equipment or conduit. No ceiling tiles in the area. 5. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismrc interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? No fire water piping In the area. 6. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y No credible sources could cause a fire were found. 7. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seIsmic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? No adverse seismic interaction conditions were found related to temporary equipment.

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No issues were identified.

Comments Includes DOw 1-13-SFPPTS. Evaluated by: Date: a.. Page 1 of 10 location: Floor EI. 100 Room, Area: 1-lPH65 Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEl items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewed conduit, cable trays, junction boxes, room lighting, emergency fighting, nearby panels, emergency lighting batteries, speaker, and masonry wall. 2.00e8 anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor. do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Conduit and cable trays are rigidly supported. Cable tray load acceptable.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g .* ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Room lig/lting, emergency lighting, and emergency lighting batteries are well supported.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary Installations (e.g. scaffolding.

lead shielding)? Room is clean. 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-21-LPH65. Evaluated by: Date: 10//& /W 12.-Page 1 of 16 Location: Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 115 Room, Area: ---------Instructions for COlmp,letiinll Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewed room lighting, over/lead piping, cable freys, conduit, and junction box. All appear to be adequately restrained. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other eqUipment in the y area{e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray Y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable eqUipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

Wooden box on floor just below the transmitter constitutes a housekeeping issue. Box has since been removed. Other carts in area are restrained.

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-08-J-T-L T-1 02. Evaluated by: Date: ID /14 J.ze IO/la/lOlz...

Page 1 of 8 Status Y Location: Building: Floor EL jQQ Room, Area: 1-MUWlP1 InstructIons for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additlonal space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Adjacent pump appears adequately anchored. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y No significant degradation observed In pipe supports and pump anchorage, 3J3ased on visual Inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueling appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismIc conditions (e,g., condition of supports is adequate and fiU condltlons of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Piping and conduit in the area are wef! supported.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other eqUipment in the Y area(e,g" ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Lighting Is wall mounted and adequately anchored, 5. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y In the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y No likely sources, 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment. and temporary Installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? Good housekeeping in the area. Firewater manual valve hand wheel chains are restrained to prevent swingIng. y 8, Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment In the area? Comments Includes DC-O-16-M-PP-MUWTP1. Area is adjacent to AFWP 1-1 Evaluated by: Pagelof8 Building: Turbine t..;OimOletima ChecKlist checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one more SWEL items_ fr,II""""", be record the results and findings. Additional space is orCilJltlArl Does the <:>nf'hr,r<:>r.,,,, without Reviewed There are other comments. equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible room fighting fixtuf*s, and cable is uniformly supported. 2.00e5 of equipment in H-le area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting adverse seismic conditions condition of supports is adequate and fil! conditions appear to inside acceptable Cable trays are rigidly supported from tl7e ceiling and piping is rod or spring flUng, y y 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e,g., ceiling tiles ami lighting)? Room lighting fixtures are secured to a suspended UnistlUt beam by ball and socket connections which constitutes a very flexible system (conduit stiffens one end of fixture). Lighting wm certainly impact adjacent piping and may impact ;andlor MeC 221 should they fall. However, the likely fai/LJre will be falling ofthe fluorescent bulbs which ay be jarred foose. Such a failure wiJI have no impact on the panels. 5. Does it appear that the a ea is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? \ PDI'? 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of pOliable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments {ne/udes DC-1-67-E-LC-PD25.

Evaluated by: Date: Page of 11

Instructions Completing Checklist This checklist inay be used to document questions may be uSed record near one or more SWEL items. The findings. space is below each at the end of thls rh.'rltlicl, for documenting other comments. '-------------,----------'--- in the area freo of potentially adverse r-rllvii!r.t"lrl,,,, (if visible sampJe station, 2,00es anchorage of equipment the area appear be free of significant cO!1diiiO!1s? Clean environment. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do ti18 cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appearto be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g .* condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cabfe trays appear to be insIde acceptable limits)? conduit, HVAC ducting are ail weff supported. Room figlJting is adequately hung. Fire are properly restrajned.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentiaUy adverse seismic spatial with other equipment in the area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?
5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentialfy adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spra" in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? There are a number ofcombusfibfe items related to the housekeeping items. The potential for fire will be essentially eliminated 11 the housekeeping issues are resolved.

For disposition see Attachment

1. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions ass.ociateq witn ,ho)1sekeeping practices, storage of portable equIpment, and'temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

It appears thatmany ofihe items in the room may not be safely related. However tlJera are housekeeping issues in the room, some in the Vicinity of safety related Items. These include unrestrained spare vessel forAiG unit unrestrained garbage cans l box of "bael" fluorescent fight tubes, uniestrained battery light on unrestrained cabinets (required to be 12" horizontatly and,3" verticaJfy (rom *any component), unrestra;mid equipmenf on wheels, broom and unrestrained bench behind panel. Fordisposifion see Attachment

1. y y y 8 Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions oftt'le Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-96-M-PNL-PM-79.

Evaluated by: Date: Page 1 of 22 Diablo Canyon Unit .-L Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 85 Room, Row/Col: __ 1_-P_M_-_7_9 __ Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Various loose/unrestrained items were found in the Post-LOGA Sampling Room, including garbage cans, spare vessel for Ale unit, a box of used fluorescent tubes, flashlight cabinet, barrel, wheeled equipment, etc. Evaluation: SISIP Manual Figure 07 indicates that the Post-LOCA Sampling Room is Target Area No. GW-85-03. The corresponding targets are identified in the associated table. Based on the locations of the unrestrained items, and the vulnerability of the targets (PM-78, PM-79, tubing, conduits, etc.), the unrestrained items do not present a hazard to the targets. However, the condition is not in conformance with AD4.ID3 (SISIP Housekeeping Activities) and should be resolved by the Area Owner. Notification Required: Yes (50513512) Evaluated by: ___ _' .......... __ -__ tv ....... I_Z_'-L./_l L ____ _ Reviewed by: __ J{}+-l-r)_'L _____________ _ Location: Floor EI. 85 Room, Area: 1-PM-10i ------_. ----._------_._--

This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings.

Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewed piping including large diameter CCW piping, conduit, stainless steel tubing, room lighting and minor housekeeping items. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Piping, including large diameter CCW piping is well supported. Conduit is rigidly supported and room UglJting is supported by ball and socket connection to wal/-mounted Unistrut sections.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the Y area(e.Q., ceiling tiles and lighting)?
5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housel<eeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

Spare fluorescent tubes are propped against panel PM-101. Boxes of equipment are sitting on restrained push cart. Neither will affect function of items in the room. 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-96-M-PNL-PM-101. Evaluated by:

  • ------1 ----.---Date: /8/1 4/"'2-e1 /0/18/ [0 rr.-10f11 Location:

Building: F!oo( EL .6§. Room, Awe: ----.,-"-----",,.

    • < .,,-----_._----,.

Instl'uctions forComplet!ng CheckHst . ..... . ........ This .. checkUsLmay be used to document the results of the area near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provIded at the end of this checkllst for documenting other comments, 1. Poes the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismio conditions (if visible Y without neces$$rlly opening cabinets) 2.008$ anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y Surface corrosion was seen on some anchor bolts. Securfty gretlng also shows signs of corrosion, see photos on pages j end 9. Currently no s8fety issues to nofe. See Attechment 1 for resolution of s*Jourity grating corrosion. 3,Basad on visual Inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ductlng appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismIc conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? Surface oorroslon is present on some of the conduit anchorbofls. No HVAO dueling in the area. 4. Does it appear that the area is. free of potentially adVerse seismic spatial Interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g" 001lln9 tiles and lighting)? Nocf1iling files and nearby lights are mounted to tho walls, 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in thearaa? B, Does it appear that tho area Is free of potentially adVerse seismic Interactions that could cause fire In the area? Y 7. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentiafly adverse seismIc interaollons associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment. and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? No tfJmporary equIpment In the area, 1{

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equIpment in the area? Corrosion of bldg 81m to fans 1,s-2 & $-3 pipIng near anchor points, photos on pages 4 through 6 (See Attaohment 2 for resolution).

found to be related piping. A separate pipe had Its Insulation touching grating, see plloto on page 7; pipe was found to be abandoned in place (See Attaohment 3 for resolution). No $${smio interaotion oonoems to note, 'i lI/1fb1--Comments Inoludes DC w 1-96 w M-PNLwPM*103 and suboomponent Evaluated by; Date: KT.J:1 .. "" .... I l/WIC)... .. Page 1 of 9 Building: Pipeway Floor EI. Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Diablo Canyon Power 85 Room, Row/Col: Unit -.1 1-PM-103 -------General area corrosion on the architectural security grating was noted. Evaluation: Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Current condition is still stable, and will not fail during an earthquake, but could become unstable in the future if not repaired. Therefore, this condition does not impact the safe operation of DCPP , but the grating should be cleaned and recoated. Notification Required: Yes (50509101) Evaluated by: ___ (-I-pA...;.,....)(11:.....-"h9--.:...I=-z------- __ Reviewed by: P ________ 'D-+I_'1+/ZfJ_' _,2., _________ _ Building: Pipeway Floor EI. licensIng Basis Evaluation Issue: Diablo Canyon Power 85 Room, Row/Col: 1-PM-103 ------- Page 1 of 1 Supports and exposed portions of piping labeled IIBuilding 8tm to Fans S-1, 8-2 & S-3'1 is severely corroded. Piping runs over the top of PM-1 03. Evaluation: The pipe is line no. K-31 04 (ref. drawing nos. 102023} sheet 9 and 102006} sheet 5) and is non-safety related. Current condition is still adequately supported for seismic and will not fail in such a way as to damage SIS[P targets in the area . . Therefore, this condition does not impact the safe operation of DCPP, but the piping/pipe supports should be cleaned and recoated. Notification Required: Yes (50509106) Evaluated by: Reviewed by: ___ __ ___ _________ __ ____________________________ __ Diablo Canyon Building: Plpeway Floor EL 85 Room, Row/Cof: __ Attachment Page 1 of 1 licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: The insulation on piping labeled "Pkg Blr 0-2 Stm Out/efl is in contact with Architectural/Security Grating. Piping runs over the top of PM-103. Evaluation: The pipe is line no. 5383 (ref. drawing no. 102006, sheet 3A) and is non-safety related. Current condition is still adequately supported for seismic and impact between the pJpe and grating will not fail in such a way as to damage SISJP targets in the area. Therefore, this condition does not impact the safe operation of DCPP, but the grating should be trimmed to provide adequate clearance. Notification Required: Yes (50509160) Evaluated by: -T-__ _________ _ Reviewed by: __ p_f?C. __ _____ lo+I-N+-ll._O_'L_------------ Location: Building: Floor EL 100 Room, Area: 1-PM-185 instructions for Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewed conduit, junction boxes, cable trays, piping and valves, room lighting, fire hose station, and test equipment box. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Valves in room are pipe mounted manual valves. Y 3. Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.9., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Cable trays and conduit are rigidly supported. Junction boxes are conduit mounted and wall mounted. Piping, except for fire water piping is generally rod hung. Fire water piping is rigidly supported.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the Y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

Room lighting is either wall mounted or rod hung with ball and socket connection.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment.

and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? Area is clean except for temporary ladder. 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Hose station is adequately bolted to wall and has a pivot mounting. Equipment cabinet is properly anchored. Comments Includes DC-1-96-M-PNL-PM-185. Evaluated by: Date: /0/ /8 I W /0 Page 1 of 11 . i y Location: BuHding: Auxiliary Floor EL 100' Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

All visible anchorage to cabinets are in good condition. 2.00es anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y No degradation noted on any anchorage in the area. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismio conditions (e.g., condition of supports Is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? EqUipment In the area appear to be within acceptable limits. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the Y area(e,9., ceiling tiles and lighting)? No potential adverse seismic spatial interactions in the room. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause ffooding or spray y in the area? There Is no firepiping in the room. 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentiaHy adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y No fire or explosion sources found in the room. 7. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? There were no housekeeping items or temporary installations in the room. y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Block walls have been retrofitted with steel members as restraints. Comments Includes & DC-1-23 M£MPNL-PCCFC1. Evaluated by: Date: \0/1 S/d.-o\ Page 1 of 2 y Location: BuUding: Floor EL .za Room, Area: Instructions for Completing ChackUst This checklist may be used to document the results of the area near one or more SWEL Items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. ' 1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentiaUy adverse seismic conditions (If vl$ible Y without neoossarily opening None) except for spafllt)g concreJi& Identlfiad In the SWC 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of sIgnificant degraded conditions? Y No anohorage issues in the area. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueting appear to be free of Y pbtentially adverse seismlo conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? There are no cable/oonduit raceways or HVAC dueling in the room. 4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment [n the y area{e.g .* ceiling tiles and !ighUng)? No ceiling files and no seismlo interaotion 6ffects relatGd to lighting.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seIsmlo interactions that could cause flooding or spray Y in the area? No fire piping in the area. 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seIsmic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y No sources In the area that Gould GBUSe 8 fire. 7. Does it appear that the area IS free of potentially adverse seIsmIc interactions associated with housekeeping praotIces, storage of portable eqUipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

Some loose soaffoldlng equipment was left on grafing , see photo on page 6. Toe boards would prevent them from failing from platform. See piotures. Soaffold structure In the room is adequate for seismfc conoerns. No Interaotions to note. See Attaohment 1 far dispasJUon. . y 8. Have you iQoked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely 'affect the safety funotions of the Y equipment in the area? No adverse seismio conditions in the area. Comments Includes DC-1-10-M-HX-RHE1. Evaluated by: Date: 10 I d).,3,/ .::lOL Page 1 of 5 Diablo Canyon Power Unit .1 Building: Auxitiary 73 Room, Row/Col: 1-RHE1 -------Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Floor EI. Licensing Basis Evaluation Some loose scaffold material was found on the catwalk at approx. elevation 85 1* Evaluation: The scaffold material is lying on the grating, between the toe boards on the catwalk. Based on the maximum sliding distances referenced in the SISIP Manual, the distance to the end of the catwalk, and the restraint provided by the toe boards; the loose material cannot falllsiide off of the grating and damage SISIP targets in the area. Therefore, this condition does not impact the safe operation of DCPP l but the loose material should be removed. -Notification Required: Yes (50509181) locatfon: Building: Floor EI. ffi Room, Area: 1-RHRP2 Instructions for Completing" Checklist This checklist may be used to document Ihe resulls of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additlonal space is provided at lhe end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does lhe anchorage of equipment In lhe area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) 2.008$ anchorage of equipment In the area appear (0 be free of significant degraded conditions?

Y 3.Based on visual Inspection from Ihe floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueling appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Lights are suspended from junction boxes attached to the ceiling. Attachment of suspended conduit to box appears to allow hinge rotation (ball Joint). The Ilghts would be expected to swIng In a seIsmic event but they are judged unlikely to fall. " 4. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic spaUallnteractions wllh olher equipment In the Y area(e.9./ ceiling tiles and lighting)?

5. Does It appear that (he area Is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions thal could cause flooding or spray Y in the 9rel;l? 6. Does It appear thaI the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire In the area? Y 7. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary Installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

Some temporary rad monitors appear to be adequately restrained.

a. Have YOlllooked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y eqUipment In the area? Comments Includes DC-1-10-M-PP-RHRP2 and DC-1-10-P-VOM-RHR-1-FCV-641B Evaluated by: Date: /O":J.I./*/L 1 of 14 y Location:

13uilding: Floor EI. '.12.fr. Room, Area: 1*RNAR-A Tbi$ cl)eckli$t may he used to document th*l resuJts, of the near Onsar more SWEL items. The $pace beJaweach, of the fqJ!owinQ qUestions may be used larecord the resultsofjudgements and findIngs, Additional space is provided at the end of this coeckllstfordocumenting other cql)lmehts.

1. Does the ?r1chQrage in the appear fa be free of adV¢r!$6 seismic conditions. (if visible Y Without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewedconquff , cable tf'fWS, ha/of! room'lighting. HVAC rjuc.tinY,andjunct!ori 2,Doesanchorage of equlpmentin the area to b,e free of significant degraded condltions? Y (n one .section of tn£; He/gn fine [t was ndte,d that w}Jere /ilfe Size teducf,3s from 1-1/411 t01 li/ine. 1 .. 1/41< are slit/used to resirain the line. As a resuft the U'Cbolts Qve.rslzed and gaps exist between the pipe ,ami the U-This cqndffipn W(1S noted for U,**bolts, It jtidge(J thai the function ofthe Hafon system in the room during or ;1fterfinearlhquake is not affeofer;Jby this conditiol). > pn vIsual inspection from the floor, ooths cablefcooquiUaceways HVAC be free of , y potentially adverse seismic oondiiions(e.g,; condition of suppqns is adequate and fill conditlonsof cable appear to be inside acceptable limits}? As IMs room i$ ihe cable ,spreading 'room it was found that the trays ijre full. but not'overJoade.d.

4. Does it appea(thatthearea isrree ofpotentiaJly adyerse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y 8rea(e.g.,

tiles and lighting)? . 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially 13dverse seismic interactions ihat could cause :flooding or spray y in 'the area? > 6, Does it appear that the area is free of potentiatlyadver$e interactions that COuld CCtusefire in the area? Y 7, Doe$. it appear ,that the area is tree of adverse seJsmic interactions assQciateq With Y P(actlce$tstorage of portable equipment l 'and temporary (e.Q. .leap shielding)?

8. Ha,ve you for and found no other seismic that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y eqUipment in the area? . The doors for sl)yeral cabfn.etsln the afe!) are either improperly/etched or/he JatchintJ rtiephanlsm broken In some way. These Inc.lvde RNAS-E3t RN04E f RNP4-A For disPQ$ition l$t;:e.Atfac;b!nent 1, ' The Halon ,line nearby in the room Is supported by U-bolts b,ut comes in contact wlth robust GoncJuiUines at several places. It is jUr!ge,d thattflflse potflntialimpacts wilt not affect the function Qft/1.eHafo(J system. Commen,ts InclUdes DC-1-36-E-PNL-RNARA.

Da!¢: 161 l!> I ZOIL.. Page 10f19 But!ding: Auxiliary Floor EI. Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1.. 128 Room, Row/Col: __ 1-...;....R_N_A_R_A __ Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Unit 1 Auxt7fary Relay Rack No. RNARA, improperly latched doors were noted on the following racks in the vicinity: -Process protection Rack #14 (RNP4A): bottom latch not engaged -Aux. Safeguards Cabinet, Train B (RNASB): bottom latoh not engaged -Control Rack #32 (RN04E): entire door not latohed Evaluation: The Work Control Shift Foreman was notified. He indicated that an Operator would be dispatched to relatch the doors. .'. The operator was dispatched and found UNIT 1 cabinet doors of similar nomenclature in the above stated condition and closed. Found no doors on UNIT 2 ajar. Notification 50510559 was prepared for trending purpose. Notification Required: Yes (50510559)

  • Status Y location:

Building: Floor 1:1. 14Q Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEl Items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) 2.Doe5 anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

y No degraded conditions were seen In the area. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports Is adequate and fHl conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Cable/conduit raceways are well supported with no visible wiring seen outside of the cable trays. 4. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment In the Y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)? Panels are tied together with bolted plates at the top of the cabinets and are welded together at the bottom. Ceiling tiles were reviewed In AWe

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? There is no lire piping In the room. S. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Inte'ractions associated with housekeeping Y practices.

storage of portable eqUipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? All maintenance eqUipment was securely placed away from the cabinets in the room. B. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y eqUipment in the area? Comments Includes 1-43-I-PNL -RNCI1. Evaluated by: Date: Page 1 of 5 Status Y Location: Building: Floor EI. ill Room. Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the resurts ot the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

Y Some surface corrosion on structural steel and conduit mounting clips -judged insignificant. 3.Based on vlsllallnspeotion from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? 4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g .. ceiling tiles and lighting)? Equipment jib oranes (1-T-140-04 & -05) are stowed above RV ouf/ets. They are tied off loosely. During an earthquake, they may move over RV discharge. The as-found condition Is acceptable. See Attachment 1 for disposition.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause fire in the area? y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding.

lead shielding)? Tool box on catwalk Is tied off. Scaffolding around perimeter security fence looks secure. Temporary ground wire tied off adequately.

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment In the area? . Floor grating appears to be adequately attached in tI)e area with clips to the structural steel frame in most areas but at least two of the grating panels were missing some of their clips -see photos. The as-found condition is acceptable for seIsmic. See Attachment 2 for disposition.

Comments Includes VR-MS-1-RV-3, DC-1-04-P-VR-MS-1-RV-B, and DC-1-04-P-VOA*MS-1*PC V-20. Evaluated by: Date: iD .j2t1. ) '2. Page 1 of 14 Building: Pipeway Floor EI. Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Diablo Power 15 Room, Row/Col: Unit J. 1-RV-3 -------Attachment

1. Page 1 of 1 Equipment Jib Cranes (nos. 1-T-140-04 and 1-T-1-140-05) are stowed above RVout/ets.

They are tied off loosely. During an earthquake, they may move of the RV discharge, which could damage them and cause them to col/apse on nearby equipment or valves. Evaluation: The Jib Cranes are non-safety related. Since the jib cranes are designed for the lifting of loads, they have a large safety factor and are manufactured from ductile materials, so they should be able to resist the RV discharge loads without being damaged in such a way that they would fall. Based on the weight of the jib crane boom relative to the strength of the concrete containment wall, any interaction will not damage the concrete. Therefore, this condition does not have an impact on plant safety. Engineering to evaluate the potential loading on the jib crane and determine if it should be secured in a location that is outside of the zone of influence of the RV discharge. Notification Required: Yes (50509926 (1-T-140-04) and 50509927 (1-T-140-05>> Evaluated by: Reviewed by: _____ --'- Building: Pipeway Floor EI. 115 Room, Row/Col: 1-RV-3 -------Attachment Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: Floor grating appears to be adequately attached in area with clips to the structural steel frame in most areas, but at least two of the grating panels are missing some of their clips. Evaluation: The grating is non-safety related, but is considered a potential SISIP source. Based on the tightness of the fit of the grating between adjacent panels, and the geometry of the grating panels relative to the size and spacing of the supporting beams, it is not credible that the grating can fall as the result of an earthquake. Therefore, this condition does not impact the safe operation of DCPP. Recommendation: Engineering recommends that clips be installed on these missing sections of grating. See SAPN below for details. Notification Required: Yes (50508587) Evaluated by: Reviewed by: location: Building: Floor EI. 140 Room, Area: Status Y .*. M._ ** ______________ _ ---" --...... _--------Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the rasults of the area near one or more SWEl items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space Is provided at the end of this checklist for documentIng other comments. . 1, Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions Of visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) AlIlfle anchorage is free of potentially adveTs9 seismic conditfons. 2.Does anchorage of in the area appear to be free of Significant degraded conditions? y Surfaoe corrosion is present on some valves and panels. Judged to be ok. 3.Based on viguellnspectlon from the floor t do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ductlng appear to be free of y potentially adVerse seismic conditions (e.g'l condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of oable trays' appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Conduit lines appear to be properly anohored. No HVAC duoting In the area. 4. Does it appear that tile area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Interactions with other equipment In the y araa(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)? No spatia/Interaction issues were igentified.

5. Doss It appear that the area Is free of potentially adVerse seismic Interactions that could causa flooding or spray y in the area? No sources for flooding or spraying in the
6. Does it appear that the area' is free of potentially adverse seismic lnteractions that CQuld cause fire in the area? y No credible sources that coUld cause a fire were found. 7. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentIally adVerse seismic Interactrons assoolated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equ[pment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

A box containing "MSSV gags" are properly tied Qff to a handrail. y S. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditIons that could adversely affect the safety functions ofthe Y equipment In the area? Grating clips appear to be missing near MS-1-RV-11 and MS-1-RV-14, and on the small platform between the and 1-4 leads and the AUx Bldg waif. See AffaoJlment 1 for disposition. Comments inoludes and DCv1-04-P-VR-MS-1-RV-61. Evaluated by: Date: ID/d-3( Page 1 of 13 Building: Auxiliary Floor EI. 140 Room, Row/Col: __ 1_-R_V_-_13 __ Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Licensing Basis Evaluation Issue: It was noted that several clips are missing from the floor grating of Platform No. 19GW, 20GWand 21 GW in this area (Ref. drawing 59681 for location and 59700 for details of these platforms). Evaluation: The grating is non-safety related, but is considered a potential SISIP source. The loose sections of grating have been temporarily restrained with large zip-ties to prevent them from coming loose in a seismic event. Therefore, this condition does not impact the safe operation of DCPP. SAPN 50514666 has been written for replacing the missing grating clips in accordance with the standard architectural details in drawing 102497. Standard detail 11.1 shown on drawing 102497-11 states that a welded 1/411 stud is to be used to secure the grating. Based on the pictures provided it appears that hold down clips have never been installed. Therefore, studs will be required. SAPN 50514666 has reassigned to MMD-WELD for restoring the original design condition. Two other platforms in immediate vicinity were also investigated. They are platform numbers 20GW and 21 GW, and are small platforms located between the MSSV's and the concrete wall of the Aux. Bldg. Platform 20GW was missing all of its grating clips on two small sections of grating. Tie wraps were installed to restrain them. Platform 21 GW was missing some grating clips; however, enough clips are remaining to prevent the grating from becoming an SISI source. Since the grating is adequately restrained either by large tie-wraps or remaining grating clips, there are no SISI concerns and the platform and grating can still petiorm their intended function. Notification Required: Yes (50514666) Evaluated by: __ --=---J-!.--+--=--- __________ _ Reviewed by: _--::;"'-'L-,..; y location: Bulldlng: Floor EL 1QQ. Room, Area: j*SFPHE1 ------------- ._-----Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily openIng cabinets)

Shielding door adjacent to the HX is top restrained. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded cond!tions? y No signs of significant degradation 3.Based on visual Inspection from the floor. do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC dueting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g .* condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be insIde acceptable limits)? HVAC duct Is braced. Overhead lighting is conduit hung pendant lights* no issues. Piping and conduit are well supported. PA speakers and warning lights are adequately supporled. Nearby cart Is tied off. 4, Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Interactions with other equipment In the y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? y No significant fuel sources. 7. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding.

lead shielding)? Nearby cart is tied off. 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversety affect the safety functions ofthe Y equipment In the area? . Comments Includes DC-1-13-M-HX-SFPHE1 and DC-1-13-/-/-TI-653 Evaluated by: Date: __ ______ /tJ I { elJlZ., Page 1 of 12 Status Y location: Building: Floor EI. 1Q.Q Room, Area: 1-SEPP1 ________________

    • ___
  • __ ** ww ** w_w. __ ._ .........

,,* ** Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Adjacent pumps and piping are well supported. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y 3.Based on vls.ual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports Is adeqUate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? HVAC duct Is braced. Conduit and piping Is well supported. No cable trays. 4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g., ceiling tiles and fighting)? Overhead lighting consfsts of conduit hung pendant lights -no issues. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic Interactions that could cause flooding or spray Y In the area? 6. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y No likely sources. 7. Does it appear that the area.is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices. storage of portable equipment, and temporary Installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-13-M-PP-SFPP1.

Evaluated by: Date: ( a f (, /-1--, { "1-IOfl1/zt>Il... Page 1 of 6 y Location: Building: FloorEI. M Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area wafk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questrons may be used to record the results of Judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorE;\ge of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if vlsfble Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

All anchorage appears to be in good conditions. 2.00e5 anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y No corrosion is present. 3.Based on visual Inspection from the floor l do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions {e.g .* condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? AI! overhead distribution systems appear to be adequately secured. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g'l ceiling tiles and lighting)? No interaction issues to note. 5. Does it appear that the area ts free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that courd cause flooding or spray y in the area? No fire water piping in the area. 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? No flammable sources in the area. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismIc Interactions associated with housekeeping practices. storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? No housekeeping issues were identified. Y Y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No Issues were Identified. Comments Includes DC-1-09-M-PP-S/P1 and DC-1-09-P-VOM-SJ-1-8923A Evaluated by; Date: \0(1 5/ do \ d-. Page 1 of 7 Status Y Location: Building: Floor EI. 11.Q Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments. -_._-_._._ ......*. ., ......... ---_ .. _-_.-.... _---1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets) All visible anchorage in the room appears to be free of adverse seismic conditions, 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y No corrosion or degraded conditions were found. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? No HVAC ducting in the room. Conduit entered from ceiling, passed through a metal tray. and ran ;nto cabinets. No Issues were Identified.

4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area(e.g., ceiling Wes and lighting)? , Ceiling tiles were reviewed in 1-VB1 AWC. 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? No fire piping in the room. 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? No adverse seismic interactions that could cause a fire in the area were idsntitied.
7. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment.

and temporary Installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? No temporary eqUipment in the area. y Y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y eqUipment in the area? No issues were identified. Comments Includes DC"1"38-I-PNL-RNS/A , DC-1-38-I-PNL-RNSLA, DC-1-38-/-PNL-RNSOA, and DC-1-38-I-PNL-RNSTA. Evaluated by: Date: Page 1 of 16

!. Status Y Location:

Building: Floor EL 85 Room. Area: 1-SWHE1 tnstructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end Of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment In the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabInets)

All anchorage appears to be in good condition. 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y No corrosion is present. 3.Based on visual inspection from the floOf, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducUIl9 appear to be free of y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill condition's of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Conduit and HVAC appeared to be properly secured. 4. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial Interactions with other equipment In the y area(e.g., celling tiles and Ilghting)? No seismic interaction Issues were Identified.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse.seismic lnteractlons that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? No fire water pIping In the room. 6. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? ,Y No credible sources could cause a fire. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

No temporary eqUipment In the area. Step off pad at north end of room will not affect heat exchanger. Y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? No issues were identified. Comments Includes DC-1-08-M-HX-SWHE1. Evidence of boric acid was found on one of the overhead pipes and its support. (ttt¥. 5kPN Evaluated by: k"TIUI Date: "I-' '-"-"" ) Page 1 of 7 Status Y Location: Building: Floor EI. ill Room, Area: instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

.. -------1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Piping, conduit and structural steel are well supported and anchored in the area. 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? y Surface corrosion noted on pipes and structural steel. However not enough to be significant 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? Conduits are well supported. No cable trays or HVAC duct. 4. Does it appear that the area is free of potentialiy adverse seismic spatial Interactions with other eqUipment in the y area(e.g" ceiling tiles and lighting)? The structural steel and grating shield many components. Lighting is hung on unistrut.

5. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y No likely sources. 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices, storage of portable equipment.

and temporary installations (e.g. scaffoldlng, lead shielding)? Some scaffolding was observed in the area. It Is braced and clamped to the structural steel and platform handrails. It has also been inspected in accordance with plant procedures. . 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-03-1-E-TE-117. Evaluated by: Date: ID{ <"1 (1.rtJ t..-z. Page 1 of 5 Location: Building: tiYlill@.q[ Floor EI. 100 Room, Area: 1-TRY11 ------------- ---Instructions for Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL items. The space below each of the following questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings. Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Reviewed adjacent panels, room lighting fixtures, emergency lighting, fire extinguishers, HVAC Ducling, and speakers. 2.Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? Y 3.Based on visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit raceways and HVAC ducting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse seismic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be inside acceptable limits)? HVAC dueling is rigidly supported.

4. Does It appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area{e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)?

All items attached to the masonry wall are anchored by through-bolts. Room lighting is supported by a pipe section with a ball and socket connection.

5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire in the area? Y 7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping Y practices.

storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-65-E-XF-TRY11 and DC-1-96-E-PNL-HSP.

Evaluated by: Page 1 of 10 -- Status Y Location: Building: FloorEI. MQ Room, Area: Instructions for Completing Checklist This checklist may be used to document the results of the area walk-by near one or more SWEL Items. The space below each of the foflowing questions may be used to record the results of judgements and findings, Additional space is provided at the end of this. checklist for documenting other comments.

1. Does the anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible Y without necessarily opening cabinets)

Nearby equipment appears to be well anchored. . 2.00es anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions? No degradation observed where visible, nor were any signs of corrosion noted,. The control room carpet was not pulled up. This is a very controlled environment so corrosion is nof expected. Y 3.Based on visual Inspection from the floor, do the cabla/conduit raceways and HVAC dueting appear to be free of Y potentially adverse sefsmic conditions (e.g., condition of supports is adequate and fill conditions of cable trays appear to be Inside acceptable limits)? The suspended ceiling is hung with a braced unistrut system. The HVAC duct Is braced and the registers are independently rod hung. 4. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic spatial interactions with other equipment in the y area{e.g., ceiling tiles and lighting)? The lightIng over the control consoles and vertical boards Is Independently hung from the suspended ceiling. No Issues. Lighting behind-VB1ls wall mounted and does not pose a threat to the structural integrity ofthe panel or to the Indicators and switches on the front of the panel. . 5. Does It appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seIsmic interactions that could cause flooding or spray y in the area? 6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause fire In the area? Y No likely sources. 7. Does it appear that the area Is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g. scaffolding, lead shielding)? File cabinets behind 1-VB1 are anchored. y 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the Y equipment in the area? Comments Includes DC-1-96-E-PNL-1CC1 and DC-1-96-E-PNL-1VB1. Evaluated by: Date: I d'{ Page 1 of 8 The peer review of the SWEL-1 and SWEL-2 was performed during several meetings held while these lists were being developed and during the performance of the inspections. A summary of the issues identified during the peer review, and their resolution, is provided in Table 1. Table 1: Peer review issues and resolutions for SWEL-1 and SWEL-Issue Resolution SWEL development does not consistently Updated to include reference to the Q-List identify SSCs by their Q-List Item No. Item No. where applicable. SWEL-1, Screen No.2 allows exclusion of These valves were included to meet other valves associated with containment criteria. Discussion of Screen No. 2 penetrations, but the final SWEL-1 included exclusions updated to indicate that this certain CIVs. exclusion was not used in its entirety. SWEL-1 should consider safe shutdown The safe shutdown equipment identified in equipment identified in UFSAR UFSAR Appendix 9.5G was added to SWEL development documentation to address these Appendix 9.5G "Equipment required for safe components and their inclusion as candidates shutdown." for the selection of SWEL-1. SWEL-1 should include AFW pump Valves LCV-111 through LCV-115 added to discharge to SG LCVs, since these are list of candidates for the SWEL-1. important to the AFW system operation. SWEL-1 should include RHR pump Valves FCV-641A and FCV-641B added to recirculation valves since these are list of candidates for the SWEL-1. important to the RHR operation. SWEL-1 should include flow control valves Valves FCV-106, FCV-107, FCV-108, and for the motor-driven AFW pumps since these FCV-109 added to list of candidate for the are important to the operation of the pumps. SWEL-1. SWEL-1 should include auxiliary building ventilation system supply and exhaust fans Fans E-1, E-2, S-31, S-32, S-33, and S-34 since these are important to the cooling of added to list of candidates for the SWEL-1. the auxiliary building and are subjected to a corrosive environment. SWEL-1 should include chemical and Valves 8145 and 8148 added to list of volume control system spray valves, since candidates for the SWEL-1. these are important to system operation. SWEL-1 should include valves in the RHR Valves 8701, 8702, 8809A, 8809B, 8700A, system normal shutdown cooling flowpath. 8700B, HCV-637, and HCV 638 added to list of candidates for the SWEL-1. SWEL-1 should include valves in charging Valves 8107,8108, and HCV-142 added to system flowpath to reactor. list of candidates for the SWEL-1. .... ,I Lltion Issue . _. SWEL-1 should include valves associated Valves 8104, 10A,and 11A with boric acid storage tank and transfer added to list of candidates for the SWEL-1. pumps. SWEL-1 should include the main This is not seismically qualified, so it is annunciator. excluded at Screen No.1. SG level transmitters (L T-516, L T-517, etc.) SWEL-1 should include SG level and and pressure transmitters (PT-538, etc.) pressure instrumentation. added to list of candidates for the SWEL-1. SWEL-1 should include wide range and These detectors are included in the list of candidates for the SWEL-1, but were not source range neutron detectors. selected in the finalization of the SWEL-1. SWEL-1 assignment of five safety functions (Screen No.3) -certain seismically qualified SSCs do not perform any of these functions, This is addressed in SVVEL development so they will Screen-out, but still may . documentation. added back-in under Screen No.4 (diversity) or under SWEL-2 (SFP-related SSCs). Risk significance data was received from the Risk significance is not well defined and seismic PRA group and incorporated into must be addressed more clearly. SWEL-1 SWEL-2 development uses 10 feet above top of fuel assemblies as an absolute number, but EPRI 1025286 states "for SFP SWEL-2 development documentation revised penetrations below about 10 feet above the to be consistent with EPRI 1025286. top of the fuel assemblies ... " This g.ives some latitude as to the exact elevation for drain-down. Operating experience report IER L3-12-63, IER L3-12-63 added as an input reference for "Anti-Siphon Devices in Spent Fuel Pool the SWEL-2 and verification of the presence Missing" was recently received and should of anti-siphon holes added as an inspection be addressed in the development of the attribute for piping entering the SFP. SWEL-2. Question was asked if EPRI guideline requires consideration of SFP The NEI frequently asked questions clarified during various operating modes, specifically this issue and it is addressed in SWEL-1. during refueling operations, when the SFP gate is open, transfer canal is flooded, etc. Issue P --I'.tion During the 1980s, the blind flange on the Containment end of the fuel transfer tube was replaced with a QOTTC device. If the SFP gate (not seismically qualified) and the fuel transfer tube manual gate valve (not This concern was entered into the CAP. seismically qualified per component data) Development documentation for SWEL-2 were to fail during an earthquake, the updated to show gate as being seismically QOTTC would act as a part of the SFP qualified. pressure boundary. The concern is whether the QOTTC has been designed to resist the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads associated with this scenario. The FLOC data for the SFP gate indicates that this SSC is not seismically qualified, and that the air supply and back-up nitrogen Review of the civil engineering calculation supply for the inflatable gate seals is not files located a seismic qualification seismically qualified. However, it appears calculation for the SFP gate. Therefore, gate that the gate is very robust and even with can be credited to survive an earthquake. deflation of the seals, the rate of leakage Request to update the FLOC data was through the SFP gate into the fuel transfer entered into CAP. canal will not allow the SFP to drain-down within 72 hours. Even though the SFP skimmers are SWEL-2 updated to include check of the anchored to the wall at the SFP water maximum depth based on hose/tubing length surface, we need to investigate possibility between wall penetration and skimmer to that they break loose (non-seismic support) inspection attributes. This will address the and sink into the pool, allowing siphoning of maximum depth to which skimmers could the pool inventory. sink. The SFP level instrumentation was Monitoring of the SFP level is a key issue, considered for inclusion in the SWEL-2, but it so the SFP level monitoring instrumentation was determined that this instrumentation is should be added to the SWEL-2. not seismically qualified, so it initially screened-out at Screen No.1. The SFP cooling water pump transfer switch (a local contactor) is key to the cooling of the SWEL-2 updated to include switch. SFP and should be added to the SWEL-2. The various ways to provide pure water (to replace evaporation/boiling) or borated water (to replace leakage) to the SFP were discussed. OP AP-22 (Spent Fuel Pool Abnormalities), Appendix A (Addition of SWEL-2 development basis document Water to the SFP) indicates that the condensate storage tank is the "only source enhanced to discuss this flow path. of makeup water to the SFP with a flow path that is completely Design Class I." This flow path should be included in the SWEL-2. See OP 8-7:11 for details of flow path Issue The FHBVS is required to cool various SFP related equipment. Portions associated with the mitigation of a fuel handling accident do not need to be included (e.g., filters), but other equipment should be considered for inclusion. SFP cooling system pressure instrumentation does not serve any earthquake function and can be exclude from the SWEL-2. Screen NO.3 of the EPRI guidelines for the development of the SWEL-2 require the inclusion of a diversity of equipment classes (similar to Screen No.4 for the SWEL-1), but due to the limited scope of equipment associated with the SFP, it is not possible to include representatives of all 21 classes. Difficulties associated with the verification of the elevation of the various underwater pipe penetrations through the walls of the SFP were discussed. Fuel transfer tube expansion joint has been included in SWEL-2 (failure CQuid drain SFP, if SFP gate is open during a refueling outage). Suggest reviewing DCM C-28 (Seismic and LOCA displacements) to determine differential displacements. SWEL-2 includes various pipes which penetrate the SFP wall that are potential rapid drain-down paths. How do we document the walkdowns of these pipes? Operating procedure AP-22 includes the use of a fire hose for emergency refilling of the SFP. The associated hose reel stations should be included in the SWEL-2. The SWEL-1 already includes the auxiliary building ventilation system, which has components that are similar to the FHB ventilation system. However, an FHB exhaust fan was added to the SWEL-2. Pressure instrumentation deleted from the SWEL-2. This is acceptable, since the SWEL-1 already includes a diverse selection of equipment classes. A discussion of this was added to the SWEL-2 development documentation. The following methods were selected for the verification of elevations:

  • Underwater cameras,
  • Verification of the elevation of the pipe where it exits the concrete on the outside of the SFP, and
  • Approximate visual verification from the water surface. Review of DCM C-28 indicates that the seismic differential displacements (containment structure vs. auxiliary building) are small at this location (less than 0.2 inches), but the LOCA differential displacement is large (approximately 1 inch). The combination of seismic and LOCA displacements is enveloped by the allowed differential displacements for the expansion joint. The EPRI guidelines do not address this. Since these guidelines require the use of the SWC form, the walkdown will be documented on an SWC, with most of the inspection attributes marked as "N/A". The "comments" section will be used to describe any observations.

Hose reel station FW-120-A38-1 added to the SWEL-2. Issue Document "Frequently Asked Questions on Seismic Walkdown Guidance" (August 10, The SWEL development documentation was 2012) was provided by the NEI, not the revised. EPRI. Discussion of seismic classification system Clarified discussion in the SWEL relative to Regulatory Guide 1.29 is not development documentation. clear. EPRI definition of SFP rapid drain-down applies to the "top of fuel assemblies," and Clarified discussion to distinguish between could result in exclusion of SFP gate from SWEL-2, while the "about 10 feet above fuel two applications in SWEL development assemblies" applies to penetrations through documentation. walls of SFP. Rationale for the exclusion of the fuel Expanded discussion to address storage racks from the SWEL-2 is not criticality/spacing criteria, lack of anchorage, adequate. submersion in borated water, etc., in the SWEL development documentation. SWEL-1 did not adequately address risk Risk significance data was received from the significance. seismic PRA group and incorporated into SWEL-1 Peer Review: Seismic Walkdown Checklists and Area Walk-by Checklists Introduction In accordance with the guidance provided in EPRI 1025286, the results of the seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys were peer reviewed. Daily debrief of the walkdown team and peer review of a sample of SWCs and AWCs were performed early in the process to check the initial quality of the checklists and to ensure that any the general comments are incorporated in the remaining checklists prepared at later stages. In addition to the early peer reviews, all the SWCs and AWCs were reviewed to verify that the SWEs followed the guidance provided in EPRI 1025286 for performing the walkdowns. Peer Review Team The seismic walkdown and area walk-by results peer review team was led by the project team leader, with various individuals acting as team members. Peer Review Process The results of the seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys were peer reviewed in two steps: (1) Each completed SWC or AWC was reviewed by a peer review team member. This step included a review of the completed checklist and any attached photographs and in some cases discussion with walkdown members. Depending on the complexity of the issue, this step included visiting the plant and visually inspecting the subject equipment or area. Any peer review questions or comments were discussed with the SWEs and after all the questions and comments had been resolved, the completed checklist was signed by both the SWEs. (2) All completed SWCs/AWCs were reviewed by peer review team leader for overall accuracy and consistency. Comments or questions from the team leader were discussed with the SWEs and resolved. Summary of Peer Review Findings and Resolutions The peer review findings are divided into two categories: generic findings and specific findings. The following are the general comments: (1) Problem Identification: Provide a clear and concise description of the problem/issue. Do not provide extraneous details or opinions. (2) Redundant Problems: A specific problem should only be identified on one check list. If the problem is identified on the SWC for the specific SSC, do not describe the same problem on the AWC or assign a status of N or U on the AWC. It is okay to cross-reference between the AWC and SWC for a problem. (3) Recommendations: The AWC/SWC should identify and characterize the potential issue. Do not include statements such as, "valve should be cleaned and painted," "means of anchoring should be improved," or "further evaluation is recommended. " (4) Disposition of Problems: The goal is to not have any remaining open problems on the checklists. Therefore, as part of the checklist finalization, each problem should be linked to its disposition. Create supplemental sheets to be added to the checklists as attachments for this purpose. The AWC/SWC should reference these attachments (e.g., "See Attachment No. xx for disposition."). The SAP notification number is to be referenced on the attachment, not the checklist. (5) Final Checklist Status: Once all of the issues and comments on a checklist have been dispositioned, the "U" statuses in the checklist should be changed to either "Y" (the condition is acceptable) or "N" (the condition is not acceptable, but will be addressed in the CAP). it is not necessary for the checklist to address any follow-up on CAP actions. (6) Electronic AWC and SWC Templates: aspects electronic used to generate the hardcopies of the completed checklists from the Access database do not match the format of the checklist forms included in EPRI 1025286, Appendix C. The templates should be reviewed against Appendix C and corrected as necessary. (7) Description of Room, Area for AWCs: The AWC form (EPRI 1025286, Appendix C), includes a field for "Room, Area." DCPP has used this field for the AWC number (typically the unit number, followed by an acronym for the piece of equipment in the room -e.g., "1-ASP1"). Since this entry does not actually define the room/area covered by the AWC (as required by Footnote 13 in EPRI 1025286), it is recommended that a set of maps be developed to define the areas. Table 2: Specific Findings for Unit 1 -AWCs No. AWC/SWC Title Issue Resolution The AWC identifies a leak which is The leak issue is deleted already identified in the component from the AWC comments 1 1-AFWP1 SWC. Since the issue is covered in section. the SWC for the component, remove it from the AWC. The status of the checklist and answer The checklist status and to question 4 is shown as "Y", although answer to question 4 is 2 1-BFS-31 a seismic interaction issue was changed to "N" and a LBE observed. was performed. The identified surface corrosion on the Added in response to damper body was already identified in question 1 "The corrosion 3 1-E43 the component SWC. on the backdraft dampers is already addressed in SWC DC-1-23-M-BF-E-43." Change the response to question 1 Response was changed to from "N" to "Y", as the nonconforming "Y." 4 1-FWHRA38 anchorage issue was already identified in the component SWC The status of the checklist and Status of checklist and 5 1-MUWTP1 question 5 was shown as "U" although question 5 changed to "Y." all the issues were resolved. 6 1-PD15 Response to question 1 identified the similarities and dissimilarities between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 areas. Since the walkdown reports are being independently prepared for Unit 1 and Unit 2, no references to other units should be made. Table 3: Specific Findings for Unit 1 -SWCs AWC/SWC Title Issue The status fOT question 5 is shown as "N/A" although anchorage verification was 1 DC-0-21-P-FL-DFOTF2 required on this component and the anchorage is consistent with the design drawings. DC-1-03-P-VOH-FW These checklists LCV-110 answer questions 2 -5 DC-1-04-P-VOA-MS as "N/A" irrespective of 2 FCV-41 the response to DC-1-04-VOA-MS-1-PCV-question 1. 20 DC-1-04-P-VR-MS-1-RV-3 DC-1-04-P-VR-MS-1-RV-8 The comments section DC-1-04-P-V-MS-1-FCV-mentions the CAP 3 152 number without any explanation of the resolution/action. Equipment No. shown DC-1-04-P-VOA-MS as "DC-1-04-V-MS 4 FCV-41 FCV-41" instead of "DC-1-04-P-VOA-MS FCV-41" Deleted the following statement from the response to question 1: "The area is similar to area 2-PD25 except that the service air piping is more uniformly supported" and replaced it with "service air piping is uniformly supported." Resolution Status for question 5 changed from "N/A" to "Y". The anchorage characteristics on these components were re-verified and the checklists updated. Reference to the CAP replaced with "See Attachment No. 1 for disposition. " Equipment No. changed to "DC-1-04-P-VOA-MS-1-FCV-41"

10. AWC/SWC Title .... _I In Room, row/column Room, row/column DC-1-04-P-VOA-MS I nformation still shown information changed 5 PCV-20 as "1-PCV-20" although "1-RV-3." the area has been merged with "1-RV-3." In response to question In response to question 7, suggestions about the suggestion was possible modifications replaced with "See are presented by the Attachment No.1 for SWE. The checklist disposition. " 6 DC-1-14-M-PP-CCWP1 should only identify the issue and not any suggested mod ifications.

All suggested changes/modifications are identified in the LBE Status of questions 3, 5, Status changed to "Y." and 6, and the checklist 7 DC-1-17-M-PP-ASP1 status are shown as "U" although all the issues were resolved and LBEs were performed. Status of question 7 of Status of question 7 the checklist is shown changed to "N" and as "Y" although the fire status of Question 1 0 hose rack could swing changed to "Y." DC-1-18-F-HR-FW-120-and hit the valve body. 8 A38-1 Also, the status of question 10 is shown as "N," although the LBE suggests that the interaction is unlikely to damage the valve. Response to question 4 I ncluded "No impact on identified a minor anchorage expected" in hairline crack 2 feet response to question 4 9 DC-1-21-M-M I SC-ES 1 from the center of fixed and changed the status support and no further from "N" to "Y." evaluation was presented. 'swc Issue ResoluU Backdraft damper Included the following in number DC-1 the comments section: VAC-1-BDD-43 was "Inspection includes looked at during the backdraft damper walkdown and is not number DC-1-23-P-D-10 DC-1-23-M-BF-E-43 identified in the SWC. VAC-1-BDD-43" and "surface corrosion was noted on the backdraft damper (VAC-1-BDD-43). See Attachment No.1 for disposition." The status of the Status of the checklist 11 DC-1-23-M-BF-S-43 checklist is shown as changed to "N." "Y" although the status of question 4 is "N." I n the response to Reference to DC-1-23-question 1, reference is P-D-VAC-1-MOD-9 made to the similarity deleted from response between the walked to question 1. 12 DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-down component and 10 damper DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-9. Each component should be evaluated independent of other components. Room, row/column Room, row/column shown as "1-Eagle21" Information changed to 13 DC-1-36-E-PN L-RNARA although the "1-RNARA." component belongs to area "1-RNARA." Status of question 5 Status of question 5 shown as "Y" although changed to liN/A." 14 DC-1-96-E-PNL-1VB1 the component is removed from the 50% anchorage check. Peer Review: Licensing Basis Evaluations Introduction A LBE was performed for each potentially adverse seismic issue identified on the SWC and AWC. The LBEs, which are documented in attachments to the individual checklists, include a determination of the need for entry of the issue into the CAP. The peer review team was led the project team leader, with various individuals acting as team members. Peer Review Process The LBE peer review was performed in two steps: (1) Each potentially adverse seismic condition was evaluated by a cognizant engineer and peer reviewed by a designated review team member. This step included a review of the completed checklist, review of the photograph (if applicable), discussions with the preparer of the LBE, review of the supporting documentation (e.g., drawings, design criteria memoranda, calculations) and, in some cases, discussions with the walkdown team members who performed the field inspections. The completed LBE was signed by the preparer and the peer reviewer. (2) All completed LBEs were reviewed by the peer review team leader for overall accuracy and consistency. Comments or questions from the team leader were discussed with the preparer and reviewer, and resolved as necessary. Summary of Peer Review Findings and Resolutions The peer review findings are divided into two categories: (a) generic findings; and (b) specific findings. The following provides an overall summary of the two categories of findings, and their resolution. T bl 4 G a e enera IF d' f In Ings rom th L' e Icenslng B . Elf P aSls va ua Ion eer R . eVlew Finding Resolution Each LBE should be self-contained within LBEs that were split between multiple the attachment and not reference other attachments were restructured to be attachments to the same checklist for input. self-contained. The seismic requirements for the SSC being LBEs were updated, as appropriate. addressed should be clearly stated, using DCPP's classification as defined in the FLOC data (i.e., design classification and seismic qualification requirement). A LBE for one unit should not reference the Cross-references between units were LBE for a similar issue in the other unit. eliminated. should provide specific reference the source of information (e.g., calculation number, drawing number, etc.) References added to appropriate. as Table 5: Specific Findings from the Licensing Basis Evaluation Peer Review LBE No. Finding Resolution 1-CP-35, This LBE referenced another LBE enhanced to provide Attach. 1 (DC-1-23-P-D-VAC-1-MOD-10, detailed description of the Attach. 1), but did not provide details evaluation. of the evaluation documented in the other LBE. 1-DEG-11, LBE used incorrect values for the LBE updated to reference Attach. 1 vertical and horizontal Hosgri DCM C-17 as source of earthquake accelerations for the accelerations and use the location of the fire extinguisher, and correct values. did not provide a source reference. 1-LCV-112B, LBE addressed the postulated seismic LBE updated to reference Attach. 1 interaction qualitatively, but did not SISIP Manual and indicate indicate whether the valve was a that the valve is not a SISIP target. SISIP target, so this is not an adverse seismic condition. 1-PM-79, LBE did not clearly distinguish LBE updated to indicate Attach. 1 between vulnerability of SISIP targets that the issues are limited in the area and SISIP housekeeping to SISIP housekeeping issues. only. meet this requirement, David Miklush, Philippe Soenen, and Tom Baldwin performed independent peer reviews of this submittal. In addition, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station personnel performed a review of the submittals. All comments were evaluated and resolved. Comments included: (1) Clarify how unique DCPP seismic categories compare to SC I, (2) Clarify independence of peer reviewers, (3) Clarify where engineering evaluations of potentially seismically adverse conditions are included in the submittal, and (4) Indicate status of the walkdown observations entered in to CAP. 1R18 AC ACI AFW AISC ANSI ASW AWC CAP CCP CCW CF CFCU CIV CST Unit 1 Refueling Outage 18 Alternating current American Concrete Institute Auxiliary feedwater American Institute of Steel Construction American National Standards Institute Auxiliary saltwater Area walk-by checklist Corrective Action Program Centrifugal charging pump Component cooling water Containment function Containment fan cooler unit Containment isolation valve Condensate storage tank Direct current dc DCM DCPP DEG DFO DG DHR DIE EOC EPRI ESP FCV FHB FHBVS FLOC Ft HEPA Hx ICE IEEE IER IPEEE LBE LCV LOCA LTSP Design criteria memorandum Diablo Canyon Power Plant Diesel emergency generator Diesel fuel oil Diesel generator Decay heat removal Damp indoor environment Extent of cond ition Electric Power Research Institute Equipment selection personnel Flow control valve Fuel handling building Fuel handling building ventilation system Functional location Feet High efficiency particulate air Heat exchanger Inside containment environment Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers I nd ustry Event Response Individual Plant Examination for External Events licensing basis evaluation Level control valve Loss of coolant accident Long Term Seismic Program IE MS MSSV N NEI No. NRC *NTTF OE Ops PCV PE PG&E Ph.D PRA Q-List QOTTC RC RCIC RCP RCPC RCS RCV RHR RRC RV RWST SC SG SFP SFPCS SI SISI SISIP SQUG SSC SSEL SSER SSPS SWC SWE SWEL SWIE TO Main steam Main steam safety valve No Nuclear Energy Institute Number Nuclear Regulatory Committee Near-term Task Force Outside environment Operations Pressure control valve Professional engineer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Doctor of Philosophy Probabilistic risk assessment Quality classification list Quick opening transfer tube closure Reactor coolant Reactor coolant inventory control Reactor coolant pump Reactor coolant pressure control Reactor coolant system Rad iation control valve Residual heat removal Reactor reactivity control Reactor vessel Raw water storage tank Seismic category Steam generator Spent fuel pool Spent fuel pool cooling system Safety injection Seismically induced system interaction Seismically induced system interaction program Seismic Qualification Utilities Group Structures, systems, and components Safe shutdown equipment list Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report Solid state protection system Seismic walkdown checklist Seismic walkdown engineer Seismic walkdown equipment list Saltwater interior environment Turbine-driven U Updated Safety Analysis UPS Uninterruptable power supply Yes Company is making the 99-04) in this submittal: Commitment Attachment H of this enclosure provides a listing of components that were inaccessible in accordance with EPRI 1025286 and could not be inspected prior to submitting this response. These inaccessible items will be inspected prior to the end of the next refueling outage for Unit 1 (1 R18). 1 R18 is currently scheduled to be completed in March 2014. An update from those inspections will be submitted within 60 days following the completion of 1 R 18. (as Due Date Prior to completion of 1 R18 60 days following completion of 1 R 18}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12333A266&oldid=1363253"