Text

Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3 Seismic Walkdown Report, Appendix C, Area Walk-by Checklists, Sheet 79 of 123 Through End
	ML13008A048
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	10/31/2012
From:	Beigi F, Guerra E, Lucarelli B A, Reny D; ABS Consulting
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
References
	L-12-283
	Download: ML13008A048 (92)
	v • d • e

'IC Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.LXC INttI&S4 CC1NAIIAANIS Sheet 79 of 123 Status:c N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 429A Floor El. 603 Bldg.AUXB 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEL for this area: i) DIN r~hrIt",Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 80 of 123 Status:N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 429A Floor El. 603 Bldg.AUXB Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x _j Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U x I I I Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Similar configuration as for D2N (Drawing E-20-4-7).

Fire Sources: Constant Voltage Transformer No concerns identified regarding fire sources. The potential ignition sources in the area are Constant Voltage Transformer Flooding Sources: NO No flood sources identified in area.Evaluated by:: _Eddie M. Guerra Brian A. Lucarelh Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012 Dt D. Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 81 of 123 Status(_v_'N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 501 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

Grout damaged in nearby anchorage, see Photo 1.Judged not a significant adverse condition since remaining anchors will provide adequate strength to support.3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEL for this area: I) LT- 1402 2) PS3689D 3) T12 L[Y Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.L~LgINLIR$

t Sheet 82 of 123 StatusQ N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 501 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U x Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: Lighting Transformer No concerns identified regarding fire sources. The potential ignition sources in the area are Lighting Transformer Flooding Sources: No concerns identified regarding flood sources. The pritesflldoi dsvurces 5n he area areC.-nrmponeMt'Cdl/ing Surg Tank T12, Piping: Chilled water, component cooling, demin water, Main Steam, Station Heating, Fire Protection Evaluated by: _Eddie M. Guerra Brian A. Lucareli Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012 Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 83 of 123 Status(o)

N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 501 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo 1 Damaged Grout Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 84 of 123 Status: YO U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 502 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?Unable to see due to ceiling panels 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Crack observed in Masonry Wall, See Photo 2.Condition Report issued: CR-2012-1 0973 Ceiling panels are anchored Fire extinguishers are in cabinets Masonry walls identified as 5017, 5147, 5157, 5167, 5177, 5187, 5197, 5207, 5227, 5237, and 5277.All walls have been seismically analyzed per NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 (Ref VBW29-BO01-143, Rev 10, VBW29-BO01-148, Rev 6, VBW29-BO01-149, Rev 5, VBW29-BO01-151, Rev 2, VBW29-BO01-152, Rev 5, VBW30-BO01-153, Rev 3, VBW30-B001-154, Rev 9, VBW30-BO01-156, Rev 2, VBW30-BO01-158, Rev 4.Related equipment on SWEL for this area: 1) C5755 2) LSHHSP9B6 3) LI- 1525A 4) C5792A LB2 5) L311 6) L511 LKQ Paul C. Rizzo Associates.

Inc.L'.( t'N I NttUS& COI'C4 LIASV S Sheet 85 of 123 U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 502 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

Unrestrained trash can, light bulb storage container, and I&C cart. See Judged not to cause damaging interaction with nearby panels.8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N UJ N/A x Photos 3 and 4.Y N U x I I I Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: NO Noflood sources identified in area.Evaluated by: ___Eddie M. Guerra Brran A. ucJa~relli Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012 Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.LNUINLIARS

& CkNNL'LTANI Sheet 86 of 123 Status: Y@ U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 502 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo I Photo 2 General View of Room 502 Crack in Masonry Wall I

~Q Paul C. Rizzo Associates, linc.LNONILLU$I.

CONILLAI I'I Sheet 87 of 123 Status: Y(N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 502 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Supporting Photos (Continued):

Photo 3 Photo 4 Unrestrained I&C Cart Unrestrained Trash Can and Light Bulb Storage K Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.SNLSUINELRgLW,&

' CQf'L1 Sheet 88 of 123 Status:& N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 505 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.I. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?Due to presence of ceiling, these items could not be verified 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A Y N U N/A x Ceiling panels anchored, see Photo 1.Masonry walls in area. Verify seismic adequacy of walls Walls identified as 5107, 5127, 5287, 5297, 5347, 5357, 5367.All walls have been seismically analyzed per NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 (Ref VBW29-BOOI-145, Rev 13, VBW29-BO01-146, Rev 8, VBW31-B001-159, Rev 9, VBW3J-B001-160, Rev 3, VBW31-BO01-161, Rev 4, VBW31-BO01-162, Rev 1, VBW31-BO01-163, Rev 2.Related equipment on SWEL for this area: I) C5706 2) C5702 3) C5712 4) HIS 5889A 5) HIS 7528 6) CS 5711 7) CS 5716

~YPaul C. Rizzo ksociates, Inc.I S%( L.'l IRS& -$..ý C(NI I W!Sheet 89 of 123 Status: N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 505 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

Small podium not anchored (see Photo 2), however it is judged that it will not pose any unacceptable adverse condition to nearby panels.8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A I x Y N U x I I I Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: NO No flood sources identified in area.Evaluated by: Eddie M. Guerra Brian A. Cucarelli Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012 DIQ Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.IXUIMttR$4 tXINUt14N-IS Sheet 90 of 123 Status:&D N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 505 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo I Photo 2 Ceiling Tiles and Lighting Small Podium Not Anchored Fixtures Anchored L~Y Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 91 of 123 Status:(V)

N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 515 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.i. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEI. for this area: I) HV5314 DODQ Paul C. Rizzo A~ssociates, Inc.tV(,IUttRý CONSUL LA.1iN Sheet 92 of 123 Status:& N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 515 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

Dolly loosely tied to column adjacent to MCC, however it is unlikely that this dolly would have an interaction with the MCC nearby.8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U x I I I Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: PIPING: Fire Protection No concerns identified regarding flood sources. The potentialflood sources in the area are PIPING: Fire Protection Evaluated by: _ _ _ _ I Eddie M. Guerra Bria'n A. Lu-carelli Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012

~Q Paul C. Rizzo Amsociates, 111c.Sheet 93 of 123 Status:& N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 515 Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): General View of Room 515 General View of Room 515

~Q Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 94 of 123 Status:& N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 515 Supporting Photos (continued):

Floor El. 623 Bldg.AUXB Loosely Tied Dolly in Room 515 1111k 1 111II Cylinder tanks properly fixed to wall were found in the area

'NC Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.LNUVRINLLRS*

LItNltLAYPII Sheet 95 of 123 Statuso N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 600 Floor El. 643 Bldg.AUXB 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.I. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEL for this area: 1) CV-5005 Q Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 96 of 123 Statusf@ N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 600 Floor El. 643 Bldg.AUXB Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U x Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: Piping: Station Heating No concerns identified regarding flood sources. The potentialflood sources in the area are Piping: Station Heating Evaluated by: Eddie M. Guerra Brian A. Lucarelli Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012

[IY Paul C. Rizzo Associates Inc.L ;IVt'.ttR%

4. IQ'llIA1I',A Sheet 97 of 123 Statuso N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 601 Floor El. 643 Bldg.AUXB 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEL for this area: 1) IA608 2) PY-101A 3) MSIO1

[KQ Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.It', INLMI& & 'ONSL'LANIS Sheet 98 of 123 Statuso$ N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 601 Floor El. 643 Bldg.AUXB Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Unrestrained temporary storage containers observed in area, see Photo 2 8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U x I I I Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: Cont Purge Supply Heating Coil E38, Piping: Domestic water, Fire Protection, Main Steam, Station Heating No concerns identified regarding flood sources. The potential flood sources in the area are Cont Purge Supply Heating Coil E38, Piping: Domestic water, Fire Protection, Main Steam, Station Heating Evaluated by: __Eddie M. Guerra B5rian A. Lucarelh Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012

'IC- Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Ine.INGIN[LRS&

CONSLL IAUS Sheet 99 of 123 Statuso N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 601 Floor El. 643 Bldg.AUXB Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo I General View of Room 601 Photo 2 Unrestrained Storage Containers I Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.LNWlNULK ý Sheet 100 of 123 StatusrvjýN U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 602 Floor El. 643 Bldg.AUXB 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEL for this area: I) SP I7A7 2) ICS I IA

'RIC' Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.1NVtINtl S1%. Ut AA S Sheet 101 of 123 Status oN U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 602 Floor El. 643 Bldg.AUXB Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

Unrestrained temporary storage container in the area, see Photo 2.8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U x I I I Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: 480V Transformer No concerns identified regarding fire sources. The potentfil i onlMrnouurces rin -area uare Flooding Sources: Piping: Fire Protection, Main Steam, Station Heating No concerns identified regardingflood sources. The potential flood sources in the area are Piping: Fire Protection, Main Steam, Station Heating Evaluated by: 4,__-_'__--____

Eddie M. Guerra 73rianA .Lucarclhii Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012 DCD Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.LX",IMA-, CONSCLUANIS Sheet 102 of 123 Status(oZN U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 602 Floor El. 643 Bldg.AUXB Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo I General View of Room 602 Photo 2 Unrestrained Storage Container

~Q Paul C. Rizzo Asi~ociates, Inc.IM IN'11tkS&

42(NAlI IANIS Sheet 103 of 123 Status N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 603 Floor El. 638 Bldg.AUXB 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 ofjudgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Fire extinguisher is mounted on the wall and is not laterally supported.

It is judged that it is unlikelyfor the extinguisher to fall or cause significant interaction with nearby equipment.

Masonry walls in area, see Photo 1.Walls identified as 6017, 6027 6037, 6087, 6097, 6107, and 6047 Wall 6027 is exempt. All other walls have been seismically analyzed per NRC IEBulletin 80-11 (Ref VBW31-BO01-164, Rev 3,SK-C-997, Rev 0, VBW31-BOO0-165, Rev 9, VBW32-B001-166, Rev 5, VBW32-BO01-167, Rev 8, VBW32-BO01-168, Rev 2, VBW32-BOO1-177, Rev 0 Related equipment on SWEL for this area: I) TS-5261 2) C2 1 -1 3) SW-5896 4) SW3927 5) SW3928 L~Y Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.LNONLE"~ tt()N$CLIAWIS Sheet 104 of 123 Status(D N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 603 Floor El. 638 Bldg.AUXB Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic L interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic E interactions that could cause a fire in the area?7. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic L interactions associated with housekeeping practices, storage of portable equipment, and temporary installations (e.g., scaffolding, lead shielding)?

I&C Cart not restrained, see Photo 2.It is judged that the I&C cart and the ladder (Photo 3) would not equipment.

cause an unacceptable interaction with nearby.8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could [adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x+/-ILN U~Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: No concerns identified regarding flood sources. The potentialflood sources in the area are Demin water storage tank TI08, Cem Pot Feeder T154, Expansion tank T88, Piping: Chilled water, Domestic water, demin water, fire protection, Station Heating, Service water Evaluated by: __- _ _ _Eddie M. Guerra B5rian A. Luc~areIli Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012 qC Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.IM INLLUS & CONSV'I.5C15 Sheet 105 of 123 Statuso N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 603 Floor El. 638 Bldg.AUXB Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo I Photo 2 Fire Extinguisher not Restrained Cart Not Restrained and Masonry Wall Q Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.LNUUNUKS h CONS.L'tThAi Sheet 106 of 123 Status(JN U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 251 Floor El. 565 Bldg.INTK 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

Anchor threads shown with substantial length past nut, see Photo 1.Judged acceptable as the support loads are very insignificant.

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?

Hanging light touching component, see Photo 2.Judged not a significant concern due to weight of hanging light Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEL for this area: I) SW82

[L ---- Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 107 of 123 Status N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 251 Floor El. 565 Bldg.INTK Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U x Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: No concerns identified regarding flood sourcex. The prtenvidt fliood inurces -rn "te -area -are ?"qtrng: Timvnetic Water, Demin Water, Service Water, Clean Water Evaluated by: Eddie M. Guerra Brian A. Luc~arelli Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012 I Paul C. Rizzo Associates, tnc.LMANILLRS&

VNL'UIANIN Sheet 108 of 123 StatusoN U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 251 Floor El. 565 Bldg.INTK Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo I Photo 2 Anchor Threading Hanging Light Substantially Past Nut Touching Component FlK Y Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.1 N(: INtIO, C:R IA!CP, Sheet 109 of 123 Status6e3N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 50 Floor El. 585 Bldg.INTK 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.Y N U N/A 1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of X potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

Y N U N/A 2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant X degraded conditions?

Minor corrosion on various components, see Photo 1.Judged not to affect component opearbility or seismic capacity.

Y N U N/A 3. Based on a visual inspection from the floor, do the cable/conduit X 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)?Rod hung pipe (Photo 2) attached to building structural beam with friction clamps. It is judged that this condition is acceptable due to short span ofpipe.Y N U N/A x I I I 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)?

Fire extinguisher is mounted on the wall and is not laterally supported It is judged that it is unlikely for the extinguisher to fall or cause significant interaction with nearby equipment.

Related equipment on SWEL for this area: 1) P4-1 2) FI-2 L~'YPaul C. Rizzo Associate~s Inc.LNUItLR , ."L, NS Sheet 110 of 123 StatuJ ) N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 50 Floor El. 585 Bldg.INTK Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U x Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: No concerns identified regarding flood sources. The potentialflood sources in the area are Piping: Aux. Steam, Chlorination, circulating water, fire protection, screenwash, service water, water treatment Evaluated by: _ _ _Eddie M. Guerra BrianA. LCucarell.

Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012

~Q Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.L'( NUINRS& CIII-LI[AiN1 Sheet 111 of 123 Statu/ v \N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 50 Floor El. 585 Bldg.INTK Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo I Minor Corrosion Photo 2 Rod Hung Pipes L Y Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.tLNVITNUSh

& CONS*L1 AW Sheet 112 of 123 StatusON U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 51 Floor El. 576 Bldg.INTK 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

Grout damaged, see Photo 1.Judged not a significant adverse seismic condition.

3. Based on a 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)?

Movement of MCC restrained, see Photo 2.Top conduits will provide lateral restraint.

Deemed not significant Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEL for this area: 1) El2C X Paul C. Rizzo Associates, linc.

V OT-L L I A%'[I S Sheet 113 of 123 Status N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 51 Floor El. 576 Bldg.INTK Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

Scaffolding in area appears to be adequately restrained

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A Fx Y N U N/A i x Y N U x I I I Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: Transformer For Lighting Panel L3012 No concerns identified regarding fire sources. The potential ignition sources in the area are Transformer For Lighting Panel L3012 Flooding Sources: No concerns identified regarding flood sources. The in he area -are rtimng: 'Ptre Protection, Aux. steam, diesel fuel oil, screenwash, water treatment Evaluated by: Date: 7/25/2012 Eddie M. Guerra____ Date: 7/25/2012

~Q- Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.I2%UINLLRN&4 CON&L'L~IANII Sheet 114 of 123 Status N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 51 Floor El. 576 Bldg.INTK Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo 1 Photo 2 Damaged Grout Movement of MCC Restrained by Adjacent Component LXPaul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.LN.NLONUS

&

Sheet 115 of 123 Status N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 52 Floor El. 576 Bldg.INTK 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.I. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

Minor bolt corrosion noted for Service Water Pumps P3-1, P3-2, P3-3.Judged not to affect component opearbility or seismic capacity.3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x See Photos 1, 2 and 3.Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Fire extinguisher is mounted on the wall and is not laterally supported It is judged that it is unlikely for the extinguisher tofall or cause significant interaction with nearby equipment.

Fire extinguishers not restrained Masonry wall 2371 in area has been seismically analyzed per NRC IE Bulletin 80-11 (Ref VBWIO-BOOI-055, Rev 14)Related equipment on SWEL for this area: 1) FI2D 2) EF12C 3) P3-2 Q Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 116 of 123 StatusQ N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 52 Floor El. 576 Bldg.INTK Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U x Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: No concerns identified regarding flood sources. The pouermidi fvoodt soizrces rn -Me uretz zire ;ý"ire Protection, Aux. Steam, Circulating Water, Circulating water tubing, Service water tubing, water treatment ,4 Evaluated by: Date: 7/25/2012 Eddie M. Guerra Date: Brian A. Lucarell.7/25/2012 1 Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc. Sheet 117 of 123 NULNUNL LO.S' V L I A'N'-" Statuso N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 52 Floor El. 576 Bldg. INTK or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo 1 Minor Corrosion of Pump P3-4 Photo 2 Minor Corrosion of Pump P3-3 r iUulu i Minor Corrision of Pump P3-2 L~Q Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.LLNINRM 4. VNSCLI~N'IN Sheet 118 of 123 Status N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 53 Floor El. 566.25 Bldg.INTK 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 judgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.!. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

Damaged grout, see Photo 1.Judged not to have an adverse effect on support's seismic capacity.3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEL for this area: 1) SW3963 2) SW1399 Pw Q Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.1 Sheet 119 of 123 StatusO N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 53 Floor El. 566.25 Bldg.INTK Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Ladder in area is not restrained, but judged not an interaction concern. See Photo 2.Scaffolding in area appears to be adequate.Y N U x 7 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?Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: NO No fire sources identified in area.Flooding Sources: No concerns identified regarding flood sources. The potentialflood sources in the area are Piping: Fire Protection, Aux. Steam, Circulating Water, Domestic Water, Diesel Fuel Oil, Demi water, Screenwash, Service water, Water treatment, Neutralizing Tank discharge Evaluated byy : _ _Eddie M. Guerra Brian A. Lucýarell Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012 rIV VQ Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Ine.L ILL ULA Sheet 120 of 123 StatusQ N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room 53 Floor El. 566.25 Bldg.INTK Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any): Photo I Photo 2 Damaged Grout Ladder Not Restrained Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 121 of 123 Status 6)N U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room YARD Floor El. 585 Bldg.YARD 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 ofjudgments and findings.Additional space is provided at the end of this checklist for documenting other comments.1. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of potentially adverse seismic conditions (if visible without necessarily opening cabinets)?

2. Does anchorage of equipment in the area appear to be free of significant degraded conditions?

3. Based on a 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)?

Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Related equipment on SWEL for this area: 1) T153-1 L~Y Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Sheet 122 of 123 StatuseN U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room YARD Floor El. 585 Bldg.YARD Interaction Effects 5. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions that could cause flooding or spray in the area?6. Does it appear that the area is free of potentially adverse seismic interactions 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)?

8. Have you looked for and found no other seismic conditions that could adversely affect the safety functions of the equipment in the area?Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A x Y N U N/A i x Y N U x I I I Comments (Additional pages may be added as necessary)

Fire Sources: EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR FUEL OIL STOR No concerns identified regarding fire sources. The potential ignition sources in the area are EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR FUEL OIL STOR Flooding Sources: No concerns identified regarding floond sources. The po tmttiflovd iouurces 'n 'tre -arera are]'11],'jl$

7/, 7 J'fl, T149, T150, TI51-1, T151-2, T160, T168, T188, T212, T45 Evaluated by: y : Eddie M. Guerra Brian A. Lucarelli Date: 7/25/2012 Date: 7/25/2012 r 1V Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.I-SulN] IN- COI.%L LI NN IS Sheet 123 of 123 StatusCQN U Area Walk-By Checklist (AWC)Room YARD Floor El. 585 Bldg.YARD Other supporting or relevant documents and photos (if any):

APPENDIX D COMPONENT LIST FOR ANCHORAGE CONFIGURATION CHECK COMPONENT ID References 2N Drawing C-0752 Rev 0011 Drawing E-854Q-115-1 2P Drawing C-0752 Rev 0011 Drawing E-854Q-115-2 C21-1 Calculation C-CSS-C21-1 C25-3 Calculation C-CSS-C25-3 C3615 Calculation C-CSS-C3615 C3645 Calculation C-CSS-C3645 C4606 Calculation C-CSS-C4606 Calculation C-CSS-C4603 C73-1 Calculation C-CSS-C73-1 C78-2 Calculation C-CSS-C78-1 DIED Calculation C-CSS-DCMCC-1 Drawing C-0233 Rev 0011 DIN Drawing E-20-4-7(2)

Drawing C-0220D Rev 0004 D2_ED Calculation C-CSS-DCMCC-002 Calculation C-CSS-DCMCC-1 Drawing E-20-4-7(2)

D2N Drawing C-0220D Rev 0004 Calculation C-CSS-YV4 D2P Drawing C-0220E Rev 0003 DBC2P Calculation C-CSS-DBC2P E11B Calculation C-CSS-E11B Drawing C-0233 Rev 0011 E12B Calculation C-CSS-E12B Calculation C-CSS-E12C EI2C Drawing C-0233 Rev 0011 Drawing C-0412B Rev 0004 Calculation C-CSS-E22-1 E22-1 Drawing M-23-5-3 Drawing 7749-M-23-3-5 Calculation 97209-TR-01_REVO (Altran)D-1 COMPONENT ID References Calculation C-CSS-E22-1 E22-2 Drawing M-23-5-3 Drawing 7749-M-23-3-5 Calculation 97209-TR-01_REV0 (Altran)E27-1 Calculation C-CSS-E27-1 E27-2 Calculation C-CSS-E27-2 F11IA Calculation C-CSS-F1IA Drawing C-0233 Rev 0011 F12A Calculation C-CSS-F12A Calculation C-CSS-E12C F12D Calculation C-CSS-F12D Drawing C-0412B Rev 0004 K5-1 Calculation C-CSS-K5-1 K5-2 Calculation C-CSS-K5-2 P14-1 Calculation C-CSS-P14-1 P14-2 Calculation C-CSS-P14-1 Calculation C-CSS-P14-2 P3-2 Drawing M-045-00002-0011 P372B Calculation C-CSS-P37-2 P42-1 Calculation C-CSS-P42-1 P43-2 Calculation C-CSS-P43-2 Calculation C-CSS-P43-001 P58-1 Calculation C-CSS-P58-1 RC3701 Calculation C-CSS-RC3701 T10 Calculation C-CSS-T10 Drawing 7749-C-34-147-3 T12 Calculation C-CSS-T12 T46-1 Drawing C-0213A Rev 0001 Calculation C-CSS-T46-1 XCEI- Calculation C-CSS-CE1-001 Calculation C-CSS-E1 Calculation C-CSS-DF1-2 XDF-2Calculation C-CSS-F1 Y2 Calculation C-CSS-Y2 Y2 Calculation C-CSS-YF1 YFI Calculation C-CSS-F12B YRF2 Calculation C-CSS-YRF2 Calculation C-CSS-D2P D-2 COMPONENT ID References YV2 Calculation C-CSS-YV2 Calculation C-CSS-D2P YV4 Calculation C-CSS-YV4 D-3 APPENDIX E MASONRY BLOCK WALLS VERIFIED UNDER IE BULLETIN 80-11 Elevation Room Wall Seismically Reference Analyzed 1157 Yes VBW03-B001-009, Rev 5 (8/16/93)545 122 1167 Yes VBW03-B001-010, Rev 8 (4/20/89)1187 Exempt SK-C-992, Rev A (6/6/89)2047 Yes VBW06-BOO1-028, Rev 4 (7/29/88)225 2427 Yes VBW10-B001-058, Rev 3 (1/2/06)2437 Yes VBW10-B001-059, Rev 1 (6/29/81)2077 Yes VBW06-B001-031, Rev 2 (12/1/86)565 227 2087 Yes VBW06-B001-032, Rev 3 (2/4/91)2447 Yes VBW10-B001-060, Rev 4 (3/14/86)2317 Yes VBW09-B001-049, Rev 8 (2/6/06)236 2327 Yes VBW09-B001-050, Rev 4 (2/4/06)2337 Yes VBW09-B001-051, Rev 10 (1/15/06)2347 Yes VBW09-B001-052, Rev 3 (2/8/91)576 52 2371 Yes VBW10-B001-055, Rev 14 (2/10/87)585 3227 Yes VBW15-B001-080, Rev 6 (5/18/88)3247 Yes VBW16-B001-082, Rev 5 (8/5/81)3257 Yes VBW16-B001-083, Rev 2 (4/27/88)3267 Yes VBW16-B001-084, Rev 5 (4/27/88)3277 Yes VBW17-B001-085, Rev 4 (4/25/88)312 3297 Yes VBW17-B001-087, Rev 4 (4/25/88)3357 Yes VBW 18-B3001-091, Rev 5 (4/25/88)3367 Yes VBW19-B001-092, Rev 2 (10/28/87) 3417 Yes VBW19-B001-096, Rev 5 (4/27/88)3427 Exempt SK-C-994, Rev A (6/6/89)308D Yes VBW12-B001-068, Rev 3 (5/27/81)309D Yes VBW13-B001-069, Rev 3 (5/28/81)318 310D Yes VBW13-B001-070, Rev 3 (5/28/81)311D Yes VBW13-B001-071, Rev 8 (4/20/88)338D Yes VBW19-B001-093, Rev 5 (9/26/81)319 304D Yes VBW 12-B001-064, Rev 8 (8/26/87)319 307D Yes VBW12-B 1-067, Rev 7 (4/20/88)305D Yes VBW12-B001-065, Rev 5 (4/21/88)321A 306D Yes VBW12-B001-066, Rev 6 (8/26/87)328 3307 Yes VBW17-B001-088, Rev 6 (6/21/89)3347 Yes VBW18-B001-090, Rev 3 (6/14/89)E-1 Elevation Room Wall Seismically Reference Analyzed 3397 Yes VBW19-BOO1-094, Rev 5 (6/3/06)3407 Yes VBW19-BOO1-095, Rev 10 (7/5/06)4016 Yes VBW20-B001-100, Rev 14 (12/6/88)4026 4036 Yes VBW21-BOO1-102, Rev 13 (3/31/99)4046 603 428 4786 Yes VBW25-BOO1-125, Rev 9 (6/26/90)4796 Yes VBW25-BOO1-126, Rev 6 (12/11/90) 4886 Yes VBW27-BOO1-135, Rev 19 (4/29/88)4896 Yes VBW27-BO01-136, Rev 3 (7/18/06)4906 Yes VBW28-BOO1-137, Rev 3 (9/23/81)5017 Yes VBW29-BOO1-143, Rev 10 (1/7/06)5147 Yes VBW29-B001-148, Rev 6 (6/10/06)5157 Yes VBW29-BOO1-149, Rev 5 (8/14/96)5167 5177 Yes VBW29-BO01-151, Rev 2 (9/27/86)502 5187 Yes VBW29-BOO1-152, Rev 5 (1/7/06)5197 Yes VBW30-BOO1-153, Rev 3 (3/31/86)5207 Yes VBW30-BOO1-154, Rev 9 (9/17/93)623 5227 5237 Yes VBW30-BOO1-156, Rev 2 (1/3/91)5277 Yes VBW30-BOO1-158, Rev 4 (6/10/06)5107 Yes VBW29-BOO1-145, Rev 13 (6/5/06)5127 Yes VBW29-BOO1-146, Rev 8 (1/12/06)5287 Yes VBW31-BOO1-159, Rev 9 (11/16/89) 505 5297 Yes VBW31-BOO1-160, Rev 3 (2/16/88)5347 Yes VBW31-BOO1-161, Rev 4 (4/27/82)5357 Yes VBW31-BOO1-162, Rev 1 (5/11/81)5367 Yes VBW31-BOO1-163, Rev 2 (10/17/85) 6017 Yes VBW31-BOO1-164, Rev 3 (2/14/06)6027 Exempt SK-C-997, Rev 0 (1/4/99)6037 Yes VBW31-BOO1-165, Rev 9 (10/7/05)643 603 6087 Yes VBW32-BO01-166, Rev 5 (11/1/90)6097 Yes VBW32-BOO1-167, Rev 8 (11/7/84)6107 Yes VBW32-BO01-168, Rev 2 (5/10/88)6047 Yes VBW32-BOO1-177, Rev 0 (12/21/83)

E-2 APPENDIX F DAVIS-BESSE DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL F-1

[38-01/9-0 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual Sectkon Title: SEISMIC DESIGN Page: IL.E.il-Revision:

0 Responsible Checker: Theo Swmn Approver:

Date: 6/27/88 1.0 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE BASIS The design earthquake basis depends on the regional geology, site seismology, and historical occurrences, etc. These subjects arm discussed in detail in the Davis-Besse USAR Appendix 2C.This section consists of presenting the design response spectra and design time history used in the seismic analysis and seismic design of Category I structures which form the Davis-Besse licensing commitment.

Although this section is essentially historical, it is also applicable to Post 1979 Category I building design.1.1 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE The NRC's Seismic and Geology Siting Criteria (10 CFR -100, Appendix A) requires that for purposes of analysis and design, two design earthquakes be specified; i.e., a maximum possible (larger) earthquake and a maximum probable (smaller) earthquake.

The maximum possible (larger) earthquake is defined as that earthquake producing the maximum vibratory ground motion that the nuclear power generating plant is designed to withstand without finctional impairment of those features necessary to shut down the reactor and maintain the plant in a safe condition without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. The maximum horizontal ground acceleration for the maximum possible (larger) earthquake is 0.15 g. The maximum possible earthquake is also referred to as Safe-Shutdown Earthquake or SSE.The Maximum Probable Earthquake is the conservatively determined earthquake and associated ground motion that might reasonably or probably be expected to occur at the nuclear plant site. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is'similar to the Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) terminology presently being used by the NRC. The maximum horizontal ground acceleration for the maximum probable (smaller) earthquake is 0.08 g.1.2 DESIGN RESPONSE SPET -The design response spectra for horizontal ground motion- of the maximum possible (larger, SSE)earthquake for 0 percent, 1/2 percent, I percent, 2 percent. 5 percent, and 10 percent of critical damping are shown in Figure D.E 1 -1 1. Figure 1-2 shows the corresponding response spectra for the maximum probable (smaller, OBE) earthquake, which arm obtained by multiplying the maximum possible (larger) earthquake spectra values by a factor of 8/15. FigSur II.E.l-3 shows the Davis-Besse time-history design spectrum plotted with the ground design spectrun for 4-percent damping. This figure also shows that the time-history response spectrum conservatively envelops the Davis-Besse design spectrum.F-2 fl-Of1U3.0

.,G.AR -0 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuationi)

Section Title: SEISMIC DESIGN Page: ii1E.1-2 Rovision:

0 The input design response spectra, often referred to as a "Newmark" spectra, is based on research conducted by Dr. Newmark in conjunction with the NI(C.Based on site studies prepared for Davis-Besse Power Station Unit 1, the maximum ground acceleration, velocity, displacement, and earthqluake duration are shown in Table l.E. 1-1. The vertical component of each earthquake is defined as two-thirds of the horizontal component.

1 -3 DESIGN TIME;HISTORYI ACkELEROGRAM The east-west iccelerogram of the Helena, Montana earthquake of October 31, 1935 was used as the basis for development of the project acceleration time-histories for both design earthquakes.

The Helena record was modified to obtain an acceleration fire-history having the required duration, maximum ground accelerations, and a resulting response spectra with values generally greater than design spectra. Figure II.E. 1-4 shows the modified Helena horizontal time-history accelerogram developed for Davis-Besse Power Station Unit I. Reference I presents this record as a digitized time-history of 30 seconds in intervals of 0.01 second.F-3 DB-018&o Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Sectlon Title: SEISMIC DESIGN Page: II.E.l-3 Revision; 0 Table II.E. 1-1 LIM [T[NG PARAMETERS FOR THE DESIGN EARTHQUAKES I HORIZONTAL VIBRATORY GROUNLD MOTIONS.i a. Maximum Possible Earthquake (larger earthdnuake.

SSE)Maximum ground acteleration:

015 G- ...Maximum ground Velocity:

5 inch/second Maximam ground displacement:

3.33 inches Total duration:

30 weonds b. Maximum Probable Earthquake (smaller eartguakle.

OBE)Maximum ground acceleration:

0.08 0 Maximum ground velocity:

2,67 inches/second Maximum ground displacement:

1.78 inches Total duration:

30 .scomds 2.

VIBRATORY GROUND MOTIONS Maximum Posible (larger) Earthouake and Maximum Pmobale (smallerEaIthguake Vertical vibratory ground motions are two-thirds of the respective maximum horizontal vibratory ground motions, F-4 f3-ln 0fl0.fl w_ L , ,, ,, I~gtI .04n1.JTjnv Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section Title: SEISMIC DESIGN Page: IIL.I..4 Revision; 0 Figure [LE. I-i RECOMMENDED RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR HORIZONTAL GROUN M-D MOTIONS OF MAXIMUM POSSIBLE EARTHQUAK (LARGER EARTHQUAKE)

FOR SEVERAL DAMPLNG RATIOS z o -0o 05 02 OF I -Ratio ot dampiLng Rev, 0 F-5 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual'J .(Continuation)

Section Title: SEISMIC DESIGN Page: IIE,1-5 Revision:

0 Figure llE.I-2 RECOMMENDED RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR HORIZONTAL GROUND MOTIONS OF MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE (SMALLER EARTHQUAKE)

FOR SEVERAL DAMPING RATIOS'r.5 TO io 0-0 A 0 0.05 40-Z N3aY -w "2.I!It C c6iflC ~10 h1A"K ~Ei.4 .* 4.0'or -a.cz 03 04 064QD k.ao~~ 2 'Ac 4 a ~ eC oW1t~caX 4aa$ftQ key, A F-6 "11-0180-0 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

[ 5ection'iito:

SEISMIC DESIGN Page: II.E,]-6 Revision:

0 Figure I].1-3 DESIGN TItlE-HISTORY SPECTRUM VERSUS DESIGN SPECTRUM4 COMPARISON 4ý4_9 I ml'I p/-J P.---'a a N-o 0 a r~si Af I"-C, I$0NYM 4y, A,~F-7 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section T7le: SEISMIC DESIGN Page: ILL. 1-7 Revision:

0 Figure ILE-l-4 MOD WLE~J 1-IEL1~NA TIME-HISTORY AcCI3LEROORAM a U A S.N U--mm ------= ~ ---t 1 It" = ;~ ~ --4. ~,* -----~* .a ~ 5-w m 3 -CS** -I S I C ~eD ) I. 0 1 .1 Vj~ ~ 1 3 ~ ~ V Rev. A a F-8

'D8-0179-0

'Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual Section lTitl: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTrUM Page: f1,,-2-1 Revision:

3 Rosponsiblo Engineer Checker: Jon Hoots Approver:

Theo Date: 2113/96 This section discusses the seismic analytical approach for both Seismic Category I and Non-(Seismic Category 1) structmes.

Modeling considerations, and the time-history method of analysis, are described for the major Category I. buildings.

Although this section is essentially historical, new structures would also require the considerations described herein.2.1 SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES The Seismic Category I structures which have been designed to withstand(he effects of the design earthquakes are listed below:* Shield building& Containment vessel a Containment internal structures

Auxiliary building" Intake structure excluding superstructure" Service water tunnel and valve room 6 Borated water storage tank and foundation Seismic Category I electrical duct banks and manholes Emergency diesel fuel oil tanks and foundations 0 Chlorine detector building The Seismic Category I systems and components located in.these structures have also been designed for the effects of the design earthquakes.

F-9

ADavis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section TM*t: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: II.E.2-2 RevTison:

3 The design of Seismic Category I structures has been based on the techniques of TID 7024 (Reference

2) and the applicable sections of BC-TOP-4A (Reference 3). Lumped mass mathematical models shown in Figures lI.E.2-1 through H.E.2-8 were used to analyze the major Seismic Category I structures applying both time-history and spectral response techniques.

A discussion of time-history analysis is given in Section UlE.2.2, and the spectral response technique is discussed in Section ll.E.3.1.

It should be noted that the major plant structures as well as Areas 6, 7, and 8 of the auxiliary building are separated by I inch expansion (seismic) joints in order to ensure independent response under seismic excitation.

The lump mass models were dynamically cxcitcd using ground spectra and time-history as given in Figures II.E.1-l'and lI.E.l-2, and in Reference

1. Seismic forces for the design of buildings were obtained using the spectral response technique.

Using the time-history technique, floor response spectra were developed at each floor level for three directions of earthquake excitation.

The floor spectra, found in References 4 and 5 as well as in calculations listed in Table fl.E.2-2, are used to obtain seismic loads for the design of systems, subsystems, and components that are uncoupled with the building walls or slabs (refer to Section II..3).2,2 MODELI The Seismic Category I structures resting on sound bedrock have been idealized as fixed-base, lumped-mass systems as shown in Figures Il.E.2-2 through JEi2-7. The Seismic Category I structures which have been analyzed considering soil structure interaction effects include Area 6 of the auxiliary building and the borated water storage tank (see Figures I.E.2-! and ll.E.2-8).

In the model for the three areas of the auxiliary building, the intake structure, and the containment internals, a concentrated mass was located at each floor level to mathematically represent the mass of slabs, walls, and equipment.

This idealization was based on the assumption that the floor slabs will act as rigid diaphragms.

These masses were connected by massless beam elements representing the stiffness of the walls and columns between floors. The lumped mass points for the shield building, containment vessel, and borated water storage tank were established in accordance with the building geometry and structural properties.

For Area 6 of the auxiliary building, the foundation consists of a system of beams and reinforced concrete columns (Caissons) extending 27 feet through Class I structural backfill to the rock surface. In the mathematical model shown in Figure IL.E.2-1, the soil and concrete masses between the grade slab and the rock surface have been lumped at three points. Translational soil springs located at these points represented the shear rigidity of the soil. A rotational spring at the top of the columns represented the rotational stiffiess of the column group. The system was assumed free to rotate at the rock surface and lateral stability was provided by the translational soil springs.F-10 DO-0180-0 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section 1iUe: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: 11.E.-3 Revision:

3 For the borated water storage tank, the foundation is a reinforced concrete slab approximately 6 feet deep and 49 feet in diameter, which rests on structural backfill extending to the in situ rock at elevation 560 feet. The mathematical model shown in Figure I.E.2-8 consisted of a lumped mass idealization of the superstructure and foundation which, in turn, was supported by springs representing the horizontal, vertical, and rotational stiffness of the compacted structural backfill.These stiffnesses have been determined using methods presented in Reference 3.Other Category I structures such as the service water tunnel, valve rooms, buried oil storage tank, and electrical manholes with associated duct banks, have been idealized as single-degree-of-freedom systems. Since the fundamental modes were in the rigid range, design response spectra for these structures was the ground spectra.2.3 TWE-11 ORY ANALYSIS The time-history method of analysis has been utilized to analyze the Seismicigategory I buildings for purposes of developing the structure's response necessary for evaluating equipment installations.

Although this method of seismic analysis has principally been used for the analysis of buildings, it is applicable to any structural system where the base excitation is defined as a function of time and acceleration.

As presented in Section I.&22. 1, mathematical models representing the buildings have been used to determine the time-history response of the buildings subjected to the design earthquake time-history using a modal techniquc.

For each building, at least one mode of vibration was considered, and all modes below 33 Hz were used for modal synthesis in each direction of excitation.

In these instances, the total sum of the modal masses used in the analysis was at least 90 percent of the building mass, A set of uncoupled modal equations, representing the idealized system under dynamic loading, has been solved using a mathematical routine such as the Runge-Kutta Fourth-Order method. By algebraically combining the modal responses at each time increment, acceleration time-histories at the various floor elevations have been obtained.

These time-history records, have been used to develop the floor response spectra for seismic qualification of installations.

The response spectra have been constructed by monitoring the maximum response of interest at each step of time-history integration.

It is assumed that the time-history varies linearly between data points. Frequency data points are those listed in Table 5-1 of Reference 3 in addition to the natural frequencies of the structure.

Peaks associated with structural frequencies have been broadened by 10 percent of the peak frequency value and subsequently smoothed to account for uncertainties in the model representations.

Since the building models are of a planar nattre, no oross-coupling floor response spectra have been generated.

F-i1 08-OlM.LDavis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Soctionr TtR. SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Pagw: L1.E.2-4 Revision:

3 The time-history analysis tcchnique has been used principally to obtain floor response spectra which in turn are used to define the seismic input for decoupled systems, subsystems, and components at their respective attachment points to the building structure.

2.4 PAMFQM

When various components within a structural system possessed different percentages of critical damping, composite modal damping was calculated using the mass weighted method in the CE-917 program (see Section IILB. 10), or the lowest damping value was conservatively used in the design for all components.

Since 1980, certain structural analysis computer programs such as BSAP have utilized a strain-energy method for computing composite modal damping. This approach is preferred since the damping magnitude can be related to potential component deformations.

The percentages of critical damping for analyzing structures, systems and components are shown in Table II.E.2- I. The damping values shown above the dashed line in the table are those to which the plant has been licensed.

The damping values below the dashed line in the table have been used since 1980 and were derived on the basis of reference 10 (CMU walls) and reference I I (conduit, cable tray, wireway). ,Prior to 1980, damping values for items below the dashed line were derived by comparison with the damping values for the structurally similar items above the dashed line.Higher damping values than those listed in Table U1.E32-4 are allowed, provided proper justification (i.e. test results, etc.) is available for specific components or equipment.

For example, appropriate damping values for seismically qualifying equipment by analysis such as electrical cabinets, housing components, or devices such as meters and switches shall be based on the type of support assembly and whether it is bolted or welded. More exact damping values can be obtained from qualification test reports of similar equipment if available.

2.5 NON-(SEISMIC CATEGORY 1) STKUCTURES Non-(Seismic Category I) structurs have been designed in accordance with the seismic requirements of the Uniform Building Code (Reference

7) or the Ohio Basic Building Code (reference Section I1.). Structures designed to these codes include:* Turbine building (UBC)* Turbine generator pedestal (UBC)S Office building (UBC)* Water treatment building (UBC)F-12 DB.DtaO-O%CLEAR P Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section Title: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: 11..2-5 Revision:

3 0 Cooling tower (UBC)0 Cooling water pump house (UBC)0 Personnel procesing facility (OBBC)* Persone l shops facility (OBBC)0 Administration building (UBC, 1979, Zone 2)0 Training Simulator facility (OBBC)0 Low level radwasle storage (OBBC)facility a Station Blackout.Diesel Building (LJBC)Yard structures not listed in (UI3C)Section I.E.2. 1, including intake structure superstructure.

Section 2312 of the Uniform Building Code describes the requirements for evaluating the lateral earthquake forces for Non- (Seismic Category .) structures and also the lateral forces on elements of structures and nonstructural components.

For Davis-Besse Power Station Unit 1, structures are designed to requirements of Zone I of the UBC Seismic Zone -Map except as noted in Section ILH for TED structures.

The interaction between Seismic Category I and Non- (Seismic Category 1)buildings has been precluded such Ihat in the building design each structure responds independently to seismic motions.F- 13 DB,0i80-0 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

-Section Titlo: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES R~evision:

3 Page: .I.E.2-6 Table 11.E.2-1 PERCENT OF CRITICAL DAMPING FACTOR Item, Equipment, or Structpr._

Maximum Maximum Probable Possible Earthquake Earthquake Large diameter piping systems, pipe diameter greater 0.5 0.5 than 12 in.Small diameter piping systems, diameter less than or 0.5 0.5 equal to 12 in-Welded steel structures 2 2 Bolted steel structures

-2 5 Rein forced concrete structures 2 4 Equipment I I CMIU walls 4 7 Conduit supporl systems 4 7 Cable tray/wireway systems 4 7 HVAC support systems 2 2* Refer to Section flI.B. I1.3.5.1.B.3.b for use ofaltcmative (higher) damping N alues per ASME, Code Case N-41 I.F- 14 DB-O1 80-0 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation) socton "nuo: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: 1L.E.2-7 Revision:

.3 Table II.E.2-2 INDEX TO CALCULATIONS FOR SEISMIC ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA Building/Location Earth Reft No.Quake Caic. Sheets Ground OBE/ USAR 2-SSE Sect. 3.7 Auxiliary Building -Area 6 SSE S-I8 12 Auxiliary Building -Area 7 SSE S-19 21 Auxiliary Building -Area 8 SSE S.20 21!Containment Shield Bldg. SSE S-21 12 Containment Vessel SSE S-22 16 Containment Internals SSE S-23 36 Intake Structure SSE S-24 12 Valve Room SSE S-25 2 Auxiliary Building -Area 6 OBE S-I8 12 Auxiliary Building -Area 7 OBE S-19 21 Auxiliary Building -Area 8 OBE S-20 21 Containent Shield Building ODE S-21 12 Containment Vessel OBE S-22 16 Containment intemrals OBE S-23 36 Intake Structure OBE S-24 12 Valve Room OBE S-25 2 F- 15 t R D&WO-0r .... ... ..Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Sectin TVila: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: 11I_.2-8 Revision: Figure UILE2-1 MATHEMATICAL MODEL, AUXILIARY BUILDING A .EA 6 AO~a -.ýkt) V 'I A4 -6 [$"U- 16 6^ 4 ---fl I &f~~~T T) P~M M CF~~~~t)L (PIL~!V4 ~ ~ CFT')K- 4 KtbttIA~Z479:44A6 Fil Lms.j 10 M-2 65".43LO it.o 1.8.6 B',"41 4&1~ ~oo 4~0 ~j~QQ 184 4 55... ... ... ..i It'G,[272 c~1~ --I #L))12.7" 2 24P 7'417-I, .---a ---E-4 14.&.405~

~sir NOTE:The Shear Area and Moment of Inertia designated as An.s and I.-, is Shear Area and Moment of Inertia for an earthquake in the North-South direction whic i means it is the Moment of Inertia about the East-West axis.F-16 O- Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual 4 , W (Continuation)

Section Title: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: [l.E.2-9 Reviseon:

3 Figure 1I.E.2-2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL, AUXILIARY BUILDING AREA 7 AUX.eL3 S4 AegA WIDW S43 6 iOU4 469 OZ7~~t 616 6941 x iC 3820 6 78 1 03 389 1SMXiCP a14 a426 clC?.2566 r3 67 6A 402 19~53 x d 247 1709X 0 5:3748 4. 58 977 523M Z3COxld428 5366x 1CP 9155 -3 .40 -91.3 535 2813x%,P .357 A416 9055 20 IW 4 01A a~9xid 792 so1a x 1 VCý4a k~i iW IA$5PCF~3 Kc.5.24e x 10r' KSF 1 -2a G...9j'Q KSF NOTE:The Shear Area and Moment of 1nertia designated as An-s and 1,s is the Shear Area and Moment of Inertia for an earthquake in the North-South direction which means it is the Moment of Inertia about the East-West axis.F-17

po.z__- -.1. D avis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section Title: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF Page: I.E.2-10 Revision:

3 Figure UE.2-3 MATHEMATICAL MODEL, AUXILIARY BUILDING AR I-A 8 A&BUIJLT cCOW.EL.659!-3"'HOW~ 'TOTAL ~~MIH ~ ASR YMO0T VWE:GM( tNT 'H AE FSA 14 C KIPS MO. (FT (r.) J2)7 I~ RAI~I 2M aI- --:I )(t4 4061 72 97 649 18432072.

491 13V796.4559 6 .8.62 1215 411 195S513'.

857 319459.5610 5 65.25 1331 4654 193822'2.

Ero7 3285000.7327 446.25 1453 551 2326802. 902 3447308.1132'74 3 277 268.4 1243 29846 ZZ 1441 5791.113.18~03 Q_ .35 762 ,'1 9 7012791.f`04 ksi~w"5 SPCF; Zc.-1248 x 1C$FJ;G$.2099x1c0 5 1 EL584'-&EL. 564-0" EL.550'* 3-S' ASE EL. 545ý0"!t_JL.NOTE:The Shear Area and Moment of Inertia designated as As and In., is the Shear Area and Moment of Inertia for an earthquake in the North-South direction whic.i means it is the Moment of Inertia about the East-West axis, F-18

Davis-Besse Design. Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section Title: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: I[.E.2-] I Revislon:

3 Figure l.E.2-4 MATHEMATICAL MODEL, SHIELD BUILDING aml.0ti1 A Wt3 it 403J"-~ -X Ae 1854.0 o1Q1 Wa w4 Aa a fZl7 Wit ___________

EL.?2*OO ______5386_____1c_

E1o 57YO ELG" W4 -1w, tss~I~,O~T Ap m Wft2 ELW9;00 A W4 = 2&26ýt 4 a ZU9.2" Axjc 9 4476 Amcp a SP 0%1 -1 1 -1 ý -Fl ~kIM A-Aji~p .. "4.EU5$8 0s Iu2T)2JZZ I ELS67O.7S

_ _A TWi212@K!-L67 73I --EL.~S.Q""If, ff"fff re 4000 PSI E 6524..767 V-W G 0O.4E 020900 Kst A v FT 2:L, MASS POINT NO.o jOINT No.fi *wn NO,*MASS POINT F- 19 DB01800.O 4 Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section Title: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: Il.E-2-12 Revision:

3 Figure i.E.2-5 MXTHEMATICAL MODEL, CONTAINMENT VESSEl.Fl ~MAO EL AMM , A 10 'A V ZoAK. -I RI A Aft!) ~ AJ~-)ot A SiýA 0 79 k4 =' 146,590 A~c2=L5"74-e.2 A Acffc x 25 At i o EL 14.reft t_NZ =-E~ 4,174, 0 0 K 6F 4:t 4_L,-MEL'AB6.R 1N3ALER-.* M A SS 'O i T!9.QW W.~ .ASRCV j 4.. XM O 4w'/i///I/_wV= r: 4'ý* I F-20 ce-otec .o Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Conitnuation)

SeotUn lneO; SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTUIRES Pago: II.E.2-13 Rovision:

3 Figure IL.E.2-6 MATH-EMATICAL MODEL, CONTAINMENT INTERNAL STRUCTURES 9-7-41'-O 6,t Wa1 30M HEM ftt oAkl~kc 6"4" 1 Ai-*^ILA (IRK~s I (pf S) H19A .-(Fy?)A = AUA 3518.~I41 16141 L3 44.1~41~I I 7%a 4 1& --io 1~1 ~0) 1110,000 44 %A1,00 1%81 90$9~ o "5240 50 tl1l00 1287 sO~$G o 1O 147, "0 Iasi 11 00'MOO 810 Iý429,00~40 -" -^1-V117 1 276 4-3O4 ')96,04_. ~4 -I -L..rz-11.41WO 1%4 "40" c... .4 -I ~ -~ £?C;u~.c.*)

2( I' 02.5)V: =5S000 psz FE £o~NOTE:The Shear Area and Moment of Inertia designated as A,,, and In-s is the Shear ATea and Momuent of Inertia for an earthqpake in the North-South direction which means it is the Moment of Inertia about the East-West axis.F-21

.cLEAR Davis-Besse Design CriteriaManual (Continuation)

Section Title: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: 1I.E.2-14 Revision:

3 Figure 11. E2-7 MA 1 THEMATICAL.

MODEL, INTAKE STRUCTURE C- 3 3 4 7 t -(-,14s) MODULUS OFM. S .: E m24,T77 KSF SHEAR KSF___ 524.67if"7 V" 7 7p -2 WRIPGI4T JOMN EirGHT ARCA NOR'THSoTtK EAST-wEST (P3PS) NUMBER (T) TOTAL ......( Y) SHEAf AREA SHIEAR AN~__e AREA IUCIA RAN1 (Fe) _ _-- (-- -9F ea~ssv.,-

6 -,no- 880-- 4+ -__ ---EL.S1"0" 3 1270 (3D --39 3L7V 2_11.0 323 2V4~00 a"8. 3KI4 EL546'ro" 2430 C) 30 --ELEIOW~ 1 1950 Cc) It" 0. 410 2.,3,ON0 600 2%EL5~9 M Li\182 18c.36 600. 227.1 NOTE:The Shear Area and Moment of Inertia designated as Ar-s and In.t is fht, Shear Area and Moment of Inertia for an earthquake in the North-South direclion whichi means it is the Moment of Inertia about the East-West axis.F-22 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section Title, SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES Page: IT.E.2-1 5 Revision, 3 Figure I1.E.2-8 MATHEMAT[CAL MODEL, BORATEE) WATER STOKAGE TANK M 4 1ý25SSK M 3_2:ý4 3 K 4 %,89.4 FT Kw:1954.51'K/FT IX a1WO7.45IT 4 S3.651"' kx = ..-0 M22 3224. 11 I162r01."O 4 A*5.87", 00 Ayv%3.11 Kx t.3-11954 06&Wt-Kya4.116 + 05 K/"""Isz6065179.24 k-p-T 2 F-23 09.0179-0 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual Section Title. SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMS Page: [.E.3-I Revision:

I Responsible Engineer:

Checker Theo Swirn Approver.

Vern Watson Date: 7/16/90 During the operational phase of the plant, many equipment modifications have been implemented, and it is anticipated that, in the future, equipment upgrading will continue.

This section is presented to describe the post-1979 seismic qualification procedures utilized for Seismic Class I equipment modifications.

This section is essentially current in applicability but is based on past experience.

Prior to performing any type of seismic qualilication,.tlie system must be identified as being either Seismic Category I or Non- (Seismic Category 1) system that could affect the functionality of a Seismic Category I system.in order to perform seismic qualification of systems, three options are available:

a. Spectra) response analysis b. Simplified seismic analysis c. Seismic testing Although the time-history method of analysis can be classified as a seismic qualification method, its use is generally restricted to studies where in- structure response is necessary.

Equipment and component installations are categorized as either flexible or rigid. Seismically rigid installations are those whose fundamental frequency is equal to or greater than 33 Hz. All other installations are flexible.For rigid installations, the system is subjected to the zero-period aceeleration (ZPA) for analysis and design. For installations which have a natural frequency below 33 Hz, one of the qualification options listed above may be used to ensure structural adequacy.It should be noted that structural steel framing and platforms shall not span seismic joints, thereby altering seismic independence of the structures.

However, systems such as conduits, cable trays, HVAC ducts, etc. supported between structures that are seismically independent, such as between Areas 6, 7, and 8 of the auxiliary building or between floors of the same building, shall also be analyzed for the differential movements of the support points. The response due to vibratory motion from seismic excitation shall be combined absolutely with the response due to the differential support movements and the dead load, live load, and contingency loads. Systems of this type include piping, conduit, HVAC lines, or other equipment which may span a seismic joint.F-24 flltf-l -nIrI Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual cill (Continuation)

Section liteo: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMS Page: II.1E3-2 Revision:

I The following criteria define the boundary between a system (and its supports) and the supporting structure.

Systems are decoupled from the structure at the system support and structure interface.

Piping, conduit, and cable tray systems are decoupled at the point of connection to apiece of equipment.

Generally, the system being investigated is considered decoupled from the supporting structure when its fundamental frequency is significantly lower than that of the supporting structure.

Specific criteria for decoupling are expressed in terms of frequency and mass ratio and are given in Reference

3.3.1 SPECTRAL

RESPONSE ANALYSIS A structural system is idealized into discrete elements and a mathematical model is formulated' whidh represents, in three-dimensions, both the stiffness and inertial characteristics of the system.A finite element computer program is used to analyze this representation.

Natural frequencies and associated mode shapes which describe the vibration characteristics of the system are obtained using a modal extraction routine.The spectral response technique subjects each mode of the system to acceleration levels as given by the design floor response spectra.Seismic analyses prior to 1974 combined modal responses using strictly an SRSS technique.

BTed on recommendations as cited in NRC Regulatory Guides, the importance of considering the effects of closely-spaced modes became evident.Since 1974, the practice is to perform an SRSS summation of modal responses to obtain total response for each direction of seismic excitation.

'However, if the modes are closely spaced (ie., less than 10 percent between nitural frequencies) the absolute sum of the resonses of-each group of closely spaced modes shall be obtained, and the results from all the closely spaced groups are then combined with the other modes using the SRSS method. Responses of similar components resulting from different directions of earthquake excitation shall also be combined by the SRSS method (As a basis for this modal response method, refer to N4RC Regulatory Guide 1.9 2,.Rev 0, Dec. 1974 Sections B and C.)Prior to 1974, seismic analyses combining spatial responses were determined by the larger of the X + Y and the Z + Y earthquake responses where X and Z are the perpendicular horizontal directions and Y is the vertical direction.

Since then, the preferred technique is to combine spatial responses for three directions of excitation using the SRSS technique as presented in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92.F-25 OB-OI0O-O Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Sec~fn TiVe: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMS Page: II.E.3-3 RevisJon:

I For systems having significant natural frequencies above 33 Hz, seismic analyses since 1983 have incorporated the effects of these higher modes as described in Reference 9, Section 3.1, in lieu of the methods of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92. This technique assumes that the modes above 33 Hz will respond in phase with each other to the peak ZPA. Therefore, the effects of these modes are combined algebraically.

This is equivalent to a pseudo-static response to the inertial forces from these higher modes excited at the ZPA.To determine the overall structural peak response, the total combined response to high frequency modes is combined with the total combined response from lower frequency modes using the SRSS Method.3.2 SIMPLIFIED SEIMC ANALYSIS If the system or equipment is structurally simple, i.e. the dynamic model may be represented by one mass and one spring, the natural fiequency of the system or equipment is determined using the techniques of Reference

6. The natural frequency, together with the appropriate damping value, is used to enter the appropriate acceleration response spectrum to obtain the equipment acceleration in units of gs, The corresponding inertia force is obtained by multiplying the weight times the acceleration.

Under certain conditions, the natural frequencies of the systems or equipment may not be calculated.

Under these conditions, using the appropriate damping value, the peak value of acceleration response curve, or the values obtained from duplicate or dynamically similar systems which have been analyzed are used to calculate the response.

This response is then multiplied by a static coefficient of 1.5 to account for the effects of both multiffequency excitation and multimode response in order to obtain the design inertial force. A lower coefficient may be used if it will yield conservative results and is technically justified (Reference

3. D. Stephenson paper, Circa 1971).3.3 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION BY TESTS Seismic qualification of most Seismic Category I original equipment purchased and installed during the construction phase has been qualified to requirements as described in IEEE-344-7i.

In most cases, as stated in the qualification reports, the input motion for qualification was single axis, single frequency, either of the form of sine beat or sine dwell.Since 1975, seismic qualification of equipment has been accomplished by testing when the equipment is so complex that it cannot be modeled to adequately predict its response or when structural integrity alone cannot ensure the design-intended function.Seismic qualification using test methods shall be based on the recommendations cited in IEEE-344-1975 (Reference 9).F-26 fldit .u .JcLEAe P 0.Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section Tit: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMS Page; II.E.3-4 Revision:

1 Two major categories of test methods are used for-seismic qualification:

proof testing and frmgility testing. A proof test requires equipment to be subjected to the particular response spectrum or time-history defined for the mounting location of the equipment.

Fragility testing is used to qualify equipment by determining its ultimate capability.

Test methods simulating seismic environment'also fall into two general categories:

single frequency and multiple frequency.

In general, the proof test seismic simulation waveforms shall: a. Produce a test response spectrum (TRS) which closely envelops the required response spectrumi (RRS)b. Have an input shake table acceleration magnitude equal to or greater than the ZPA C. Include frequencies up to but not above the ZPA asymptote d. Have a duration where each test should at feast equal the strong motion portion of the design time-history.

Proof testing can utilize waveforms such as continuous sine, sine beat, decaying sine, multiple frequency, or time-history, provided the frequency and amplitude are chosen to properly qualify the test item.Thf more common state-of-the-art testing subjects the test specimen to a random excitation where the amplitude is controlled in one-third octave or narrower bandwidths.

The excitation is controlled to provide a TRS which meets or exceeds the RRS. The random excitation should have a minimum duration of 30 seconds. Five OBE (smaller earthquake) level tests followed by an SSE (arger.arthquake) should define the qualification sequence having a minimum of two biaxial tests.Equipment originally purchased for Davis-Besse Power Station Unit I was seismically qualified to specifications based on methods described in IEEE-344, 1971 edition, New equipment and current modifications are qualified by test methods described in IEEFE-344-75 (Reference 9). Replacement parts for original equipment shall, as a minimum, maintain their original level of seismic qualification, Replacement part qualification may be based on one of the following:

a. IIEEE-344-71

b. IEEE-344-75 F-27 D13-318 Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section Tnti: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMS Page: I1.E.3-5 Revision:

I Detailed .test requirements are defined in the seismic qualification attachment to the purchase specification listed in Table lf.E.3-1, along with the acceptance ci~teria, depending on the type of equipment being qualified.

F-28 M4 ns~ Anrt U'C Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual (Continuation)

Section Title: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SYS'rEMS Revision:

I , Page: I1,E.3-6 Table H.1E.3-1 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION SPECIFICATION ArIACfWHM:._NiS Attachment EA-I J-3 J-5 J-6 (M-900)C-41 C-41-A..Title Seismic Qua*i fication Requirements for Class I E Electric d Equipment, Devices, and Supports Seismic Qualification Requirements forClass 1 E Control Panel A\ssemblies and Class I E Control and Instrumentation Devices Seismic Qualification Requirements for Power-Actuated

/alves Seismic Qualification Requirements for Class IE Field M-Dinted Instruments Seismic. Qualification Requirements fbr Nuclear Class Tn:trumeýnq Valves Qualification of Seismic CaLegory I Mechanical Equipme it Earthquake Resistance Design oIClass 1 ENuipment Earthquake Resistance Design of Class I Equipment F-29 U %>CB-O Davis-Besse Design Criteria Manual Section REFERENCES Page: ILE.4-1 Revision:

2 Rosponsible Engineer Checker: Theo Swim ApprovOr: t atson ate: 7116/90!- Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station No. 1, Civil Engineering Calculation:

Seismic Analysis, Report, Volume SI, No. 2, May 1973.2. Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes, TID-7024, Lockheed Aircraft Corp. and Holmes and Navrer, Inc., prepared for USAEC, August 1963.3. Seismic Analyses of Structures and Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants, Topical Report BC-TOP-4-A Rev. 3, Bechtel Power Corp., Nov. 1974.4. Letter No. BT-16827, dated 6/13186, from V. R. Marathe (Bechtel) to B. J. Carrick (TE).5. Letter No. BT-12724, dated 2/19/82, from J. W. Fay (Bechtel) to C. R. Domeck (TE).6. Biggs, John M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1964.7. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Califofdia, 1967.8. Retommended Revisions to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seismic Design Criteria, NUREG'CR-1161RD, prepared by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, May 1980.9. IEEE Recommended Practices fir Seismic Qualification of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations (IEEE-344-75), by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1975.10. "Re-evaluation Criteria for Concrete Masonry Walls," I.E. Bulletin No. 80-1 1, Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, Document No. C-I, Rev. I, May 1981.! 1, "Cable Tray and Conduit Raceway Seismic Test Prograrm, Anco Engineers, Inc., Report No. 1053-21.14, 15, December 1978.F-30 APPENDIX G DAVIS-BESSE A-46/IPEEE VULNERABILITIES G-1 Table G-1: List of Equipment Enhanced Due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE programs Equipment Bldg. El. Outlier Description Outlier Resolution Reference Mod Package or Record Date ID Other Comments from FileNet C21-1 AUXB 585 Base vibration isolators do not provide Modify existing anchorage MOD 95-0031 12/13/1996 adequate restraint of overturning moment C21-2 AUXB 585 Base vibration isolators do not provide Modify existing anchorage MOD 95-0031 12/13/1996 adequate restraint of overturning moment C5703 AUXB 623 I-of 4 mounting bolts missing on two local The missing bolts were replaced.

MWO 1-94-0006 1/2/1994 instruments. , (Work Request 94-1248)D2 AUXB 585 The internal portion of switchgear was not Relocate the relay and remove D2 MOD 95-0023 9/3/1996 available for inspection, from the, SSEL MOD 95-0030 voided. (MOD) 10-10-Procedures DB-ME-09102 M99 0 El AUXB 603 Lifting hoist is free to slide which is not Restrain the lifting hoist (5.2) $ DB-ME-09103 (5.1) DB-ME-09102 included in the GERS rvsdtreuehot/oly4/19/01 revised to require hoist/trolly DB-ME-09103 to be secured 4/2098 4/20/98 MOD 95-0030 voided. (MOD) 10-10-1997 Procedures DB-ME-09102 1997 F1 AUXB 603 includedoist is freeto slide which is not Restrain the lifting hoist (5.2) $ DB-ME-09103 (5.1) DB-ME-091021 revised to require hoist/trolly DB-ME-09103 to be secured 4/2098 4/20/98 P- NK56The vertical pump shaft is 29 feet long which Analysis performed indicated that the Acceptable as-is N/A P3- ITK 76is greater than the GIP value of 20 ft. deflections and stresses were low The vertical pump shaft is 29 feet long which Analysis performed indicated that the is greater than the GIP value of 20 ft. deflections and stresses were low Acceptable as-is S31-1 AUXB 638 Spring isolators are not adequate for side Modify existing support MOD 95-0046 11/9/1995 loading S31-2 AUXB 638 Spring isolators are not adequate for side Modify existing support MOD 95-0046 11/9/1995 , loading MdyxtgsptO9-41/9 G-2 Table G-1: List of Equipment Enhanced Due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE programs Equipment Bldg. El. Outlier Description Outlier Resolution Reference Mod Package or Record Date ID Other Comments from FileNet C5702 AUXB 623 An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A the cabinet An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike 05703 AUXB 623 the cabinet Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A C5703 AUXB 623 An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A___________________the cabinet_______________________________

________C5704 AUXB 623 An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A the cabinet C5705 AUXB 623 An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A An the cabinet C5706 AUXB 623 An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A the cabinet bokaecudfaladsrk C5707 AUXB 623 Anuacoe okaecudfl n tie Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A the cabinet An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike 05709 AUXB 623 the cabinet Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike C5709 AUXB 623 the cabinet Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A C5710 AUXB 623 An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A the cabinet 05712 AUXB 623 An unanchored bookcase could fall and strike Bookcase has been relocated Bookcase has been relocated N/A the cabinet Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the C5755C AUXB 623 presence of essential relays in the cabinet MOD 95-0032 4/1/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking (PCAQ) 1-17-PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 C5755C AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected

01) (MW04 1 -01) (MWO) 3-21 -1996 Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the C5755D AUXB 623 presence of essential relays in the cabinet Pdearestraint to prevent MOD 95-0032 4/1/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking G-3 Table G-1: List of Equipment Enhanced Due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE programs Equipment Bldg. El. Outlier Description Outlier Resolution Reference Mod Package or Record Date ID Other Comments from FileNet (PCAQ) 1-17-PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 C5755D AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected

01) (M4O) 3-21 01) (MWO) 3-21 -1996 Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the C5756C AUXB 623 presence of essential relays in the cabinet MOD 95-0032 4/1/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking (PCAQ) 1-17-PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 C5756C AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected

01) (M40) 1 -01) (MWO) 3-21 -1996 Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the C5756D AUXB 623 presence of essential relays in the cabinet Pdearestraint to prevent MOD 95-0032 4/1/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking (PCAQ) 1-17-PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 C5756D AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected

01) (MW04 3-21 01) (MWO) 3-21 -1996 (PCAQ) 1-17-PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 C5761A AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected

01) (MW0) 1 -01) (MWO) 3-21 -1996 Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the C5762A AUXB 623 presence of essential relays in the cabinet MOD 95-0032 4/1/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet couldexist adjacent cabinets from striking (PCAQ) 1-17-PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 C5762A AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected

01) (MW0) 1 -01) (MWO) 3-21 -1996 Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the C5762C AUXB 623 presence of essential relays in the cabinet MOD 95-0032 4/1/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking G-4 Table G-1: List of Equipment Enhanced Due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE programs Equipment Bldg. El. Outlier Description Outlier Resolution Reference Mod Package or Record Date ID Other Comments from FileNet (PCAQ) 1-17-C5762C AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 01) (MWO) 3-21-1996 Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the C5762D AUXB 623 presence of essential relays in the cabinet Pdearestraint to prevent MOD 95-0032 4/1/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking (PCAQ) 1-17-PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 C5762D AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected3 1996 Due to either a small or no gap, and the C5763C AUXB 623 presence of essential relays in the cabinet Provide a restraint to prevent the MOD 95-0032 4/1/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking (PCAQ) 1-17-C5763C AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 01) (MWO) 3-21-1996 C57630 AUXB 623 Small cart adjacent to the cabinet could strike The cart has been relocated The cart has been relocated N/A C5763C____

A 6 the cabinet Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the C5763D AUXB 623 presence of essential relays in the cabinet Pdearestraint to prevent MOD 95-0032 4/1/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking (PCAQ) 1-17-C5763D AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected PCAQ-94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 01) (MWO) 3-21-1996 C5763D AUXB 623 Small cart adjacent to the cabinet could strike The cart has been relocated The cart has been relocated N/A C5763D__ AUXB_ 63the cabinet G-5 Table G-1: List of Equipment Enhanced Due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE programs Equipment Bldg. El. Outlier Description Outlier Resolution Reference Mod Package or Record Date ID Other Comments from FileNet (PCAQ) 1-17-PCAQ 94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 C5762 AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected

01) (MWO) 3-21-01) (MWO) 3-21 -1996 (PCAQ) 1-17-PCAQ 94-0042 (7-94-0042-1994 C5792A AUXB 623 Suspended ceiling deficiencies noted To be corrected

01) (MW04 3-21 01) (MWO) 3-21 -1996 Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the CDEl 1 D AUXB 565 presence of essential relays in the cabinet MOD 95-0041 1/18/1999 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the CDF1 1 A-2 AUXB 603 presence of essential relays in the cabinet MOD 95-0040 8/11/1999 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the DIN AUXB 603 presence of essential relays in the cabinet MOD 95-0043 voided 9/24/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the MOD 95-0038 voided, as D2P AUXB 603 presence of essential relays in the cabinet cabinet replaced with 9/24/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking seismically qualified cabinet.E11B AUXB 585 Several breakers in the MCC have padlocks Padlocks to be replaced with smaller Velcro used to restrain N/A that are free to strike the MCC ones and attached to the MCC E11C AUXB 585 A large portable frame is located behind the The frame has been relocated The frame has been relocated N/A MCC that could strike the MCC An abandon cable tray support is in close E11D AUXB 565 proximity to the MCC, which could strike the Cable tray support removed Cable tray support removed N/A MCC E12B AUXB 585 MCC is in contact with the support for a pipe Modify existing pipe restraint MOD 95-0044 1/28/1999 restraint F11A AUXB 603 Several breakers in the MCC have padlocks Padlocks to be replaced with smaller Velcro used to restrain N/A I that are free to strike the MCC ones and attached to the MCC G-6 Table G-1: List of Equipment Enhanced Due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE programs Equipment Bldg. El. Outlier Description Outlier Resolution Reference Mod Package or Record Date ID Other Comments from FileNet Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the F11A AUXB 603 presence of essential relays in the cabinet MOD 95-0040 8/11/1999 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking An adjacent electrical junction box is in close F11A AUXB 603 proximity to the MCC which could impact the Relocate/modify junction box MOD 95-0040 8/11/1999 MCC MCC is located next to a fire extinguisher that Provide a barrier to prevent impact FPR 95-0671-901 12/4/1995 Fl 10 AUXB 565 could strike the MCC HV5261 AUXB 638 Inadequate clearance between the operator Provide lateral support MOD 94-0034 8/28/1995__526_AUX 638and the HVAC support HV5262 AUXB 638 Inadequate clearance between the operator Provide lateral support MOD 94-0034 8/28/1995 HV526_AUX 638and the HVAC support LT-1402 AUXB 623 Instrument line from T12-1 to LT-1402 is in Provide lateral support for the MOD 95-0037 10/17/1997 contact with platform platform LT-1403 AUXB 623 Instrument line from T12-11 to LT-1403 is in Provide lateral support for the MOD 95-0037 10/17/1997 contact with platform platform PSL 4928A AUXB 565 Chain from overhead hoist could strike PSL Chain was secured Chain was secured N/A 4928A PSL 4928B AUXB 565 Chain from overhead hoist could strike PSL Chain was secured Chain was secured N/A 4928B RC 2826 AUXB 565 Unsecured hydrazine barrel is adjacent to the Hydrazine barrel was removed and Hydrazene barrel was N/A cabinet secured removed and secured RC 3004 INTK 565 Rod-hung conduit support could swing and Rework conduit support MOD 95-0042 2/18/1999 R304 IT 5 strike cabinet RC 3701 AUXB 585 Back of cabinet is in contact with pipe support Rework cabinet/support MOD 95-0036 4/4/1997 Instrument is in the arc of an unanchored TS 5262 AUXB 638 mCC Provide anchorage for the MCC MOD 95-0035 6/30/1997 YE1 AUXB 585 MCC is in contact with the support for a pipe Modify the existing pipe restraint MOD 95-0044 1/28/1999 restraintI G-7 Table G-1: List of Equipment Enhanced Due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE programs Equipment ldg. El. Reference Mod Package or Record Date ID B Outlier Description Outlier Resolution Other Comments from FileNet Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the MOD 95-0038 voided, as YV2 AUXB 603 presence of essential relays in the cabinet cabinet replaced with 9/24/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking seismically qualified cabinet.Due to either a small or no gap, and the Provide a restraint to prevent the MOD 95-0043 voided, as YV3 AUXB 603 presence of essential relays in the cabinet cabinet replaced with 9/24/1997 striking with an adjacent cabinet could exist adjacent cabinets from striking seismically qualified cabinet.Existing gap between cabinet and the Increase the gap to prevent the YV4 AUXB 603 Containment is not sufficient to preclude cabinet from striking 7/30/1997 striking E22-1 AUXB 585 Applied loads exceed the anchor bolt Re-evaluate the system loads and PCAQ 98-1945 (PCAQ)19981 al lowables provide additional support if required MOD 98-0058 1999 (MOD) 8-5-1999 E22-2 AUXB 585 Applied loads exceed the anchor bolt Re-evaluate the system loads and MOD 98-0058 8/5/1999 al lowables provide additional support if required E22-3 AUXB 585 Applied loads exceed the anchor bolt Re-evaluate the system loads and MOD 98-0058 8/5/1999 al lowables provide additional support if required E27-1 AUXB 545 Applied loads exceed the anchor bolt Re-evaluate the system loads and PCAQ 97-1174 (PCAQ) 9-4-1997 allowables provide additional support if required MOD 97-0068 MOD 7/13/98 E27-2 AUXB 545 Applied loads exceed the anchor bolt Re-evaluate the system loads and PCAQ 97-1174 (PCAQ) 9-4-1997 al lowables provide additional support if required MOD 97-0068 MOD 7/13/98 Embedment length of the J-Bolt is less than Analysis performed indicated that the T12-1 AUXB 623 existing anchorage detail is Acceptable as is N/A the GIP minimum value adequate.Embedment length of the J-Bolt is less than Analysis performed indicated that the T12-2 AUXB 623 existing anchorage detail is Acceptable as is N/A the GIP minimum value adequate.ApIe loasdxcedthaachreol T18 AUXB 565 Applied loads exceed the anchor bolt Re-evaluate the loads on the anchors Deleted per RFA 95-0248 8/29/1995__________________al lowables__________________________________

G-8 Table G-1: List of Equipment Enhanced Due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE programs Equipment Reference Mod Package or Record Date ID Refer Comments Jfrom FileNet ID Bldg. El. Outlier Description Outlier Resolution Other Modmacaent o rReord Datee Embedment length of the J-Bolt is less than Analysis performed indicated that the T7-1 AUXB 565 the GIP minimum value existing anchorage detail is Acceptable as is N/A thIPmniuvleadequate.

5Embedment length of the J-Bolt is less than Analysis performed indicated that the T7-2 AUXB 565 EmbedImenu lengthue Btexisting anchorage detail is Acceptable as is N/A the GIP minimum value adequate.T1 2-1 AUXB 623 Instrument linre from T12-1 to LT-1402 is in Provide lateral support for the MOD 95-0037 10/17/1997 contact with platform platform T12-11 AUXB 623 Instrument line from T12-11 to LT-1403 is in Provide lateral support for the MOD 95-0037 10/17/1997

_ contact with platform platform I G-9 Table G-2. List of Relays Replaced Due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE Programs Safe Shutdown Relay Name From Contacts Area-Room-MOD Equip Dwg. Location Elevation Package YV2 KI YV2 6-428-603 95-0019-00 P37-2, AD105, 50GS DI BUS 6-323-585 95-0021-00 HISMU24B AC1O0 51-1 C1 BUS 6-325-585 95-0024-00 AD101 51-2 DI BUS 6-323-585 95-0024-00 AD101 51-3 DI BUS 6-323-585 95-0024-00 AC101 51-4 CI BUS 6-325-585 95-0024-00 AD101 51-5 DI BUS 6-323-585 95-0024-01 AACD1 52X/AACD1 DI BUS 6-323-585 95-0022-00 ABDC1 52X/ABDC1 C1 BUS 6-325-585 95-0022-00 ACI10 52X/AC110 C1 BUS 6-325-585 95-0022-00 AD110 52X/TDC DI BUS 6-323-585 95-0022-00 AACD1 62/TDO DI BUS 6-323-585 95-0023-00 AD1O0 87/DG C3616 6-319-585 95-0020-00 C3618 BUR-1,BUR-2 C3618 6-319-585 95-0028-00 AC101 CR3-X C3617 6-318-585 95-0028-00 AC101 FSS-X C3617 6-318-585 95-0028-00 RC-2A, HISRC2-6 PSH/RC2-5 C5759D 7-502-623 95-0019-00 C3617 R3X1 C3617 6-318-585 95-0028-00 C3617 R3X2 C3617 6-318-585 95-0028-00 C5762C, C5755C, S1 (PWR C5755C&D, 7-502-623 95-0032-00 C5763C, C5756D, SUPPLIES)

C5756C&D, PSH7528A, C5762C&D, PSH7531A, PT2002, C5763C&D PT2003, HIS7528, HIS7524, HIS7530, HIS7531 AC1O0 V/F C3617 6-318-585 95-0028-00 G-10 Table G-3: List of Cable Trays and Conduit Enhanced due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE Programs Outlier Outlier Resolution Reference Mod Package or No. Other Comments Edge distance on conduit clamp to the PCAQ 94-0011 101-1 edge of the unistrut channel is very Provide end restraints PCA 94-0011 small at six consecutive supports 105-1 Threaded rod to the overhead shell PCAQ 95-0567-02 anchor is missing Install the missing threaded rod FPR 95-0567-701 209-1 2" conduit support beam clamp is not Re-install support PCAQ 95-0567-02 properly installed 218-1 Conduit 39242C is missing several Install the conduit missing clamps Work PCAQ 95-0567-03 conduit clamps to be done during an outage 218-2 Cable tray BCBD and BLBE are Install missing tray clamps. Work to be PCAQ 95-0567-03 missing clamps to the tray done during an outage 236-1 3/4" conduit has a span greater than GIP Clamp the conduit to an adjacent PCAQ 95-0567 -02 allowable existing support.1-1/2" conduit does not have an industry PCAQ 95-0567-04 240-1 acceptable support creating a cantilever Install a new support FPR 95-0657-704 overspan condition Inadequate flexibility for the differential builingmovmen.

Codui ha 6" Remove clamp for this conduit at the 303-1 building movement.

Conduit has 6" span between the floor penetration and o support to provide sufficient conduit PCAQ 95-0567-02 support flexibility 304-1 Conduit support has horizontal member Install unistrut brackets for connection PCAQ 95-0567-02 disconnected from the vertical member to the vertical member 410-1 Conduit clamp is not properly engaged Rework the conduit clamp PCAQ 94-0011 in the unistrut MWO 7-94-0011-07 410-2 Edge distance of cable tray clamp to the Provide end restraints PCAQ 94-0011 edge of the unistrut channel is small MWO 7-94-0011-07 G-11 Table G-3: List of Cable Trays and Conduit Enhanced due to Vulnerabilities Identified During the A-46/IPEEE Programs Outlier Reference Mod Package or No. Outlier Description Outlier Resolution Other Comments 422A-3 Base plate on the cantilever bracket Replace the cantilever plate!bracket MOD 95-0045 exceeds the allowables Support is not attached to beam which PCAQ 95-0567-04 500-1 results in conduit exceeding the GIP Attach support to building structure FPR 95-567-702 span cnteria 502-1 3/4" conduit has a span of 12' which is Provide support PCAQ 95-0567-04 greater than the GIP allowable of 10'. FPR 95-567-703 601-1 Local yielding at the beam attachment This support will be stiffened MOD 95-0045 G-12

ML13008A048

Text

2.4 PAMFQM

3.3.1 SPECTRAL

Navigation menu

Search