ML20097A361

Forwards Response to NRC 951212 RAI Re Util 950627 Response to GL 88-20,Suppl 4, IPE of External Events (Ipeee). Rev 0 to ER-EA-001, Ipeee,Seismic,Cpses & Plant Walkdown Screening & Evaluation Sheets Also Encl

ML20097A361
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/01/1996
From:	Terry C, Walker R TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20097A365	List: ML20097A361 ML20097A382
References
GL-88-20, TAC-M83608, TXX-96022, NUDOCS 9602060001
Download: ML20097A361 (70)

Text

_

t

3 M

Log # TXX 96022 F%

File # 10010 4

10035

._=

r GL 88 20 1UELECTRIC

c. Lance Terry February 1, 1996 Gnmp Mce Pressdent U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk inshington, DC 20555 JECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)

DOCKET NOS. 50 445 AND 50 446 RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CPSES INDIVIDUAL PLANT EXAMINATION OF EXTERNAL EVENTS (TAC NO. H83608)

REF:

1) TV Electric leder logged TXX 95171 from C. Lance Terry to USNRC dated June 27, 1995 l

2) NRC Letter from Timothy J. Polich to C. Lance Terry, dated December 12, 1995 Gentlemen:

On June 28, 1991, the NRC issued Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4

" Individual Plant Examination of External Events." TU Electric submitted t

a response to the Generic Letter via Reference 1.

The NRC subsequently issued a Request for Additional Information (Reference 2) regarding TV Electric's response (Reference 1).

In accordance with Reference 2.

TU Electric's response to the NRC Request for Additional Information is attached for your review. The documents included in Enclosures 1 and 2 are also provided for your information and future updates / revisions to those documents would be available at CPSES.

050061

[g

'k g 9602060001 960201 PDR ADOCK 05000445 g

P PDR t

Energy Plaza 1601 Bryan Street Dallas, Texas 75201-3411

TXX 96022 Page 2 of 2 i

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed IPEEE submittal, please contact Mr. Hossein G. Hamzehee at (817) 897 8674 or (214) 812 6826 or l

Mr. Carl B. Corbin at (214) 812-8859.

l Sincerely.

O. h. M C. L. Terry By:

87981 RogefD. Walker Regulatory Affairs Manager CBC/grp Attachment Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Individual Plant Examination of External Events Enclosures

1. Individual Plant Examination of External Events. Seismic, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, ER-EA 001, Revision 0, August 1994 (651 total pages)

2. Plant Walkdown Screening and Evaluation Sheets (64 total pages) c-Mr. L. J. Callan, Region IV (w/o Enclosures)

Mr. T. J. Polich, NRR (3 copies)

Mr. W. D. Johnson, Region IV (w/o Enclosures)

Resident Inspector, CPSES (w/o Enclosures) i i

1

Attachment to TXX 96022 Page 1 of 4 Resoonse to NRC Reauest for Additional Information Reaardina Individual Plant Examination of External Events NRC RAI # I.1 (Seismic) :

Provide a table indicating the following: (1) a list of all individual Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL) components for both Units 1 and 2 that were considered in the seismic IPEEE: (2) a brief summary of the screening basis and/or walkdown findings for each individual component; and (3) a description of any noted anomalies and their resolutions.

TU Electric Resoonse to RAI # I.1(1) : " Individual Plant Examination of External Events, Seismic, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ER EA 001, Revision 0, August 1994."

provides a copy of the CPSES IPEEE Seismic report. Appendix A. " Individual Plant Examination of External Events, Seismic, Safe Shutdown Equipment List Report, May 1994," of that report (pages 000088 thr igh 000334 of Enclosure 1) is the Seismic SSEL report which includes in Table, 1 (pages 000190 through 000212 of Enclosure 1), the complete listing of components in the SSEL for Unit 1.

At CPSES, the units are similar in layout and therefore, with minor exceptions, both SSEL listings are represented in this single listing, The minor exceptions were a few components where the tag numbers differ, but the functional description is the same. These differences were identified prior to the walkdown.

In general, for Unit 2, the component tag is designated 2-TAG # versus the 1 TAG # shown on the list.

TU Electric Resoonse to RAI # I.1(2) :

The walkdown was performed consistent with the EPRI-NP 6041, "A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Hargin (Revision 1)," using the reduced scope seismic margin methodology as discussed in NUREG 1407,

" Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities." The screening basis that was used for this evaluation is found in Appendix A. " Basis for Seismic Capacity Screening Guidelines for Structures, Equipment and Subsystems," of EPRI NP 6041. The screening guidelines themselves are found in Tables 2 3 and 2 4 of NP 6041. As noted in Enclosure 1, the walkdown list is a subset of the SSEL consistent with the EPRI NP 6041 reduced scope seismic margin methodology and as discussed in NUREG 1407.

As noted above, Enclosure 1 provides a copy of the CPSES IPEEE Seismic report.

Appendix B of that report (pages 000335 through 000651 of Enclosure 1) is the Seismic IPEEE walkdown report which includes the area walkdown packages for Units 1 and 2 as Attachment 2 (pages 000356 through 000651 of Enclosure 1).

The area walkdown packages provide the plant walkdown and screening

Attachment to TXX 96022 Page 2 of 4 evaluations sheets for each component on the walkdown list. These checklists were developed using the recommendations of EPRI NP 6041, Appendix F. " Check Lists and Walkdown Data Sheets," The walkdown for the reduced scope seismic margin placed emphasis on anchorage and systems interaction, however, in addition, the walkdown and document review also included review of many of the

[

equipment specific attributes discussed in Appendix F to EPRI NP-6041. The walkdown findings for each component are provided on the plant walkdown and screening evaluation sheets.

TV Electric Resoonse to RAI # I.1(3) :

The walkdown observations and resolutions are provided in Table 5 1, "Walkdown Observations and Resolutions," of Appendix B of Enclosure 1 (pages 000348 l

through 000350). These observations are also noted on the walkdown and screening evaluation theets.

NRC RAI # I.2 (Seismic) :

Identify components that were not accessible for walkdown, and hence, were evaluated on the basis of available documentation only.

TU Electric Response to RAI #I.2 :

The components that were not accessible for walkdown are noted on the walkdown and screening evaluation sheets. The sheets for these components are provided as Enclosure 2.

r NRC RAI # I.3 (Seismic) :

Describe how the containment systems equipment list was developed.

TU Electric Resoonse to RAI # I.3 :

Attachment B to Appendix A of Enclosure 1 (pages 000318 through 000334) entitled, " Containment Review for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Seismic IPEEE." describes how the containment systems equipment list was developed.

Attachment to TXX 96022 Page 3 of 4 NRC RAI # III.1 (Hiah Winds. Floods and Other Events (HFOs) :

i Provide a discussion pertaining to GI 103, " Design for Probable Maximum Precipitation," for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station: explain the basis for resolving the issue.

TU Electric Resoonse to RAI # III.1 :

For the purpose of resolving GI 103, " Design for Probable Maximum Precipitation," an evaluation of the CPSES design against the considerations of GI 103 was performed. The two considerations, namely flooding and building roof loads due to probable maximum precipitation, are addressed in the CPSES i

FSAR and have been reviewed by the NRC in the CPSES SERs. A summary of the l

evaluation is provided below. The results show that the issues presented in l

GI 103 have been adequately addressed in the existing design of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

The design for maximum probable precipitation is addressed in CPSES design basis document DBD-CS 071, " Probable Maximum Flood." Although the CPSES probable maximum flood (PMF) analysis was done prior to the issuance of Regulatory Guide 1.59, " Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants," a detailed comparison shows that it complies with revision 2 of this regulatory guide with a few minor exceptions as discussed below.

Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.59 refers to ANSI Standard N170 1976. The CPSES PMF analysis differs slightly from the recommended methods in ANSI N170-1976 in three areas.

The probable maximum precipitation (PMP) used in the CPSES analysis is based on Hydrometeorological Report (HMR) No. 33.

ANSI N170 1976 refers to HMR 33 and also to a draft version of the later HMR 51. The use of HMR 33 PMP data instead of HMR 51 has only a small effect on the calculated high water levels.

The CPSES PMF analysis used a rainfall time distribution that is slightly different from the time sequence recommended by ANSI N170 1976. This results in no significant difference in the calculated maximum water height for either the reservoir or Safe Shutdown Impoundment.

ANSI N170 1976 recommends using an antecedent rainfall preceding or following the PMF. The CPSES analysis assumed the reservoir is full to the top of the conservation storage. The assumption of antecedent rainfall results in slightly higher calculated maximum water levels.

I

Attachment to TXX 96022 Page 4 of 4 The combined effect of these three computational differences results in calculated maximum water elevations that are within the design limits.

Specifically, the resulting freeboard values are in excess of the required freeboard heights for protection against wave action at the peak of the flood.

With regard to roof loading, the evaluation also shows the design to be adequate. As stated in DBD CS 071, " Probable Maximum Flood," each building at CPSES is equipped with a roof drainage system that is designed to effectively collect, pass and discharge the water volume resulting from a six inch rainfall in one hour with a maximum intensity of two inches in five minutes.

The scuppers are in the parapet walls and the scupper invert elevation will not be more than three inches above the roof at the outside wall or more than five inches above the low point of the roof. The roof drains and drain pipes are designed in accordance with " Roof Drain Design for Nuclear Project Safety Related Buildings " by Southern Services. Inc., dated December 8, 1972. The roofs of all CPSES nuclear safety related buildings are designed to support an eight inch maximum uniform depth of water in addition to the regular live loads considered (see Figures 2.4 2 and 2.4 3 of the CPSES FSAR). The parapet walls have relief openings to ensure that the eight inch level will not be exceeded.

The results of this evaluation show that by consideration of the subsequently-released information on hydrometeorological data, there is no significant impact on the design limits of the structures at CPSES.

PMPs per the subsequent documents, namely HMRs 51, 52, and 53, are all based on the data contained in HMR 51. The CPSES evaluation considered the "all season envelope" provided within HMR 51. The resulting PHPs from HHRs 51, 52, and 53 are as stated previously in Appendix 1A(N) of the CPSES FSAR. The use of HMR-33 PHP data instead of HMRs 51, 52, and 53 has only a small effect on the calculated high water levels.

There is sufficient freeboard at Squaw Creek Dam to consider the slightly higher PMF. Further, the PMP and resulting one hour rainfall results in less than the 8 inches maximum uniform depth of water on building roofs considered in the original design. Therefore, no additional drainage evaluation is required.

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that GI 103 be considered resolved for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

_ _ to TXX 96022 (64 total pages)

Sheet,l, of,1 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET I

j Plant Name:

dMES Unit:

/

A. DESCRIPTION I

Walkdown Area identification j

Building:

6S Floor Elevation: 790 Room No.:

/ - 044" B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room i

i (TEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EOUlPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEOUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE 2

ADEOUACY CONCERNS t

ESTABLISHED EXIST IN FIELD 7 l

l (SEE PAGE-17 Germrsume 7 ARM I'

Y N U N/A gNUN/A m

0

/- 88 //A y

2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A j

3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A l

4 4

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A r

5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A j

9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A l

Is all above listed equipment in room no.

6.f seismically qualified?

$ N U N/A i

C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence

@ N U N/A 1

by adjacent elements?

i 2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that

@ N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

h N U N/A j

ls all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

6 N U N/A Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPucABLE 000001 sheet _ of _

- _ =

Sheet sf [

4 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET 4

A.

Walkdown Area identification Building:

66 Floor Elevation:

7 90 Room No:

/ - OM j

B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

/

SEGGP C<)C cr71 - O//s (b. sat /f/C6 E v' h l/'t Y C I:

1 e y 4)Endb f

j C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN@

Is further investigation required?

Y @ N/A Comments:

YolV4 l - T T// A i'

for~N fit t i O

+sn L Diahe isola + ion

+an 4 ),

wd/odws, ImHW 4

f}W6 ny;w, D.

Evaluated By:

000002 j

Name:

//TA

/

Date:

]

Name:

7f7

~I -v Date:

P-2.0-9?

Name:

M/

Date:

7/10/1.7

Sheet _/, of /_

PLANT WALXDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: ( 8585~

Unit:

I A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification f

g Building: gg Floor Elevation: 70 Q 6

Room No.: / f t /g y

B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT CEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS i

IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE- )?

l l'EN 0 N rb' T

@ N U N/A

@ N U N/A 1.

I - BI 6 0 r

nc rssi ww-2.

M(

h#f[

/"O/

h N U N/A

@ N U N/A AL IN7 cH# VLV l ~~0 0 W

[

cas uw I -98/9 A Z

@ N U N/A h N U N/A 3.

M/ /-g/ ]*g7 4

((

/-d/[M/

h N U N/A h N U N/A yone Isr-ge/TA I

s.

(C f l-0///-02 tG

& N u NIA

@ N U N/A a i-ci en uw

/SZ-BMA Z

SO EUMP l[$. g % g A f

@ N U N/A

@N U NIA 6.

C HR. VALV6 7.

Y N U NIA Y N U N/A

\\

8.

Y N U N/A Y N U NIA 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. /f VA seismically qualified?

@ N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence

@ N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that

6) N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

hNU N/A ls all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

hN

' N/A

<. ves u. no u. unsarisracrew na.sorareucasa 000003 Sheet of _

l

ET s, war.8. cPA PLANT WAU<DOWN SCREmlNG AND EVALU ION S A.

Walkdown Area identification

/

</

Building: gg Floor Elevation: 909 -0 Room No: /ffA f

B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

wef odyny SEQf EfM-07y; ngg gp m, I.

ano/yry S fctSP-wScm.,gk; g, ant?ef 6 2

y (3"f CAec/c vatu 3.

SEQ SP-wEcM-//6: Q ua& AW 6y apa$r/S (t"r Check

% fu r),

Qnalny SEQ SP - M 5 20A. / -3).1 ; Gua/9 &ec/

b y

y (I"W CAoch t/o/pe,

0"als&S E SEQS,P -#1S 204./-30: Qvad'Arcl by y

(I"f Check Valre),

G.

Ssq S P m s 2.0A. I-3 g ', Qd St&-

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

Nor;e Are all potential problems satisf actority addressed?

Y N@

Is further investigation required?

Y @ N/A Comments: Aceers to orta was haire d d e

+o recex+

S r C h + 0 M //!o N O M.

R Vf T V * /

oho Pc VifW G

Va fVef Wef D4Vr&Mf$

o'V'M kHW b;D in e Oh D.

Evaluated By:

W h9/f]

Name:

77~)FM

fore, llpc$f Date:

/

b * $.

MKW Yj&%

Date:

l0 N N Name;

,Y/

Date:

/0/A//93 Name:

000004

She:t,],, of f PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: ([I[f Unit:

I A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: g8 Floor Elevation: [C8 Room No.: /N8 B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEOUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTABLISHED EXIST IN FIELDF (SEE PAGE-17 1.

uI RC PMP M/

g n u nix 9 n u nix wtHer (so V4 V l~ 0llA 5

2.

lE NlI SN? l~0l NS i-oi p u.u,yo ny I-9 70/ A I

@ N U N/A

& N U N/A 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A

\\

10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A

\\

is all above listed equipment in room no. /ff8 seismically qualified?

@ N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence

@ N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that 6 N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concems?

@ N U N>A is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

hN u N A f = YEs N No u = UNSATISFACTORY N A = Not APPLICABLE 000005 Sn..

.e_

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Sdesr-2. cF b i

A.

Walkdown Area idenutication

)

1 Building: yg Floor Elevation: $ G?g Room No: /ffp B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

l. S EQSP - WEcM - Of6:

Gus A Aed by In com keapon of fer+

and 0"

Pf

( 2 " #

M o v).

2. SEasP

.WECM-l0.r: Gua&Aer/

6y 9

OMW Qhof fjf COM hihdf/061 Of

-t f f f y

( l 2 " f MO Vh, l

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

WGet i

l i

)

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

,Y N h is further investigation required?

Y h N/A WV 4

[wW not y o;M accors h:1 Own Comments:

Pfcon t con M /MiMs fiGM.

fcWrw kor/NW fd l$rc//In /n f-a f fon.

D.

Evaluated By:

Name:

Nn he/c Date:

f 9/9 7 b a b

• AToNM M

N Date:

]OfN [kb Name:

/0,/.A-rf,/4 7 Af'/

uh Date:

Name:

l 000006 l

Shtet / of M l

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET l

}

Plant Name:

C#fff Unit:

1 4

A. DESCRIPTION i

Walkdown Area identification

{

Building: R8 Floor Elevation: $$$

Room No.: /M[

i

[

B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION l

Success Path Equipment in Room j

i i

ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEOUACY I

j NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE l

ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USHED EXIST IN FIELD?

I (SEE PAGE-p Nd 8#Y /Y/

fed Q) gf,

/CJ4H0A Z

@ N U N/A hNUN/A 1.

M C k&T)h n/x kS-8%fA E

h N U N/A h U N/A

/~8/

2.

i Sra/c6 3.

M C.I O M /#f t-o/

rea/>

I-TE-0W/B E

h N U N/A h U N/A j

4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A f

i 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

t

\\

6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A l

S.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A f

10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

i Is all above listed equipment in room no. /fYZ seismicatiy qualified?

h N U N/A i

C. SYSTEM INTER ACTION EFFECTS I

1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence

@ N U N/A

)

by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that h N U N/A j

could flood or spray onto equipment?

j j

3.

No other interaction concerns?

h N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

h N U N/A 1

Ya YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NOT APPUCABLE gg

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET gg gg{

A.

Walkdown Area identification 2

Building: 88 Floor Elevation: 888 Room No: / fty',l" B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

If2 :

S 60 SP-MS 20A. /-03 /: Quan A rd Ne).

by ons/)nr (2"f deca V

1er+

3:

SEQSP - ES E 7 - C/.' Gua/t Ned by l

( Temp"o <cae s/<i.esatl 1

d i

1 C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

WGRt Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN@

Is further investigation required?

Y h N/A bis k Comments: dcVM /10 t 4 a;n Qcces*r WVe f0

/

i Paeke ftpH t;% & e n.

W9 C Vr?rr#M f4 NGh tdVie W pe/iJen,ed O.

Evaluated By:

2 8['f]

Name; b

N/Pr

1. C/p Date:

f73 b*

AhNIU$ M 63 Date:

Name:

Name:

$l/Y W

Date:

/0//-t1/V$_

00000s

ShSctj of $

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: C#5Ef unit:

1 A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: gg Floor Elevation: 8/2 Room No.: /f M B,_ EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD 7 (SEE PAGE-17 1.

Od b/ I'

@ N U N/A hN U N/A we &j w IC S-8.7.roo r

2.

MM M 868 M hNUN/A hNUN/A c4d vake I-99Y78 Z

3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. / f '/ / seismically qualified?

h N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence h N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that h N U N/A could flood or spray onto e.1uipment?

3.

No other interaction conct.rns?

h N U N/A is all above listed equipmant in room free from interaction effects?

h N U N/A y. ns n. ~o u. uusirisracrear n.*. norarrucie" 000009 Sheet of

. ~.

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET %d,, /

A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: 88 Floor Elevation: 9/2 Room No: /[V[

B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

i.

5 EQs P - M520A. /- Q]/:

QVob b!W b,V ana&ri.r

( 2 "pr chech vo be),

2 S EQ S P-WECM - //6; G ya h (le /

by

• • /r !M (d"r checA vake),

1 C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation, j

/Y0h 4 Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN is further investigation required?

Y @ N/A 1

Comments:

[duld ho +

4 a 'h Occers W6'e M

A;< A Ps&dfdh

Olea, c/ocumest to fron r eb tew

.?

pe4m,i D.

Evaluated By:

000010 Y29/9,3 Name: &W G sn kocke Date:

Natne:

D'N'I ATAMK AR k IOI$[95 Date:

Name:

M Date:

/n /M/ f3

Sheet _/_ of [

PLANT WALXDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name:

([I[f Unit:

I A, DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: //g Floor Elevation: F/2 Room No.: /ft/g B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTABLISHED EXIST IN FIELD 7 1

(SEE PAGE-17 NC MM/ / *@

@ N U N/A hNUN/A 1.

SJ usecnVw ICS-l?]St?C Z

2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. /[Y A seismically qualified?

h N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence

@ N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that

@ N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

@ N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

h N U N/A Ye (Es N = No u = UNSATisFACTCRY N A = NoT APPUCABLE 000011 Sheet _. of _

PLANT WALXDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET,,,Q,p1 A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: 8g Floor Elevation: g/2 Room No: /f//(

B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

l.

SEQ SP-M S 2 0A. / - 03/: Gtpad 8e/ dy ans/yris (2"GY ChecA Wlt h.

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

NOMt j

i Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN@

Is further investigation required?

Y @ N/A Comments:

Covld' hof Q 0ih G r& 2H WVe f0 bi9 k PG$0 fleh Qfe#>

$0rf/Mf/rf4 ff041 PeWeW p u &m e d'.

D.

Evaluated By:

l#f29/'7}

Name: C"biiFM

' firm kOCkt Date:

Name: P.G-ATAweert 7%fdw Date:

/o/24/73 Name:

k

~~

h Date:

/0/J2 9 / 73 r

t 000012

= _.

Sheet / of _k PLANT WALXDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: 6858I Unit:

.I A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: f)g Floor Elevation: g/g Room No.: /,ff f B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room

)

l ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEOUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-17 b

8 /~#I

@ NUN /A h N U N/A 1.

<e a" wer w w I((-63500

.E 2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 3.~

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A l

9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

is all above listed equipment in room no. /5/ L seismically qualified?

@N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence

$ N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that

$ N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

@ N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

@N

'J / A y = YEs N = No U = UNSATISFACTORY N A = NoT APPUCABLE 000013 sneet of _

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET g gf A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: R8 Floor Elevation: 8/]

Room No: / f9'g B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

I.

SEMsp-MS2cg. i-o_77; g4,,,4 de c/

dy osa f ur

( z "f Weh whe.),

y C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

NOMt Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y Nh is further investigation required?

Y h N/A Comments: foWW ho f f olh GCcfff

+o ora bc 10 hr14 heda1 ton.

D.

Evaluated By-MOOM Name:

&m

$dcbe Date:

l$f2 W9 3 D.s.Parasx3g n oc M m so l29 / f3 Name:

Da,e Name:

NN t / e-- -

Date:

/O/ N /Y3

Sheetl of $

PLANT WALKDOW!N SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: 6858f Unit:

.I A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: gg Floor Elevation: 8J2 Room No.: /ff/.

B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT /CL ASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABLISHED EXIST IN FIELD 7 (SEE PAGE-17 1.

Id /~O/

lfW~OITS S

h N U N/A

@ N U N/A PPENT/2 CHA tav 2.

$6 l* 0l b f Vff

&N U N/A h N U N/A y%,.yer l-l.f-GF/ 7 I

k2 8 l'OI h N U N/A h N U N/A 3.

pg,,w e y,,,ye I -P T-o Yrr 1

4 Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A Is all above listed equipment in room no. /((d. seismically qualified?

h N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence h N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that hNUN/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

[N J N/A is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

N J N/A Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY NIA = NOT APPLICABLE 000015 Sn..i of _

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET se g 5Hsst A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: R8 Floor Elevation: 8J2 Room No: /f f'4 8.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

I.

SEpsP-pfs t d B. /-003 : QwAded 4'9 an alyris ( 6 "

checA Va4h.

2. S EQ SP-ESE- 03 -0/ ' &?uan ded by dert

'(Bono" 76Y DastwHes).

3. SEQtP-ESE- /A - 0/.' eus//ned Jy les +

( Ra en Her annve),

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

None i

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y Nh is further investigation required?

Y $ N/A Comments:

Aeesa

+a ona was es+

aisa</a4/e s&<

to hr, 4 raeda non / cosamine wcw.

keyesn-krfion

,9 M lorMeol rOiew D.

Evaluated By:

Name: &

b/91 koCke Date:

1/f]

Name:

D $' b AINNAS

> h Date' I*

f$b e

Name:

v,JWW Date:

/0/S$/ O s

000016

Sheet!_ of 1 PLANT WALMOOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET b

Plant Name: C ME S Unit:

A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: R.,. 6. $ 1 Floor Elevation: 862.#-o" Room No.: I-iG1A B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS l

IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS j

ESTA8USHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE- )?

f*cRV(GATE VALVEI-Bene A CAT,Z ON U N'"

O N U N/A 1.

t 30 LA7ex) 2-fgg$$g)t/EEER iff l

Gojo))

c /) f 3

& U N/A

& N U N/A 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no.

/ 6 / 4 seismically qualified?

f N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence h N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that h N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

h N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

h N U N/A Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCA8t.E 000017 Sheet _, of,_

i

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET p.

A.

Walkdown Area identification o

ou Building:

R. 6, #l Floor Elevation: F G 2. - o soom No: (-l4fA B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

T I. Pony GA Te vaivs - sem sP WEctn-013 + G UAllFig.D 13f i.sf $

dN A L'(did.

2.

R&$. sat *t.7y \\l ptg g, q

, g 3 g A D A u p i g p (b y fg g g 4

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

None Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y N@

is further investigation required?

Y

/A Comments: [w/W not QCCeSS Va /tr #f &c fc di;< b e

fa did //Ost.

CtdM #M t f f V o' f w

,944 hM/ 9 d D.

Evaluated By-Name:

V pi% i n

Tcin hoc l4 Date:

/$9/9 3 Name: O. k '

A /4NN 04k A

Date:

73 Name:

N//

Date:

/6/29/9_7 s

v' y

/

000018

. - -.. ~

. -. -. -.- - - -.-.. -. - - ~.

Sheet] of _E PLANT WAlttDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: CP.365 l

unit:

A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: R,6 yL Floor Elevation: 945'-o" Room No.: / - /(o/ E_

B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment In Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEiCMIC ADEOUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USHED EXIST IN FIELD 7 (SEE PAGE. 17 1.

PM.%. Pony R E LIEF q-pey.e45Sg 3_,

QN u NiA gD N u N/A v4 f vc.

G(eb& VALL!L, Igc.QO$ $ $

]~

ON U NIA 0 N U NIA I'

3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no.

/6 / 8 seismically qualified?

@ N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence h N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

N U N/A Y = YEs N = No u = UNs ATisFACToRY N/A = NOT APPUcABLE 000019 Sheet _ of _

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET S r+t.s r-$ e r $

A.

Walkdown Area identification 9o5,o" Building: R 6.

Floor Elevation:

Room No: / - /6/f B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

f.SEQsf-NEcm.090 -Q M U FIED BY ks f 4 M *YS'S.

2.. sensp ms-2081-Is Gunufteo ay myss.

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

None Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN@

is further investigation required?

YhN/A Comments: [nll hrf affe$f

1. D W kEk Yf lC k's b

,De demd Vw&#/

raeda con.

Oceeserw renew 90/2 V' c le u a n a b+ ihrev ocrien Via C PE-Swe~c-Fwt - c r -068 Awa

/6 > Pop e 2 9 O.

Evaluated By:

Name: M

[e:ip, he I

9 [93 e

Date:

/O!

k3 AhNXMR dfz24. M Date:

be Name:

V Name:

&M &

'n Date:

lC//L4 // ?

~/<

s

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Pl:nt Name:

CPfE5 Unit:

Y A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: Avrr//a/7 Floor Elevation: 8/d Room No.:,7 dJ B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEOUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS lS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE- !?

Cd8 /~#// /~O2 t.

h N U N/A N U N/A

/4nt//w 14r/Vtt

} - 8 //0 Z

2.

CC8

/- Y h N U N/A hN U N/A 904 A / /* 4 l-9 Y9/4

[

3.

1. I~

M h N U N/A hNUN/A tm2C ber fwt I-6 fYg I

b b*/

IM h N U N/A h N U N/A 4.

tw+,

dmw/

/-Mc V-0/ 7 2 I

5.

/26 8#*/ k h N U N/A hN U N/A 4teer L: smSmm lCS-93t/f*

Z 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7-Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8-Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A

-=mm Is all above listed equipment in room no. 287 seismically qualified?

$ N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence

@ N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that h N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

h N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

h N U N/A Y = YES N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCABLE 000021 Sheet _ of _,

Shest A cf 2 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: Agy,'//apy Floor Elevation:

8/6 Room No: fSJ B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

7'M f A*'/r Nr nop) nu/ 6 6A 7

I, SEQ SP wecin -956:

(re-if woe y to be 2.

SEGSP-k'GCM - l 2 3 a 6?"A A W AY

""' h GS

( v

c Ard Vofw S E6 TSP-wecm -)it s/: punged b 3

y anaiff;;

(9" ched Wre)

V.

SEQ SP-wScM - 0 96 : 6;%4 ded' by ter+ f' agaf s;y y

(1" A0&#)

L SEQSP-MS 2c A. t

'7Ved de d 67 GM"h hf i,

(z" checA pafn)

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

VAft V6 /- 3//0 /G LOCM20 /N A CON 7?fM/N/f77dA/ AfAEA AWD 7!/l YALVE WAS /NACCLSS/8LE.

77/E AS-450/Cr.bRAk//A/S 84/'- C4 48 - do gp' B 14Ms ReU/6s41&b.

77t7s bRnul/A16 /S QdAL/7/66 PCM 4AllC snesss P406LE/M.S /-os? A MNb /-OSS V.

sYST&rl /A/7E&107dA/ S4 7?M.s Acom ains comm7zd As #Axer of 77ts common Axxx Act//suli Adb A/o saacs a: iT/z Aertstrn/s in 77tys /1v4, Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

N N/A is further investigation required?

YhN/A Comments:

AJ l 4 D.

Evaluated By:

000022 Name:

M

/-M Date:

h4

.Y Name Date:

Name:

AH Date:

/i

Sheztfcf _&

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name:

dAS45 Unit:

8 A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building:

3 Floor Elevation:

98 5 Room No.: J 04pg B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room

' TEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SBSMIC ADEQUACY I

NO.

DESCfDPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SBSMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-2.47 1.

w sucrw ws y,Jgo g y

U N/A YN 2.

& M # '@# #

hN U N/A YNU

.sa m as c u w e D -89%

1 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A YNU A

9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. b b b seismically qualified?

U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNUh by adjacent elements?

l l

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential saurces that YNUh could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNU8 ls all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

YNUh Y = YEs N = No U = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCABLE 000023

Sheet '2-of _P PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area lderitification Building:

56 Floor Elevation:

74/ 6 Room No:

8-d685 B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentatio for Seccess Path Equipment identified in the room, f, Sys P WEcp; Io q Sn kn e, mm W L. S ERS P W E CM - ol I Q On C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

W/A -

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YNh is further investigation required?

YhN/A Comments:

Y Nd8K4) k Abt'abe/./ v G

~

BAAA

$Qt&bYhWMf O

u v

W 4/Ad d & & K A h 6'?id.desta 4' hts ddyrl$ss -

D.

Evaluated By:

l 000024 Name:

'O h4 Date:

M /h /ff&

~

' y Name:

M 1P 4 % k- ^ ='

Date:

CIIN D Name:

aus-*Iwer Date:

5 ~/J T f

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name:

C/ke.S Unit:

8 A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building:

gg, Floor Elevation:

98 5 Room No.: cp-Orfg A B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EOutPMENT EQUIPMENT SUSMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SBSMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USNED EXIST IN FIELD 7 (SEELPAGE-@?

1.

MA M J ~O/

h U N/A YNUh a-ma z

2.

///4 fmt*J~0/IDCCP O

Y U N/A

. sam &J /kM J-AROy A Z

Y N u O'!

3.

SI M #.2-o/

hNUN/A m/HiftDs) fM/E Q-88/y 4 I

YNU 4.

t/ m Q -o/

,_ p,,

y

&N u N/A yNu

$"c"!'x 'v; !

a-89BDA I

• • "h

$llo~i$x$y D-295E' A Z

0" U "'"

Y"Uh 7.

O A 7DCCPO*0//03 sucmW cat VL&/

A

• SSlo? A E

N U N/A Y N U 0/

C/

8.

M4 M d$/U84#

OY N U N/A YNU /

C7x4 Vays A-RV-Ofsfif Z

v y

J-//cv-dGdf, I

hNUN/A YNU 10.

hN U N/A YNU is all above listed equipment in room no.

P seismically qualified?

U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence Y N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that Y N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U N/ A Y = YES N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCABLE MOOM

Sheet fcf _

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area Identification Building:

Floor Elevation:

78 8 Room No:

e2 -6688 B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

f. SETS P. WEC A/)-o f f f 2. S Eqsf WEchr) o I o '1

3. SeQb?

Wscu)- crD56 4

3Eqsr wIEcm o IS I Att

< he.s i n $, n a

5 S sq.Sp. W Ec m 0 l 2-Y M 6um td -

S.Sggsp. v0ECM CIIE

7. Sf4S P W f CM ~

8 5 EqsP WE cn- 00 W3 j g SE W W ECN).. cro y 2 C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

W Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y Nh is further investigation required?

Y$N/A Comments:

Y f//ko W L6t l1 & b W7ldh)L WY 44bN d'1& bhk)

A dfl GM d OJ2M & 4J W d h sd %

V

1. a 80 3!?fl/ Arts a)2L.c.< M/u2.

v D.

Evaluated By:

000026 Name:

md' Date:

/d /998 f hfY Name:

to:

Name:

Date:

4 -/f-9(

f

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name:

045ss unit:

8 A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building:

g56 Floor Elevation:

ppg Room No.:

4-Odbyp6 B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SBSMIC ADEOUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SESMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-W EN D YM/

N U N/A YNU /A 1.

.2-0//09 Sc/O-CJufNY A~~55Yb 2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. J-dM G seismically qualified?

h N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNU by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNU could flood or spray onto equipment?

YNUh 3.

No other interaction concerns?

is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

YNU 000027 Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCABLE

Sh;ct 8cf b PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building:

SG Floor Elevation:

~AFO Room No: c:7-d6@ 6 B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

/,

4EQ.5/ 40f441 - O //9 1

l C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

Y Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y N[

is further investigation required?

YhN/A A C&KM]d & b& $

Cs+EL & d &} ~

Comments:

(2 m f6)alhddna.

D.

Evaluated By:

000028 Name:

'w WM Date:

/ k N==r hIbf NE Name:

ate:

b Ads' Date:

4 -/ 7 -#

Name:

f

Shest_/cf _b i

]

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name:

04ES Unit:

A. DESCRIPTION i

Walkdown Area identification Floor Elevation:

Nd Room No.: =7 - 665~

Building:

g 1

i B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION j

Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SBSMIC ADEOUACY NO.

DESCIUPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SBSMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTASUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-747 I## O hNUN/A YNUh 1.

/s/.17-o/ AN: /SP MF

~

wa-6s aue a otr g,,p W82 f

h N U N/A YNUh 2.

MT*# # #

3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no.e7-df/s seismically qualified?

[ N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS YNUh 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNU could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNUh is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

YNUh Y = YES N = No U = UNSATISFACToftY N/A = NoT APPUCAaLE 000029

Sheet [cf d PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building:

,5 6 Floor Elevation:

990 Room No: dp - 6 // f B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

/.

30SP tt/SC#1 - 0//p eg.

4&4S/

m.S a20A5./- 36 C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

b Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y Nh is further investigation required?

Y[N/A Comments:

/> A h w7W-2 h d d /wh A /A ZrA A t.44-om.

D.

Evaluated By:

000030 Name:

W w&

Date:

/3,/ff W b 13l Y Name:

N W

ate:

Name:

f02 f Date:

$.-/ ] ~9 f f

Shoot _/, of _2 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name:

dASES Unit:

42.

A. DESCRIPTION 1

Walkdown Area identification Building:

g Floor Elevstion:

Wd Room No.: 42-d/p7 B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SBSMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SESMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USNED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE W ## #

hN U N/A 1.

YNU /

.XT}& VU/

e~8807A L

2.

1. 0'/##

M b

N U N/A YNU /

mwmaarsu a - 88/3

.I U

C7 3.

g,y, g7g N U N/A YNU CTf W D <>l $6CJMC'VLV A-FV-W92-/

I "I#

Y" W NAAYOI b'W h N U NIA YNUh 5

757'JAf /SdL VLJ/

D Cr- 00SO f

6.

///

-0/ Mr N U N/A YNU 7.

C

/tif 4;l # 0l OIACN gy_ g gy J

N U N/A YNU 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. J-d(e7 seismically qualified?

N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNU A

by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNU could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNU is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

YNU Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCAsu 000031

Sheet _h_ f _b PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEFT A.

Waikdown Area identification Building:

66 Floor Elevation:

'7 96 Room No:

c;:7-C/,e 7 B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

/,

SEGSP

!)&CM - Q //d y,

& Qsp y)C<,M - 00S(p W#'# ~ ### ?

3 S&GSI Y

st-OSP ms - (do -so9 4*l7 seest mS ag., - 23 3&QSP MS M4./ -W C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y Nh is further investigation required?

Y@N/A Comments 0A-e_ CAL 4W Gh%c bdd c=l w d~ ^ --

,A3rc14-

1. C rnMr>-/b As4 b d S U n.9 w u m &

f Nd/

cY Y n M C

(.N~1M 4 kJih.xV.

/

D.

Evaluated By:

Name:

m nD Date:

fML /$ /

&~

Name:

Date:

OY Name:

Au.sk.er-Date:

$ -O-97 f

Shmt,J_ ef _F 1

l PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET 1

Plant Name:

CASES Unit:

t A. DESCRIPTION Waikdown Area identification Building:

3 Floor Elevation:

8/d Room No.:

4 -C99/d B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SBSMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS iS SeSMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABLISNED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-917 u2 m #mF 70 C hN U N/A h N U N/A 1.

Onmrisot. rw riota B - 8 / d Gr Z

fA)

UI N U%I h U N/A YNU

/

2.

et Viv D - 8/5 7 E

U

1. C# #-O/ # "

hNUN/A YNU 3.

2 - 8.3S/ A Z

ina viy b

4.

/c/ G-48 * "

N U N/A YNU D-83S7 4 Z

C7 m3 vw C # #-*//## # ##'

h U N/A h N U N/A s.

V2.V 280/A 9-890/A E

& -stopA E

• • • 0 st M# a-o/7a ML-ois e isu yu 7.

1. N4 3 C48 -o//d*

h U N/A YNU im aoc w a -ess M r

8.

M f M f O * */l 0 *

&N U N/A YNUf et in.:r i,soi viv p-sess-Z Y N U b/

9.

NM N M4 J '*0Y# 3 Y N U N/A

/sc isot vw D - 88Vo Z

v 10.

OT N J-O/

h U N/A YNU /

mer-VAV e -/W- +'774, Z

C7 is all above listed equipment in room no.7 7 h seismically qualified?

hN U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence h N U N/A by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that h N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

h N U N/A 3.

No other interaction concerns?

is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

N U N/A Y = YEs N = No u = uNsATisFACTCRY N/A = NoT APPucAsu 000033 n_.

Sh:';t _hf _V PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building:

6G Floor Elevation:

df/d Room No:

J C W4 B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

l. FEq.s p vd Ec M.ol 39

2. f> Eqs f WEOC " 9 T 3 g,seesP M * "

lH

1. lI Y"

1. • 6

1. #'~

6 M S P W E #~ M '

N ' SE4 5f' N # -

I b 6 '" % M '

JE46f

gt cm -oll) 7 G3 p[se_gsP W6 M '

UI c}. 5 LQs ?. W E M -iM

3 25 Eq s p>

M 5-2464 C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory

• and provide eva!uation.

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YNh is further investigation required?

YhN/A O Jkjfd$ d Y L l R'/Wetb ML bCWW 6N M Comments:

[AJY

/7fitArt/

./e/c/47$bt kN QMW&w

/

m7' aHJAe A deun,+m. Ab Gnkrw astet r$4xe &

D.

Evaluated By:

000034 k

oJ -

Date:

7'6/3 M Name:

m w

Name:

A ste:

b M

Date:

/-/J -#/J~

Name:

r

i Sheatl of _'L-i j

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET i

l Plant Name:

CP5E5 Unit:

L j

A. DESCRIPTION i

Walkdown Area identification Building:

A4 Floor Elevation: E4S Room No.: A - t"8 B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION j

Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY i

NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS 1

IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE i

ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD 7

?

(SEE PAGE-1-17 hN U N/A h U N/A Rd S A 4 i%T 3*

l F u d_

1 -o "2.

TC*~CSEk4E-D1 l

l 2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A j

3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A l

)

4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

j 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

I 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 1

i l

7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A l

1 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A l

e l

9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

l 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 1

is all above listed equipment in room no. M b b seismically qualified?

h U N/A i

C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNU l

by adjacent elements?

{

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that Y N U N/A j

could flood or spray onto equipment?

s 3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNU i

i is all above listed equipment in room free from interact.ca effects?

Y N U[N/A j

Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCABLE 000035 i

4 ~. -,,. - -..,.,, -.. - -

---..m-

She:t 1 cf _3 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification 84Y Room No:

A-M 8G Building:

A13 Floor Elevation:

B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

Io 6E-kSf WfCOA-(T06 cStJa y o&<s X

~

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

k Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN ls further investigation required?

Y N/A Comments:

5Te G ov' b M C FC#09 n M &g, & g.< N H HV U Yf 2-h b SRE m EC S

t Mwm Mm63 n'c fQuw c4 cdufe_el 4Il yJaqs4(ef hted Sts -fey 1ksn

/

7

% eye 72 no spM 4tsmi(_ ib'feroebi' 6-t vbt c Qu.o cy 4 tw cc.

D.

Evaluated By:

% Ces r) 4 Name:

Date:

000036 b /4 896 O

Date:

Name:

<o4 Name:

Date:

4 -/ I ~1 T v

Shsstl of _k PLANT WALKDO,WN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: @5ES Unit:

2--

A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: Re.A cJeg h)N;rt Floor Elevation: @d Room No.: S -/69M

s. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-2, W" 1.

T 2 -8l 6C

[

h N U N/A Y N Uh 169L.ATICH V&lV2 Jy,^'N[di/((g 2 - 8 70I A

.I O N U N/A YNU h 2.

3.

C/f MK V/tt,VE 2, 8S(7 h N U N/A Y N Uh 4.

C H kgy_ VgVg,_.

Q_.gg}8A f

Qb N U N/A YNU l

5.

CHk.CIL \\&lVE.

2-C$-$}&hA 1

& N U N/A YNUh 6.

(yrt,,gy y!Q_yg_ 2df-$$ $1 N f

() N U N/A YNUh (WQ kV 9.-d[C3h I

h N U N/A YNUh 7.

8.

Y N U N/A Y, N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. 3 - % A seismically qualified?

h N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence Y N U @a by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNUh could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNUNh is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U N/M Y = YEs N = No U = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCABLE

--r-.

Sheat Pof

~

4 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: Rea cf,.g Floor Elevation: 9Oi Room No: [ $/- A

/

B.

Usting of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

f; W i:C " -c % '.

Na s~< vo.ac: G c a.&. t ~ w ~G "c u v A *

• wu 2.

wc c r - tiof e,, me.,,va su !a%"A

'a m e m - c t to yo Ne% TALC

4. s ka U "Let t

tv e r -c 'ib

.Li% A 0 na wwgg g

s tQ e,0 m a v A.) -o38 m % c.c rt et c tiV v titd b

S v.Ca W J a A 1 -03I W Nc..otM G C 4dO)

'l.

Nac m ~co %

N. % e ez awc 0 2 Q o sa.0)

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

,W Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y Nh is further investigation required?

YhN/A Comments: YY2 $470YV/dp " W W l W/Pr+% 5 / *

'b/d/Amw-l OJas h/at),/W/74M Gn /y &Up, c

)

D.

Evaluated By:

000038 i

Name:

Date:

/$^ /$fe"r ry Name:

CL W

Date:

1E

[87 d Name:

Date:

$ */.7 - f r f

l

Shmt / of _W PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET NU b

Plant Name:

Unit:

A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: R.__eA C h Floor Elevation: F88 Room No.:.2 - /SMd B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUlPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SBSMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-W cpf g, g g

2. - g g) g g

[ NUN /A YNUh 1

2-C n'E4V-VA LVE 2-51-2905 6 T-0 NUN!^

YNUS S'$$mirra 2-LT*-4779 L

0"u"'^

v " udED 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A S.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10-Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no.#-/9M seismically qualified?

h N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNU,h by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNUh could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

Y N U N3 is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U<N/N Y - ns u - uo u. uNSADsFACToRY N/A. NoT APPUCAsu 000039

Sh22tfof _b PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification

/ffO Building: RAAc k Floor Elevation: $O'8 Room No:

B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

G EOrt - O//(p U

l.

sceSP y,, scow ms -2JA. /-03/

3

$S g,.S r' OfS - &.30 - 0/

Q2deUrtd dy' 775, W096 CM C-ME AS th//r J.,

/(p 3ys"- 27776%) - J7/3 g 2 V V C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

d/pr-Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y N@

Is further investigation required?

Y h /A MA Y $

1. 7&$ dudd #bf tot /N NJfM h

Comments:

&I& C4.4%?

&<.JGlfu d 662&rt &/ JO &< /s.-

D.

Evaluated By:

000040 Name:

Cxe4,h &

Date:

G/f_t /d /99 6 ~

Name:

ON~

W Date:

I+

O C

h/7)

Date:

$ -l 74r Name:

r

ShIet]of 7 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: c PSE. 5 unit:

2-A DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: (fd C h Floor Elevation: $07 Room No.: 47 -/SM B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE'2-tf I

Nb 2 - S// 2

[

hNUN/A YNUh 1.

V AL v E, dM6$p,', Tf-Ly g 2 ({, (g}g g

hNUN/A YNUh 2.

I

1. N

'2,- $ $/ Q.[

[ NUN /A YNUh 3.

4 Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. 4-/SY/) seismically qualified?

N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNU @

by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNU@

could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNUf6 is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U N/Ay Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCABLE 000041

= _

Shest bf [

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET l

A.

Walkdown Area identification i

Building: &P_St CN Floor Elevation: OM Room No: f 54 D B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

{.

S&QSA /AlsuY1 -00$(s 3,

$$GSP /71S c9dd. / - 00 Y 3

520sp ms-6o V-o I, Gununs.6 hy A deirtsysnad of 7zsr-i shtto dNMv'sts 4

0

}

1 C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' ar.d provide evaluation.

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN@

is further investigation required?

Y j N/A Comments:

AY2 M M.Y IAldo A M f) ? O Y J W W M M

. /M f.)

0/?T

/AVhtAl f/}/c WOJAJl ClAM//1 & 19 i M /rklJA,.

D.

Evaluated By:

000042 Name:

(d) + _% d-Date:

As /A /FA~

l' c/

~

Name:

C Date:

d O!9I f/)V7

)<ar-Name:

Oate:

l~ I 2 4$~

f

Shrstlof P PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET 1

Plant Name: CFSEs Unit:

A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: Repchy Floor Elevation: $ I 2 Room No.: 4 -. /S4/f B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room i

ITEM EOUlPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SBSMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-W

(/f ECR Y N k 1- @Q $ A 1

U N/A YNUh 1-2.

C H'lE:.e6 \\/MV g 2 C 3 - g3go /)

1.,

hNUN/A YNUh 1

hN U N/A YNUh 3.

C H E.e y \\/ g t/L 2 c 3 23474 C,/ M C X Y M k 2 SI-2%/)

hN U N/A YNUh 4-5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. J2 /Sr/.I seismically qualified?

h N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all abov6 listed equipment in room free from influence YNUNN by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that Y N U N/A could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

Y N U N/3 is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U N IAj 000043 Y = YES N = No U = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCAsu

She:t [of _k PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: @ gQ Floor Elevstion: P/L Room No: /{pZ B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

(,

S&Q.st' SurLM -oi/7 4 3, S4Q.D' Ots. dea /-051 y gg ggp

1. S.00A. /- 03 0 C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No* or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

Hle 4

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN@

Is further investigation required?

Y $ N/A l2 (A

WY COM 'AofWadd U W

Comments:

bLl.I.1 Co17'. ld.6>L m J 6 U k SUddAs.'/ $ &./P 2W >

J_,< U $ N D.

Ev61uated By:

000044 Name:

6[cM e,A Date:

1. 2 /k Mfi-6l l3 L qr Name:

W ate:

Name:

Date:

4 - / J " 9.f~

f

Sh:stl of _V PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET I

Plant Name: C P 6 f. S Unit:

2-A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: R e,a e Q Floor Elevation: 8/2 Room No.: S - /Sp7 B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQULPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS j

IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSH EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE C H ECL \\/A-f (/6.,

2.-$q 4 q /3 y

hNUN/A Y N Uh 1.

C #Ec/(,,, Ygg/g,

-] C$-8 M d8 1

5N U N/A YNUN 2.

3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. c7-/6n7 seismically qualified?

[N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence by adjacent elements?

Y N (LJ4 2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that could flood or spray onto equipment?

YNUQ 3.

No other interaction concerns?

Y N U Nc4 Is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U %I 000045 Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCABLE

Sheet _Ncf V_

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: R e_A ch Floor Elevation: $f 2 -

Room No: / S'4-f B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

f

$2GCr' RJCc97 -0//G J,

ggGsf 4ts -MA. / - d.3 Y C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

hY Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y Nb is further investig.'

,.aquired?

Y @N/A lw Y A 0ml.47 & }'GJdo M / CudVhd b m Comments:

Nil i Cir/RSA/ ojac cO%d W r' m e, j._

m>:r. v%v D.

Evaluated By:

000046 NYM u,__,c Name:

/

Date:

_ t /.:1, W C Name: __M b I3hf Date:

[47 [d Name:

Date:

d-/ 3 - 1 r-

/

Sheat ( of F i

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET e

Plant Name: CP5 E 5 Unit:

2-i A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: RGA C Q Floor Elevation: @l 2 Room No.: c3-/S9%

B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEOUACY 1

NO.

DESCRIMION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SBSMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-M C ggg \\/hVg 2 c.5 - 8 3 50 c.

I.

(f N U N/A 1.

YN 2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 3.

Y N O N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. #-/S98 seismically qualified?

[N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNUM by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNU@

could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNUg is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

YNU6 000047 Y = YEs N = No U = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCAaLE

Sh2st fof _V PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVAll1ATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: %cQ Floor Elevation: 8 / 7_

Room No: /5 W B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

$ 2QS) -

/MS C0A. /--C3 Y C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No* or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

YW Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN$

is further investigation required?

Y $ N/A Comments:

Yt-0 77 lVJAs M)l WalAdd 8

/

/40'1 cin/wM wa-waws a%m w v ) $

!.l cG i,

D.

Evaluated By:

000048 Name:

N7v mo /_

Date:

h.Z /.3, 4 94~

Name:

eb W

ate:

6 I1! N kd Name:

Date:

d 4 7-ff f

i Sh3stl of p PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION Shegy 5

Plant Name:

6NS Unit:

3 A. DESCRIPTION i

Walkdown Area identification Building: Agj efe.y Floor Elevation: 8 [ 2._

Room No.:

.P -/SW---

1 i

B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION j

Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY 2

NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE l

ADEOUACY CONCERNS i

ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

{

(SEE PAGE'2#

j 1-c uc gwl g

2. - c 5 - 83500 y

@ U N/A YNUh 2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

1 j

4 Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 1

s

{

5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no.c7 /S//- seismically qualified?

hN U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTIUni EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNU h by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNUg could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

Y N U ((lf is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U Nld Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCAst.E 000049

Sheet hf 7 PLANT WALKCOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: Re.Acfoy Floor Elevation:

$ l '2--

Room No: l$ R B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

l,,$sRCC P 41.3 D d A,/- 0 3 $

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

3 N

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN@

is further investigation required?

Y@N/A Comments:

M Y A 0 7'ld h /?'41 b dN />d #$ NYd$ I' "'

//wY.l GrJMS d Wm Wadj/ dt' w.u as s'

1. > wk D.

Evaluated By:

000050 Name:

'D(

h-al--

Date:Q pft /gif, /M" rV Date:

S f l}k 9 E Name:

c - N 4- ^ ^>

h d,

Name:

Date:

f -/ 7"C

Shsst] of _2 ---

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEFT Plant Name: C R$ 5 6 Unit:

2--

A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: Rgac y,y Floor Elevation: D 2--

Room No.: e2 - / 5 6".d B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE 2-W

[JCLA[/ON VALVE

2. c T-o/e/

SN U N/A YN @

1.

2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A

\\

4 Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A

)

I 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no.=2 /Esb seismically qualified?

hN U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNUh by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNUh could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

Y N U N/A)

{

k is all above listed equipment in room free from interection effects?

YNUh i

Y = YES N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCAaLE l

Sheetjef_h PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEFT A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: 864 Cfr(

Floor Elevation: $32 Room No: / $$D B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

l, SSGSt0 Af 6 00 6. / ~ O&&

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

W Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YNh is further investigation required?

Y @ N/A Comments: YRY E Y

k/tte MY NYW WJMi

/SIx/

1 CaiAsr& VJac wahd cbun and-u A WA.

D.

Evaluated By:

000052 Name:

Gh&

Date:

1. 2/ d I N b Name:

Date:

8 95 i

Name:

O Date:

[-l 7 4f V

.. ~... _.

Shiet/ of P PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name:

C F5E 5 unit:

2-A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: R e.a c foY Floor Elevation: 832 Room No.: 42 -/SS($.

B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUlPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-747 l$01 A[tCH YALVL

}.gyt. y}2$

f_

(Y} U N/A YN &

1.

2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4

Y f t U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. I6 E6 seismically qualified?

N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNUh by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNU[

could flood o'r spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

Y N U N A,,

is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

YNUNA Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCAaLE ggg

gQ q

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET l

A.

Walkdown Area identification 4

Building: ReAC,k Floor Elevation: @ 3 2-Room No: I5fG B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

I, S g S p W)S- % 60- CIB 34, k m & ' & '

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory

• and provide evaluation.

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y Nd Is further investigation required?

Y8N/A Comments:

/M / O & )d Y W (2Af60 #2/ Wh.d.

?)

4 'A/ -.lhY $

Wh//yr.L4./ 6')tc

&U 6 c/ & s )

O'd -46 & ArDAv D.

Evaluated By:

OOOOM Name:

+ O-=s eD Date:

1. 1 /b /f W l

i Name:

d dlI3 9E ste:

Name:

h Date:

6 -/ 7-1 T

/

Shiet_/of _2 -

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVAlllATION SHEET Plant Name: cFMS Unit:

E A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: A cA c foy Floor Elevation:

Q$2_

Room No.: d? -/.ll5~f/

B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USHEjp EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-H7 If.f,$h 2-r 7'.o 4-57 J_._

@ U N/A YN@

1-7 2.

CHFcC(C Y&L.VG -

2 F-%l -Ol'{ f N

Q U N/A YN&

3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. /5 E b seismically qualified?

N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence by adjacent elements?

Y N U N/A) 2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that could flood or spray onto equipment?

YNUg 3.

No other interaction concerns?

Y N U N. A Is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U 46 A '

Y = YES N = No U = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCARE 000055

Sheet hf,_V, PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: A @A Ch Floor Elevation: 96 2.-

Room No: I 5 5'L_.

B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

{, SEQ f f. N)5 -oQf A. @ W - WW NO~

~

c4 Ygg c y

4 5. _ g g, Sec P - Ms-206 I-ro3 - gn (a ni ne nted -

i l

1 j

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y Nh ls further investigation required?

Y M /A b0 0 l/A////b/ WAC) A'eY SUUdsi Comments:

%Y I 0/7!

l/4'l (1 } k ) Old/k// hA?/ &?#l&

& N1 U)dt."

D.

Evaluated By:

000056 Name:

.e,G Date:

W.t / d / @ f,-

Name:

WA

^'

S Y

ste:

Name:

d Date:

/ -/3 TT

/

Sh stI of _2__

PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET j

Plant Name: CPGE5 unit:

2-I A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification f

Building: A e pt @

Floor Elevation: gfg Room No.: A - /55#f i

{

n. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room I

ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY i

NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS j

IS SBSMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS j

ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD 7 (SEE PAGE h?

p gfy,5541 h U N/A YNUg I

I 1.

2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A hN U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. IS EM seismically qualified?

C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNUd by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNU@

could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNUh is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

YNUN3 Y = YEs N = No u = uNEATisFACToRY N/A = NoT APPucAaLE OOOOW

Shrsthf _V PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: &4ch Floor Elevation: 9 foC Room No: ($ y M B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room, S Q $ f N b * $ $ D ]

h L1

& M W YE Y s

1 C.

Describe potential probisms indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

V Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN@

is further investigation required?

Y $ N/A Comments:

/14l 0 NAM 6tl AA&9.~fW 8kJk/

V')

kiu/2 On/shw wsx

-wa/A,/ a%or aa

/

>4t>>v Aw -

D.

Evaluated By:

000058 Neme:

&^

, a< tet4)

Date: /

4 4.3 lWW 5

13 N Name:

to:

Name:

d Date:

/ -l 7-9 I f

Shcetj of _V PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: CPS 68 Unit:

b A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: 90_o oter/

Floor Elevation: 9 o 5-Room No.: all2 - / do A B EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EOutPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEOUACY CONCERNS ESTA8USHED EXIST IN FIELD?

(SEE PAGE-3M I

1. ON 2, JJ-O / 76 1

h U N/A YNU[

1.

2*

2-51-C/f8 1.

N U N/A YNUM 3.

k(f)F)t)LA Te g c-P2.- S L AT4 02.

Z D U N!^

YNUS 4

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A i

7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no. nod seismically qualified?

hN U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNUh by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNUk) could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNUNg I

is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U N/A)

Y = YEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCAsu 000059 i

Sh:et hof 7 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area Identification Building: $EAcit7[

Floor Elevation: 7F$

Room No: [(0k B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

\\ {L. segs P M S-20 A i l-D/ L 4 O " W~W

3. 5 E c{ 5 P M 5 45 NT5 Amcbovje - M 345-EM C@'2$

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

PIV Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y N@

Is further investigation required?

Y@ N/A fYY 0 & d6k/rW1$ d<dW & 6 fat /A / ^ ' #J Comments:

f f2

.#.Mi& ) A ) M 60d/d// & Gri/ x, l'

A AJau.

D.

Evaluated By:

000060 Name:

mG Date:

4 /3, /99[

f (/

1 m

b bllE Name:

M W

Date:

i h

Date:

[-l7~9 T Name:

cr

1 Shast I of 2 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET l

Plant Name: C PS ES Unit:

2-A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: g qp eb Floor Elevation: @7[

Room No.: 4 -W2 B EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

l (SEE PAGE 1)?

k # D [ Y % \\/ f

2. K (- gd538 6N U N/A YNU@

1.

2.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 3.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A w

is all above listed equipment in room no. 1-4 t D seismically qualified?

h N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence by adjacent elements?

YNU@

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that YNUh could flood or spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNUNg is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U N/E)

Y = YES N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A - NoT APPUCAaLE QQQQQ

Sheet A of.1 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: R f_A Ck Floor Elevation:

Room No: [hID 87}

B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

(

$0CW ns-Oo A.t -os r

" * ~ "

m %cis, au

2. w vii d.

' ' ' ' ~ "

C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

4 Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

Y N@

Is further investigation required?

Y $ N/A Y 0 C/7V W J!A dd) M & W AJ W WA v.n /

Comments:

'b]

6049/ O)d/A/c/ C/&ts+7 h/ &U A

w >iu2/ a~..

D.

Evaluated By:

000062 Dete:fd}M /E lNE O u Name:

'w M-w)J b

9b Name:

Date:

Name:

Date:

d'l7' I

/

Shut i of 1 PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET Plant Name: CPRS unit:

L A. DESCRIPTION Walkdown Area identification Building: g &

Floor Elevation: gy Room No.: JQ -/(ffg B. EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Success Path Equipment in Room ITEM EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT TAG EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SEISMIC ADEQUACY NO.

DESCRIPTION NO.

CAT / CLASS IS SEISMIC NO HARDWARE ADEQUACY CONCERNS ESTABUSHED EXIST IN FIELD?

i (SEE PAGE-N?

Ol_4c/G \\M( VE 2.- BCOok h N U N/A YNU@

1.

gffg fyr \\/ g f

g. Qo(C&

($ N U N/A Y N U nZD 2.

3.

4E/_./f# V.&rJ6 2 Pcv 4tsrh (Y)N u N/A Y N u@

)

4.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 5.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 6.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 7.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 8.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 9.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A 4

10.

Y N U N/A Y N U N/A is all above listed equipment in room no.a-'bt C seismically qualified?

h N U N/A C. SYSTEM INTERACTION EFFECTS 1.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from influence YNU@

by adjacent elements?

2.

Is all above listed equipment in room free from potential sources that Y N U@

could flood 6r spray onto equipment?

3.

No other interaction concerns?

YNUNA Is all above listed equipment in room free from interaction effects?

Y N U N. D y. yEs N = No u = UNSATISFACTORY N/A = NoT APPUCASLE gg

I Sheet d of s PLANT WALKDOWN SCREENING AND EVALUATION SHEET A.

Walkdown Area identification Building: $#J Chr/

Floor Elevation: }$

Room No: [$/ 6 B.

Listing of Seismic Design Documentation for Success Path Equipment identified in the room.

[.

N ec em -ce3g N o %c "m ^G

&cv%9,

~u~C %em VW N-

%< 'v ' %

'l-o v'a a

'N 5 * ~ G " o v " ' c) '*E we w - oc39

_ cOSo.

% 6 ~c mt%O it44 viito)

'Ni

~e m ov e @

""E cm 5

1

)

1 C.

Describe potential problems indicated by 'No' or ' Unsatisfactory' and provide evaluation.

b Are all potential problems satisfactorily addressed?

YN@

Is further investigation required?

Y @N/A Y $ O fd f?tA7 A' + l d O Ad/ Y W W W Comments:

'U f $ $ld4?t PH11l 60th.2) O)92/U./ h3v?/ dt7d' N

&;.ko D.

Evaluated By:

000064 (BYE. m aj_-

Neme:

Date:

1s't /3, kVE

Name:

06.-

fI3 D ate:

Name:

fM Date:

l~l} ~ W e