ML20236X855

Rev 1 to Discipline Specific Action Plan Viii, Civil/ Structural - Train a & B Conduit & Supports

ML20236X855
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/10/1987
From:	Beck J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236X826	List: ML20236X830 ML20236X841 ML20236X855 TXX-7005, Forwards Comanche Peak Response Team Results Repts,Including Issue Specific Action Plan V.B, Improper Shortening of Anchor Bolts... & Discipline Specific Action Plan Viii, Civil/Structural - Train a & B Conduit & Supports
References
NUDOCS 8712100316
Download: ML20236X855 (102)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ O COMANCHL PEAK RESPONSE TEAM RESULTS REPORT I i DSAP VIII 1 TITLE: CIVIL / STRUCTURAL - TRAIN A & B CONDUIT AND SUPPORTS I REVISION 1 O 71 4 s _4_ n 4 et Discipl ne Coordinator Date \\ 0I M @iew' Team Imadsr'C Date OM LL- ////o/t 7 J n W. Beck, Chairman CPRT-SRT Date magggiaguapy A O

1 i COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC RESULTS REPORT: l CIVIL / STRUCTURAL - TRAIN A & B CONDUlT j AND SUPPORTS l DAP-RR-C/S-002 Revision 1 November 4,1987 i TENERA, L.P. 1995 University Avenue. Berkeley, California 94704 415 845 5200 O l 1

1 s TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE COVER TA B LE O F CO NTENTS.................................................................... LIST O F FIG U R E S.............................................................................. P AGE COU NT SU MM A R Y..................................................................... v 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS................................ 1-1 3 4 2.0 SCOPE................................................................................................2-1 3.0 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES............................................................ 3-1 { 3.1 Re view Methodology............................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Extemal Source issues identification......................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Design Critoria/ Commitments identification............................... 3-3 . 3.1.3 As-Built Procedures Review....................................................... 3-4 3.1.4 Design Validation Procedures Review....................................... 3-5 3.1.5 Special Studies and Generic Calculations Review..................... 3 5 3.1.6 Test Programs Review...,............................................................ 3-6 ' 3.1.7 lasue Resolution Review............................................................ 3 7 3.2 Results..................................................................................................3-7 3.2.1 Extemal Source lasues identification......................................... 3 7 3.2.2 Design Criteria / Commitments identification............................... 3-7 3.2.3 As-Built Procedures Review....................................................... 3 8 3.2.4 Design Validation Procedures Review....................................... 3-8 3.2.5 Special Studies and Generic Calculations Review.................... 3-8 3.2.6 Test Programs Review............................................................... 3 9 3.2.7 lasue Resolution Review............................................................ 3-9 3.2.7.1 Goveming Load Case for Design.............................. 3-9 I 3.2.7.2 Dynamic Amplification Factors................................ 3-10 3.2.7.3 Combination of Deadweight and Seismic Response.................................................. 3 1 1 3.2.7.4 Measurement of Embedmont from Top of Toppi ng........................................................ 3-1 1 3.2.7.5 Bolt Hole Tolerance and Edge l Distance Violation................................................... 3-12 3.2.7.6 FSAR Load Combinations..................................... 3-13 3.2.7.7 Support Self Weight................................................ 3-15 3.2.7.8 Torsion of Unistrut Members.................................. 3-15 3.2.7.9 Improper Use of Catalog Components................... 3-16 L 3.2.7.10 A nch o r B o tt s......................................................... l 1 i TN-87 7261 i DAP.RR-C/S-002. REV.1 s

---

y TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

SECTION PAGE 3.2.7.11 Longitudinal Loads on Transverse Supports.......... 3-1 A 3.2.7.12 Hilti Kwik Bolt Substitutions..................................... 3-19 3.2.7.13 Substitution of Smaller Conduits on CA-Type S uppo rts.................................................. 3 2 0 3.2.7.14 Use of CA Type Supports in LS Spans................... 3-21 3.2.7.15. Stresses in Cable Trays Due to Attached Conduit Supports..................................... 3-22 3.2.7.16 increases in Allowable Span Lengths..................... 3 22 3.2.7.17 Substitution of Next Heavier Structural Mem be r.................................................. 3 23 3.2.7.18 Cla m p Usage.......................................................... 3-23 3.2.7.19 Documentation Deviations between inspection Reports, CMC's and IN-FP Drawings..................... 3-25 3.2.7.20 Noiso n Studs................................................... 3.2.7.21 Conduit Fire Protection Calculations....................... 3-26 3.2.7.22 Span increase for Fire Protected Spans................. 3-28 3.2.7.23 Grouted Penetrations............................................ 3 28 -] 3.2.7.24 Rigidity of CA-Type Supports.................................. 3-29 3.2.7.25 Enveloping Configurations for Design..................... 3-29 3.2.7.26 Design Drawing Discrepancies............................... 3-30 3.2.7.27 Walkdown Discrepancies........................................ 3-31 3.2.7.28 System s Concept.................................................... 3-32 3.2.7.29 Cumulative Effect of Review issues........................ 3-33 4.0 SE LF-INITIATED REVIEW................................................................. 4-1 5.0 COR R ECTIVE ACTION...................................................................... 5-1 6.0 CO NCL U SIONS.............................................................................. 7.0 R E FER ENCES........................................................................ TN-87-7261 il DAP-RR C/S-002, REV.1 L

4 Q TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION PAGE ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: EXTERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS.................................... A-1 ATTACHMENT B:

SUMMARY

OF CONDUlT-RELATED DISCREPANCY / ISSUE RESOLUTION (DIR) REPORTS BY EXTERNAL SOURCE AND ISSUE GROUPS................. B 1 ATTACHMENT C: PROJECT AND THIRD PARTY DOCUMENT / ISSUE C ROSS-R EFE R E NC E LIST.................................................. C-1 ATTACHMENT D: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS LIST........................... D-1 0 ~ I O l TN.87 7261 ill DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1

87 FF' unes O PAGE 3-1 THIRD PARTY OVERVIEW ACTIVITIES........................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3.g ) I i l O ) t { O 4 TN-87-7261 DAP RR C/S-002. REV.1

i 'v) PAGE COUNT

SUMMARY

SECTION SHEETS COVER......................................................................................................................1 TA B LE O F C O NTE N TS......................................................... ll ST O F F IG U R E S............................................................... P AG E C W NT S U M E RY........................................................... SECTION1...............................................................................................................2 SECTION2...............................................................................................................2 SECTION3.............................................................................................................34 SECTION4...............................................................................................................1 SECTION5...............................................................................................................1 SECTION6...............................................................................................................1 SECTlON7.............................................................................................................14 i A ACHMENTA....................................................................................................27 AHACHMENTB......................................................................................................4 ATTA C H M E NT C............................................................. ATTA C H M E NT D............................................................. i t TOTAL..........................................................................................................101 ( i i i 1 l l l i A f r 1 I i I TN-87-7261 v DAP.RR-C/S-002. REV.1 lu_________________

1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS .O This Results Repon summarizes the results of a Third Pany review of the design adequacy of safety related (Train A & B) and seismically designed non safety-related (Trairi C) conduit and conduit supports (conduit /suppons) at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). This review was performed as a pan of the Design Adequacy Progran (DAP) under the charter of the Comanche Peak Respomre Team (CPRT) Program Plan [Ref. 7.1.2] by a 'Ihird Pany Organization (TENERA, L.P.). The approach, methodology, and scope developed to accomplish this review are described as part of the Civil / Structural Discipline Spec (fic Action Plan (DSAP VIII), which is contained in Appendix C of the CPRT Progra:n Plan, with additional modifications as defined in Revision 4 to the CPRT Program Plan, Appendix A. DSAP VIII encompasses all of the Civil / Structural design review activities performed under the l DAP, including both Project and Third Party activities reinred to major corrective Lction programs and 'Ihird Pany self initiated review activities. 'Ihis Results Repon is limited to summarizing the 'Ihird Party review activities associated with the overview of the CPSES conduit / supports corrective action program. 'Ihis program encompasses all safety related (Train A & B) conduit and seismically designed non-safety-related (Train C) conduit larger than 2 inches in diameter for which design validation is required.1 As such, all sum ='w references to " conduit / supports" in the text of this repon shall mean the aforementioned Train A & B conduit and conduit supports and Train C conduit supports. The CPSES conduit /suppom program described in DSAP VIII consists of a 100% design validation effon performed by a TU Electric consrector(Project) with an overview of these E c erv cesInco are (Ebesco. The s A, " 'Ihe purpose of the DSAP VIII conduit /suppom program is to provide reasonable assurance that the conduit /suppos at the CPSES are adequately designed and that the design validation effon resolves extemal source issues related to the original design. " Design Adequacy" is defined as conformnace to the CPSES Flast Sqfery Analysis Report (FSAR) (Rgf. 7.1.1) and licensing commitments,irla*g appropriate codes and standards. '!he purpose of the Third Pany overview is to provide an alamant of this assurance through ovetview of selected ponions of the program as described below. '!his Results Repon documents the results and conclusions of the Third Pany overview defined in DSAP VIII (as modified in Revision 4 to the CPRT Program Plan) with respect to both the adequacy of the conduit / supports design and the resolution of extemal source issues. The scope of the '!hird Party review activities that were performed are as follows: Issue Review (DSAP VIII, Section 4.1.2.1) Criteria / Commitment Verification (DSAP VIII, Section 4.1.2.2) Conduit /suppom design validation puredures and :upporting documentation review (DSAP VIII, Section 4.1.2.3) 1 Certain Unit I and common and all Unit 2 Train C conduit larser than 2 inches in diameist have been designed for seismic loadmg to the same witaria as Train A & B conduit and ass addressed in this report. The baianos of the Train C conduit larger than 2 inense in diamesar is addressed under issue Specific Action Plan (IS AP)II.d. All Train C conduit less than or equal to 2 inches in diameter is addressed under ISAP I.c. TN-87 7261 11 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

l \\ Briefly stated, the review identified external source issues, established applicable criteria based l on the CTSES FSAR and licensing commitments, compared Ebasco's procedures and supponing documentation with those criteria, and evaluated the resolution methodologies for the issues. l Overview of the implementadon of the procedures for conduivsupports, including verification of design input such as construction as built data, will be covered under the TU Electric QA { Technical Audit Program. j 'Ihe identification of extemal source issues was accomplished by conducting a review of over 40,000 pages of NRC-docketed material. This effort resulted in the issuance of approximately 60 conduiVsuppons-reland Discrepancylissue Resolution Reporer (DIRs) to document and track concems raised by external sources. The primary source of conduivsupports concems was the results of the Independent Assessment Progran (IAP) performed by Cygna Energy Services 1 (Cygna). Most of the concerns cay.M by other exterral sources were similar to, or a reiteration of, the concerns expressed by Cygna. These DIRs were consolidated into 29 issue gmups to facilitate resolution of the concems. Discussions of these issue groups are presented in Section 3.0 of this report. The assassment of the overall adequacy of Ebasco's design validation effon was accomplished by Third Pany gview of the procedures, supponing special studies and tests, generic calculations, and resolution methodology for each extemal source issue. These reviews were performed to evaluam the adequacy of Ebasco's design validation procedures and to assess their compliance l with applicable FSAR and licensmg criteria. Based on the findags of these reviews, it is . concluded that the design validation procedures and issue resolution methodologies are in conformance with the appropnase criteria. p In summary, the Third Party has concluded that the Project's conduivsupports design validation Q program is comprehensive and capable of resolving known technical issues and assurmg that the design will meet the PSAR and limnsing comnutments. 4 ( l ) O f i TN-87-7261 12 DAP-RR-C/S 002, REV.1

2.0 SCOPE This report addresses the nird Pany design adequacy overview activities performed for safety-related (Train A & B) and seismically designed non safety related (Train C) conduit /ruppons under the guidelines of DSAP VIII. De overview activities completed are: Extemal Source Issues Identification - The Third Pany identified, documented, and tracked issues that were raised by extemal sources regarding the original Gibbs & Hill conduit / support design. This effon was perfonned to provide reasonable assurance that extemal source concems agarding the original design have been fully identified. Design Criteria / Commitments Identification - The Third Party idendfied the design criteria and commitments that govem the design of conduit / supports for the CPSES. The primary commitment sources included the FSAR [Ref. 7.1.1], the AISC Specification [Ref. 7.5.1), and the AISI Specification [Ref. 7.5.2]. These criteria were used for the development of checklists and engmeenng evaluation acceptance criteria for the review of specific pmgram areas. As Built Procedures Review - The Third Pany reviewed the procedures of the as-built = program. His review was performed to pmvide reasonable assurance that imponant design attributes were propedy identified for use in design validation acavities. Design Validation Procedures Review ne Third Pany reviewed the design and analysis ' procedures developeil by Ebasco for the performance of conduit /suppon design - validation. These avienis were performed to pamde reasonable assurance that the design validation pmcedures were in compliance with the the CPSES design criteria and commitments. Special Studies and Generic Calculations Review - The nird Party reviewed special studies and generic calculations that were performed by Ebasco to provide a basis for the technical methods and assumptions included in their procedures or to resolve extemal source issues. These reviews were performed for the same purpose as the procedure reviews. Test Pmgrams Review - The Third Party reviewed test specifications, procedures, and results for conduit / support tests that were perfonned by the Project to provide a basis for design validation procedures or to resolve extemal source issues. These reviews were performed to provide reasonable assurance that the tests wem properly specified and perfbrmed and that the results were inwry.a correctly. l Issue Resolution Review - De nird Party reviewed the methodologies used by Ebasco in the resolution of the identified extemal source issues. The review included the special studies, test results, and portions of procedures that were related to the specific issues. This review was @ho.ed to provide reasonable assurance that the resolution methodologies used by Ebasco adequately address all identified issues. The scope included the review of the items presented above for both Units 1 and 2 with the exception that certain extemal source issues are applicable to Unit I and common areas only due to differences in hardware or design procedures. The method, extent, results, and conclusions of the Third Party reviews of the above scope items are described in the remaming sections of this O "a" TN-87 7261 21 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1

______-__----__--_-___-----------.--.---w-l l l J This scope is consistent with the scope of1hird Party design review activities for j conduit / supports defined in Section 4.1.2 of DSAP VIII as modified by Revision 4 of the CPRT t Program Plan. j l 4 ) ) O i l l l 1 I l l l I l O i I l TN-87 7261 22 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

4 o 3.0 EXTERNAL SOURCE ISSUES L/I nis section of the report describes the Third Pany activities performed in the overv'ew of the Project's resolution of extemal source issues. Rese activities, which relate to Sections 4.1.2.1, 4.1.2.2, and 4.1.2.3 of DSAP VIII for conduit / supports, include the following: Extemal Source Issues Identification. e Design Criteria / Commitments Identification, As-Built Pmcedures Review, e Design Validation Procedures Review, + Special Studies and Generic Calculations Review, + Test Programs Review, and e Issue Resolution Review. e These activities were performed to assess the overall adequacy of Project's design validation methodology and approach for resolution ofspecific extemal source issues. The conduct of the hird Pany overview activities was in accordance with DAP Procedures (Ref. 7.4.1). Rese procedures control the development of criteria lists and checklists, implementation of checklists, preparation of engineering evaluation reports, and the identification, documentation, arid 'eseintiori ofIssuesi A flowhart summanzing the overview activities r performed by the Thini Party isprwided in'Figtue 3-1.1 b) Section 3.1 describes the review methods, and Section 3.2 provides the results for each of the overview activities. Section 3.2.7 contains a discu:sion of individual issues, Pmjects's resolution methodology, and the results of the Bird Party's evaluation for each of the extemal source issues. 3.1 Review Methodology The Tiurd Pany review methodology for the activities delineated above is described separately for each activity in the following subsections. 3.1.1 Extemal Source issues identification Extemal source issues were identified and documented in the following three steps: idemification of extemal source documents, e source document review and preparation of issue records /DIRs, and e consolidation ofindividual issues into issue groups. e The initial identification of source documents focused on documents which included summaries of relevant issues, particularly information either presented to, or originated by, the Atomic and Safety Licensing Board (ASLB). ASLB hearing transcripts were used as a basic source of information. In addition to the ASLB hearing transcripts, filings with the board by the NRC staff, l Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric, previously Texas Utilities Geneinicg Company () or TUGCO), Citizens Associationfor Sound Energy (CASE), and Cygna Energy Services (Cygna) wer:: included. The documents also encompassed transcripts of meetings between any of I TN-87-7261 3-1 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

Y IDENTIP/ EXTERNAL REVIEW UCENSNG SOURCE DOCUMENTS COMMITMENT DOCUMENTS < r P REVIEW DOCUMENTS & 1 PREPAREISSUE DEVELOP CRITERIA UST RECORDS /DIRs I 1 P 1 P DEVELOP CHECKUST AND IN N N EVALUATION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ev.w.STUDES AND GENERIC CALCLAATIONS ,l PROCEDURES s VAUDATION PROCEDURES AND ISSUE RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY 7 DOCUMENT THIRD PARTY REVEW N ENGNEERNG EVALUATIONS AND CHECKUSTS v SUMMARIZE CONCLUSIONS N RESULTS REPORT MGURE 3-1 THIRD PARTY OVERVEW ACTIVITIES O TN47 7261 32 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

the above-mentioned parties, the NRC Sqfety Evaluadon Report (NUREG 0797) and i Supplements thereto (SSERs), and the Cygna reports and letters resulting fmm the Independent Assessment Program (IAP). A listing of all source documents used by the 'Ihird Party for externalissue identi8 cation is provided as Attachment A. Each source document listed in Attachment A was reviewed, and extemal sopu issues were documented on Issue Records to capture a minimum of one citation of each istinct issue. For every Issue Record, a DER was issued to assist the ' third Party in tracking closure of the issue. ' The document reference and specific page(s) on which the issue is discussed were recorded on i cach DIR. Following the identification and documentation of each individual issue, DIRs related to conduit /suppons were grouped into common issue categories. 'Ihere were 29 such categories. Extemal source issues were not evaluated for safety significance since the Project is performing a 100% design validation of conduit / supports and has incorporated issue resolution directly into the 'I design validation procedures. In essence, all issues have been treated as potentially safety significant and addressed accordingly. 3.1.2 Design Criteria / Commitments identification Introduction The Ihird Party identified design criteria and commitments applicable to CPSES conduit / supports to establish acceptance criteria for the review of Project procedures and supportmg documents. The Third Party reviews were conducted using either engmeering evakaations or checUists to evaluate compliance with these established criteria and commitments. Review. Methodology The design criteria and comsnitments applicat le to CPSES conduit / supports were identified from a review of the FSAR, applicable Regulatory Guides, and referenced industry codes and standards. This was done as part of the Thini Party identification of all Civil /Strucmral design criteria and commarmanen applicable to DSAP VIII activities. This effort resulted in the development of the design criteria list DAP-CR C/S-001 [Ref. 7.4.2j. The criteria and commitments applicable to CPSES conduit / supports are a subset of this criteria list. The design critrsia fbr conduithuppons were then collectively evaluated for completeness, accuracy, and cannianmary. This was accomplished using the Design Criteria Review Checklist DAP-CLA-C/S-012 [R<f. 7.4J). In order to facilitate daantad assessment of conduit / supports design validation procedures, special studies, and genenc calculations, two Design Review Evaluation Checklists (DAP Form Numbers C/S-S132 and C/S-S133) were developed. This was done by tailonng the general criteria for conduit / supports review. Applicable criteria were broadened imo checklist attributes, as appropriate, by stating the specific requirements of the codes, standards, or regulatory guides. Additional attributes related to extemal source issues and adequacy of methodology were also incorporated into the checklist form. l ~ Application of the Design Review Evaluation Checklist to a specific design procedure document involved nueamient of the document's compliance with the checklist attributes. For each A i \\ l TN 87 7261 33 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

l ~ attribute, the reviewer determined if the design was i'1 compliance with design commitments. If i i compliance was sadsfactory, the reviewer indicated " SAT " If the design was not in compliance, or was indeterminate, the disposition was "UNSAT." Each UNSAT or group of UNSATs was j followed by issuance of a Dhrscy/ Issue Resolution (DIR) Repon that documented the J Andmg for future evaluation and closure tracking An attribute that was not applicabic to the specinc document or design was marked "N/A." If an attribute was outside the dennui scope of leview, it was marked "N/C" (Not Checked), indicating that it was not evaluated. Most documents were reviewed using checklists. Due to their format, several documents were ). reviewed'using engmeering evaluadons. Where engmeering evaluations were used to review specinc documents, the evaluadon assessed the document's compliance with speciSc acceptance criteria that were applicable for that evaluation. If an item wu found to be unsausfactory, a j Discrepancy / Issue Resolution (DIR) Repon was issued to 6'a*at the finding for future l evaluation and closure trackmg. 1 I Engineering evaluations were also used to summarize the Third Pany review of the nye main { activities of the Ebasco design validation program: l Engin***mg walkdown e ]

• Support capacity validation i

a Junction box capacity validation e

• Spanallowablesmdies
• Isometricdrawingvalidation O

3.1.3 As-Built Procedures Review introduction Design validation of mruhut/suppons is based on as-built information for 100 percent of the conduit systems mawled in CPSES Units 1 and 2. 'Ihe program for ahe= Ming as-built i information was undertake by the Project (Rhnam) in response to external source issues that quesconed the concladon of the original design drawings for Unit I and common to the actual constructed conditions. The purpose of this program is to assure that the information used in design validation (e.g., conduit geometry and support structural detals), accurately represents CPSES conduit systems. In Unit 1, the isometnc walkdown package consists ofisometric drawings and red-lined drawings for every support. All attribuses considered important to design validation of the support are to be recorded. In all cases, the suppon location is to be recorded on an isometric drawing of the conduit run. For conduit runs covered by thermal insulation, the thermal insulation on suppons is to be removed where necessary to provide access to attributes na e_ y to the design validation. In Unit 2, an isometric drawing, including a drawing of all non generic suppons, is to be generated for each installed conduit run. In Unit 2, the conduit / supports are to be k5+'M by TU Electric QC agamst the isometric drawings to conarm the accuracy of the documented informanon and also to check for O construction quality attributes. In Unit 1, the as-built information (sketches, drawmss, etc.) is to be checked at a surveillance level by the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program. TN-87-7261 34 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1 l

9 Review Metb.odology 'Ihe Tlurd Pany review of the program for obuuning as-built information included the review of TU Electric engmeering walkdown procedures, and those special studies related to inaccessible attnbetes, (i.e., attributes that are physically inaccessible and cannot be visually examined). The scope of this review was limited to examining the ad 7 of the engmeering walkdown - procedures for those attributes of conduit /suppons that are specifically related to design. The Tlurd Party review was performed using engineering evaluations. 'Ihe acceptance criteria for procedure reviews reflected the 'Ihird Pany's identification of the physical attributes important to design. The specinc Project procedures reviewed and the corresponding DAP documentation are listed in Attachment C. I I 3.1.4 Design Validation P.ocedures Review i l Introduction Ebasco has developed procedures to govem the conduit / supports design validadon program. ) 'Ihese procedures denne and control the design validadon pmcess, the imerfaces, and the ' { technicalmethods so be employed. l l Review Methodology L The Third Pany review of speciSc procedures was implemented using checklists or engmeering evaluations. "Ihe decision regardmg whether to use a checklist or an engmeering evaluanon was { based on the format and coment of the document bems reviewed. As discussed previously in i Section 3.1.2, the checklist that was used for design validanon procedures review included additional auributes that specifically address extemal source issues and requirements or restrictions imposed by special studies (i.e., studies that served as the derivation of procedural methods). J 'Ihe specific Ebasco procedures reviewed and the correepanding DAP documentation are listed in Attachment C. 3.1.5 Sp'ecial Studies and Generic Calculations Review introduction l Ebasco p%E.e4 special studies to support the methodology contained in the procedures for design validation of conduit / supports and generic calculations to qualify standard { conduit / supports. 'Ihe special studies provide a basis for a number of the technical methods and j assumptions that are included in the pmcedures or are used to resolve specific extemal source -{ issues. The generic calculations provide the basis for the support capacities and allowable span lengths given on the gerwric S-0910 and S2@10 drawings. Review Methodology The Third Pany review of special studie.s and generic calculations was implemented using l 1 checklists and engineering evaluations. The acceptance criteria were derived as described in 1 l 1 TN-87-7261 3-5 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1 j

Section 3.1.2 above, as well as additional criteria deerned by the reviewer to be pertinent to the special study. All of the special studies developed by Ebasco for resciution of extemal source issues were reviewed by the Third Pany. A selection of special studies and generic calculations supporung their procedures were also reviewed. l The speciSc Ebasco special studies and generic calculations that were reviewed and the corrmpanding DAP documentation are listed in Attachment C. 3.1.6 Test Programs Review introduction A series of test programs were perfonned by Project in support of the conduit / supports design validation program. These tests were perfonned to resolve extemal source issues and to provide information and data required for specific component qualificarics, lhe tests were defined and controlled by test specifications. Three tests were perfonned by Corporare Conndring and Development Company, Ltd. (CCL) and were as follows: Static tests of Unistmt supports and components

• Stade and cyclic tests of conduit clamps Static s4 cyclic tests of conduit efiny e

i One additional test has been defined to invesdgate the dynamic behavior of conduit clamps. This j test is bems performed by Anco Engineers,Inc. (ANCO). None of the resula of this test are 1 cunently used as a basis for conduit / supports design validation and, as such, this test is not i included in the scope of Third Party review. In all cases, the organization perfornung the asung developed their test procedures from the test specifications, conducted the tests, and produced test reports. The CCL test results have been used by Ebasco in related studies and/or have been incorponted into their procedures for design validation. Review Methodology 1he Third Party review of the matic tests of Unistrut suppens and components included the review of the test prd== and results. The Third Party review of the CCL static and cyclic tests of condmt clamps included review of the test procedures and results. For the static and 1 cyclic tests of the nanMt eping=, the Third Party review included only the test specification { and test W"e.1h se lhird Party reviews were performed using engmeering evaluations. The test specifications and procedures were evaluated for their capability of achiere specified objectives of the tem programs. The results were reviewed to verify that the tests were perfonned in accordance with the procedures and that required data are documented in the test reports. Ebasco studies of test results were also reviewed by the Third Party as described in Secdon 3.1.5. The specific test program documents that were reviewed and the coge+;-: dag DAP documentation are listed in Attachment C. i - O TN-87 7261 36 D AP-RH-C/S-002. REV.1

1' I h 3.1,7 issue Resolution Review i The Tidrd Party activities associated with the review of extemal source issue resolution methodologies included the review of Ebasco procedures, special audies, generic calculanons, and test program itsults as they relate to each issue group. These reviews were performed as an integrated part of the Third Party review activities previously des::ribed in Sections 3.1.3 through 3.1.6. 3.2 Results The results of the 'Ihird Party review are described separately for each overview activity in the following sections. 3.2.1 Extemal Source issues identification From the review of extemal source documents listed in Attachment A, approximately 60 issues related to conduit / supports were identified. Most of these issues were identified from the review of Cygna documents generated as part of the IAP. A number of the same issues and a few add'tionalissues were also identifled in ASLB prege transcripts, the NRC CPSES Safbty Evaluation Report, and public meeting transcripts. The extemal source issue groups were amrahhahed based on the 29 gmupmss tth Cygna had used, since their hunaars were the primary source of all issues and y.vnded tne most comprehensive desenpdon of conduit / supports issues. The issue smups and the co.E-;-#ng i h DIRs that were generated so document and track'the issues are prenantad in Attachment B. It is v noted that a specific DIR runnhar may appear under more than one issue smup. This indicates that certain aspects of the issue relate to differem gmups. ) The extemal source ! sues can be classified into two broad categories of concems:

• concems that a specific FSAR technical comminnent, induary code or standard requirement.or regulasory posidon was not implemented in design methods, and
• cot.: ems that as-built conditions were not adequately reconciled with the design.

There is sufficient information for each concem in the public record (documents lined in l Attachment A) to enable the Third Party to delinette each issue. The list of documents reviewed is extensive and some repetition exias, providing a high degree of assurance that all extemal source issues /concems have been idemified. 3.2.2 Design Criteria / Commitments identification The design criteria for conduit / supports explicitly delineated in the CPSES criteria and commitment source documents were detennined to be consistem with the expected level of detail generally provided in the industry in such documents for conduit / supports. Many of the detailed criteria werc derived fmm the AISC and AISI specifications that were specified in the FSAR as L the goveming documents for structural steel design. Based on the results of the Design Criteria review haantad in Checklin DAP-CLA-C/S-012 ' r5 [Ref. 7.4.3], the Third Party concluded that the Criteria List (DAP-CR-C/S-001) [Ref 7.4.2], lV together with the extraction of detailed criteria fmm the committed codes and standards, provides a complete, consistent, and adequate set of design criteria for conduit / supports. TN-87 7261 37 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1 g

1 .O s.2.s ^= sui'i erocedures aevie-The results of the Third Party review of the TU Electric engineering walkdown promdures for Unit I and Unit 2 are documented in Engineering Evaluations DAP E-C/S-301 and DAP-E-C/S-302 [Refs. 7.4.12 and 7.4.13]. These reviews identified apparent discrepancies which were documented in DIRs and communicated to Project. All Third Party concems related to the as-built procedures have been satisfactorily resolved by Project. The results of the Third Party review of the Project's methods for detennining attribute documentation coverage and for dispositioning inaccessible conduit / supports attributes a documented in DAP E-C/S-309 and DAP E C/S-310 [Refs. 7.4.20 and 7.4.21]. All Third Party concems related to inaccessible auributes have been satisfactorily resolved by the Project. In summary, it is concluded that the engineering walkdown procedures are adequate and if properly implemented, will result in ohraining attributes for design validaten of conduits / supports that accurately represent as-built conditions at the CPSES. 3.2.4 Design Validation Procedures Review 'Ihe results of the Third Party review of Ebasco's procedures are documented in completed checkhsts and engmeerms evaluations. The prmeipal Ebasco design validaten activities are summarized in Engmeering Evaluations DAP E-C/S-305, DAP-E-C/S-307 DAP-E-C/S-311, DAP E C/S-312, DAP-E-C/S-313, and DAP E-C/5-314 [Refs 7.4.16,7.4.18,7.2.22,7.4.23, 7.4.24 and 7.4.25]. Additional procedures and the co.wung 1hird Party documentation are listed in Attachment C. The review consisted of several cycles of procedure review performed as new revisions were issued. A number of apparent discrepancies were identified as a result of these reviews, documented in DIRs and communicated to Pmject. All'!hird Party concerns related to Ebasco's design validation promdures have been satisfactorily resolved thmugh procedme revisions or Ebasco's provision ofjusufying informadon. In summary, it is concluded that Ebasco's design validation pracad=s are adap== and, if properly implemented, will fulfill PSAR and licensmg commitments. 3.2.5 Special Studies and Generic Calculations Review l The Third Party review of special studies and gerwric calculations performed by Ebasco are documemed in chacMisra and engineering evaluations. The specific studies and generic calculations reviewed and the corrapanding Third Party documentation are listed in Artehment C. Concerns raised by these reviews were documented in DIRs and communicated to Project. All DIRs have been satisfactorily resolved either through revisions to the pertinent special studies, the associated procedures, generic calculations, or Ebasco's provision of otherjustifying information. { In summary, it is concluded that the special studies performed by Ebasco provide the information needed to support the use of their design procedures and/or adequately resolve specific extemal O -i-y.m, 3.. ..se.c,S.. ev.,

so: i l 3.2.6 Test Programs Review The Third Pany review of test procedures and results is documented in Engineering Evaluations DAP E-C/S-304, DAP E-C/S 308, and DAP E C/S-316 [Refs. 7.4.15,7.4.19 and 7.4.27]. Third Party review of test procedures determined that the objectives of the test programs were met. Third Party evaluation of test repons determined that the test procedures were executed properly and that the test results are accurately presented and are sufficient to meet the test program objectives. Studies and evaluations of the test results made by Ebasco were also reviewed by the Third Party and are listed in Attachment C together with the corresponding Third Party documentation. In summary, it is concluded that the conduit / supports test programs have been performed adequately and provide the data required for design validation and issue resolution. 3.2.7 Issue Resolution Review The results of the Third Pany review of the Project's methodology for the resolution of extemal source issues are presented in individual subsections below for each of the 29 issue groups. These include a description of the issue, a descripdon of the Project's resolution methodology, a j discussion of the 'Ihird Pany evaluadon, and a conclusion. For clarity of presentation, specific references to Project documents reviewed and the corr **pandina Durd Pany documents that detail the issue resolution are often omitted in the text. Instead, these documents are listed in Attachment C and croat referenced to each external source issue as appropriate. This cross-referencmg is limited to those documents which serve as the primary basis forissue resolution. 3.2.7.1 Goveming Load Case for Design ISSUE DESCRIPTION In the original design of CPSES conduit supports, the Operatmg Basis Earthquake (OBE) was assumed by Gibbs & Hill to be the goveming seismic load case for all support components (e.g., members, welds, and ardus.gss). This astumption was based on the 60% increase in OBE allowables permitted by the FSAR [Ref 7.1.1] for Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) design of most structural steel components. Concems have been raised reganimg the use of the OBE as the goveming load case, since the 60% increase in allowables is not appropriate for some support components (e.g., Richmond Insens and Hilti expansion anchors). RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY Ebasco addressed this issue l'y validating the design of all conduit and junction box suppons and their components for both OBE and SSE load cases. THIRD PARTY EVALUA110N The Third Party review of Ebasco's design criteria [Refs. 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.23, and 7.2.4] confinned that the design of all conduit and junction box supports and their components are required to be validated for both OBE and SSE load cases. O TN 87-7261 3-9 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1 L_-______-___-_-_____--_--

1' CONCLUSION Ebasco's design validation of suppons for both the OBE and SSE load cases adequately addresses the concerns raused in this issue. The issue of governing load case for design is closed. 3.2.7.2-Dynamic Amplification Factors ISSUE DESCRIPTION l In the original design of conduit suppons, Gibbs & Hill determined the seismic response using an equivalent static analysis with a dynamic amplification factor (DAF) of 1.0 times the peak of the goveming design spectrum. Since the FSAR [R(. 7.1.1] required a DAF of 1.5, concerns have been raised reganiing the use of a DAF of 1.0. Addidonaljustification is needed. RESOLUTION METH000 LOGY The conduit support designs have been validated by the Equivalent Static Method (ESM) using a DAF. If the conduit system frequency is less than or equal to the frequency at the spectrum's peak, the seismic response is determined by multiplying the peak ordmate of the design spectrum by a DAF of 1.5. If the conduit system frequency is greater than the frequency at the spectrum's peak, the seismic response is determined by multiplying the design spectma ordmate at that frequency by a DAFof 1.25. Response spectrum analyses that envelope the combinanon of conduit wungurdbre and span lengths allowed by S-0910 and S2 0910 generic drawing packages (Rd. 7.2.112 and 7.2.113] I have been pr.rformed tojustify a DAF of 1.25. The analyses have generally confinned the applicabdity of the DAF used for the systems under consideration. However, cenam span combinations resulted in dynactic amplificadon factors higher than that uriti=1 For these cases, the design acceleradons have been increased to reflect the results of the respmse spectrum analyses. The design of electricaljunction boxes has been validated by using the ESM with 1.5 times peak spectral acaleration or by usmg a Response Spectrum Method (RSM) analysis. THIRD PARTY EVALUATION The 'Durd Pany review of Ehesco's design criteria [R$. 72.1 and 7.2.2) confirmed their commitment to justify DAPs less than 1.5 by performing envelopmg response spectrum analyses. Ebasco's deman iw=-: t_ [Rd. 7.2.7 and 7.2.16] provide appropriate guidelines to perform systems analyses and to confirm the DAF used in the ESM. The 1hird Party review of Ebasco's juncuon box design crheria [Rd. 7.23 and 7.2.4] confirmed that appropriate seismic input is bemg used forjunction box qualificanon. The 'Ihlrd Pany review of Ebasco's generic calculations [R$. 7.2.76, 7.2.77, 7.2.78, 7.2.97, 7.2.98,7.2.103,7.2.104) confirmed that the DAF used in the ESM analysis of conduit supports for conduit configurations and span lengths given in the S-0910 and S2-0910 generic drawing packages have beenjusufled by performing envelopmg response spectrum analyses. CONCLUSION Ebasco's generic calculations procedures and related generic calculations adequately address all concems raised by this issue. The issue of dynamic amplification factors is closed. ' TN 87-7261 3-10 DAP-RR C/S 002, REV.1

1 3.2.7.3 ~ Combination of Deadweight and Seismic Response . ISSUE DESCRIPTION In the Gibbs & Hill calculadons, a 1.0g acceleradon for dead load was added to the vertical seismic acceleration. The response to this loadmg was then improperly combmed with the response to the horizontal seismic acceleration components using the SRSS method. RESOLUTIONMETHOOOLOGY Ebasco adds the dead load response to the SRSS combination of the three orthogonal seismic response components considering both the positive and negative sign of the seismic resultant. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION 1he 1hird Party review of Ebasco's design criteria and guidelines [Refs. 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4, 7.2.11, and 7.2.15] confinned that the dead load is required to be added algebraically to the SRSS combination of responses to the three orthogonal seismic components. CONCLUSION Ebasco's design validation procedures adequately address the issue of combmadon of deadweight and seismic response.1his issue is closed. 3.2.7.4 Measurement of Embedmont from Top of Topping ISSUE DESCRIPTION Note 5a on Sheet G.4a of the original S-0910 drawmgs [Rgf. 7.2.112] allowed the 2 inch concrete topping thir*nman to be considered in detennining the embedment length of anchor bolts at certain locadora.1he concem raised was that the integrity of the concrete topping cannot be assured and that the Gibbs & Hill calculanons have not considered the reduced anchor bolt embedment. 'Ihis issue applies to Unit I and common areas only. RESOLUTIONMETHOOOLOGY All supports with anchor bois located in 2 inch concrete topping are bems identified and design validated with a 2-inch reducnon of embedment length. Anchor bolts embedded only in concrete toppmg and those that do not meet the anchor bolt acceptance criteria are being r=I=d. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION 1he 1hird Party review of Ebasco's design criteria [Ref. 7.2.2] conArmed the requirement to exclude the 2-inch concrete toppmg in the determination of embedment length for anchor bolts. { 1he Third Party review of the walkdown procedures [Rgfs. 7.1.4 and 7.1.5] confirmed that { adequate instructions have been given to identify and determine the embedment of anchor bolts. CONCLUSION Ebasco's approach to resolution of this concem is acceptable. The issue of measurement of embedment from top of concrete toppmg is closed. ) <O. TN-87 7261 3 11 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

3.2.7.5' Bolt Hole Tolerance and Edge Distance Violation ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised regarding bolt hole tolerances and edge distances used in the original Gibbs & Hill designs. The specific concerns are as follows:

• Bolt Hole Tolerance -1he original S@l0 drawings [Ref. 7.2.112] allow bolt hole tolerances that vary with the bolt size. However, the AISC Specification [Ref. 7.5.1] does not specify bolt hole tolerances, but does allow bolt hole diameters to be 1/16 inch larger than the correspondmg nominal bolt diameters. Therefore, the bolt holes in the Gibbs &

Hill designs should be considered overszed and should be treated as such in beanng connection calculations. i

• Edge Distance Violation - The AISC Specification [Ref. 7.5.1] requires an increase in edge dimance for oversized bolt holes over that required for standard bolt holes. Some Gibbs & Hill designs do not provide the minimum edge distance required in the AISC Specification for oversized bolt holes.

RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY The following methods were used by Fhanen to address the concerns discussed above:

• Bolt Hole Tolerance

- Few steel-to steel boled connections are present in conduit supports since welded configurations are predominant. Critical two bolt steel-to steel connecdons have been O investigated [Rg 7.2.42] with regard to the effect of bolt hole overnze and have been found to be adequate. i - For base plate-to-concrete connecdons, Ebesco obtained a determination from AISC [Ref. 7.53] that the provisions of tin. AISC Specift:ation [Kg 7.5.1] are intended for steel-to-steel connections and do not apply to base plates. However Ebasco has generically considend the effect of oversized bolt holes on these connecnons in the I cable tray hanger design validation program.1he cable tray hanger study (Ref. 7.2.52] was amemadad to address the oversize bolt hole issue for conduit supports. 'Ihese studies conclude that the effects of oversized bolt holes are not significant and can be ignored in design validation of base angles and base pines of conduit supports. - 1he effect of overste bolt holes in critical connections of individually designed suppore is addressed on a case-by-case basis.

• Edge Distance Violation

- Por steel-to steal connecdons and smel to concrete connections, Phaarn performed special studies [Rgs. 7.2.40 and 7.2.75] to evaluate the effects of edge distance violanons. These studies concluded that violation of minimum edge distances as allowed by design does not lower the capacity of conduit supports. Violations beyond those permitted by design are bemg evaluated during the support design validation. - For conduit clamps, testmg has been perfonrad to establish allowable capacities for design validation. The tests (see also Section 3.2.7.18) are representative of as-built conditions, including edge distance violations. O TN-87-7261 3 12 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1

I I -THIRO PARTY EVALUATION 1he'!hird Party reviews of the Ebasco procedures and studies that address the ovenized bolt hole and edge distance issues are discussed below. Bolt Role Tolerance - The Third Party review of Ebasco's special study on oversized bolt holes in steel-to-steel connections (Ref. 7.2.42) confirmed that the effects of bolt hole oversize have been appropriately considered. - ;"Ihe Third Pany concurs with the findmgs of Ebasco's special studies for steel to-concrete connections (Refs. 7.2.42, 7.2J2, and 7.2.74] which concluded that the effects of oversized bolt holes can be ignored in design validation of base angles and base plates of conduit supports. - The Third Pany review of Ebasco's technical guidelines (R$. 7.2.11 and 7.2.15] confirmed that adequate instructions are in place to evaluate the impact of oversized l bolt holes on individually designed support connections. l Edge Distance Violation e - The 1hird Party review of Ebasco's special sedies for steel-to-steel and steel-to-concrete connections [Rd. 7.2.40 and 7.2.75] confirmed that violadon of mimmum edge distance allowed by design does not lower the capacity of conduit supports. The - Third Pany review of the walkdown procedures [Rd. 7.1.4 and7.1.5] confinned that adequate instructions have been given to gather information necessary to calculate edge d=ar* The 1hird Pany review of Ebasco's technical guidahnas [Rgf. 7.2.11] confinned that adequate instmetions are in place to evaluate edge distance violations. l The Third Pany review of the static and cyclic test of clamps at CCL [Rd. 73J and 73.4) indicates that the effect of reduced edge distances has been addressed. The test results have been properly unlized to establish clamp capacities for design validation. CONCLUSCN Ebasco's design validation p-A_=es and related special smdies and tests adequately address all concems raised in this issue. The issue of bolt hole tolerance and edge distance violation is closed. 3.2.7.6 FSAR Load Combinations ISSUE DESCRIP110N A concern was raised that the loads that result from normal operating and accident temperatures as well as fmmjet impingement and pipe whip have not been explicitly considered in the conduit support design. Furthermore, the design accelerations that envelope the Containment Building and Internal Structure Spectra have not been used for the design verification of conduit systems. RESOLUTCNMETHODOLOGY v L i. The TU Electric Systems Interaction Program has the responsibility for identification of safety-related conduit runs that are susceptible to loads resulting from pipe whip, jet impmgement, and missiles (including tomado missiles, wind, etc.). Ebasco has the responsibility for mitigating the TN-87 7261 3-13 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

i . y effects of such loading on these conduit mns, either by relocanng the conduit or by notifying the Q Civil / Structural Corrective Action Program (C/5-CAP) that shielding is required. A generic study of the thermal effects on conduit supports and junction boxes has been performed to demonstrate that concrete anchorages are not loaded beyond their allowable capacities for normal operating thermal conditions and remain within their ultimate deflection capabilities for 1 the accident case. Design "g" values for support capacity validation have been established per building and elevation for Unit 1. For Unit 2, the design "g" values envelope acceleration values for smups of ftor elevations. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The Third Party review of Ebasco design criteria [Rd. 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.23 and 7.2.4] has confinned that appmpnate load combmations are being used by Ebasco. The Third Party concurs that appropnardj designing, shielding or re routing of all conduits potent l ally affected by postulated pipe-whip, jet :=W =( missiles or wind loads adequately resolves concems for f these loads. The Third Fany has reviewed the differential temperatures fbr operadng and accident case' given s in the technical guiMinas for thermal analysis [Rd. 7.2.8 and 7.2.9]. These differendal 4 temperatures are conservative and consistant with CPSES criteria. The acciders differential temperature is justifled by thermal studies summarized in Appendix A of the technical guidelines for thermal analysis [Rd. 7.2.8 and 7.2.9]. i The Third Party avview of generic studies [Rd. 7.2.45,7.2.46,7.2.47,7.2.48,7.2.49,7.2.60, 7.2.61, 7.2.62, 7.2.63, 7.2.64, 7.2.65, 7.2.66, 7.2.68, and 7.2.69] confinned that conduit supports are acceptable for the operstmg thermal load case. The Third Party review of the generic study [R<f. 7.2.67] Ibr the accident thermal load case confirmed that the concrete expansion anchon used fbr most of the generic support types and junction boxes will have an adequale minimum safety margin against ultimate dY-a* For certain support types and conduit configurasians, Ebasco will perform a case-by case thermal expansion analysis. The Third Party review of Ebasco's technical guidelines (Rd. 7.2.10 and 7.2.14] confirmed that adequase guidelines exist fbr identifying these case-ty-case exceptions and performing the appmpriate thermal exper;sion analysis. The Third Party teview of Ebasco design criteria [Rd. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2] confinned that appropnase det!gn "g" values are --iMad for seismic analysis. CONCLUSCN All applicable loads, as defined in CPSES FSAR are explicitly considered in the conduit / supports design validation. The TU Electnc Systems Interaction Pmgram has the responsibility for identifying all conduit runs that are potentially affected by pnandanad pipe. whip,jeg impingement, minaW, or wind loads. Ebasco has the responsibility for midgating the effects of such loading on these conduit runs, either by relocanng the conduit or by notifying the C/S-CAP that shieldmg is required. The thermal aspect of this issue has been addressed by generic studies for operating and accident thermal loads on supports and junction boxes. The design acceleration aspect of this issue has been addressed by Ebasco's methodology for using envelop design "g" values. TN-87-7261 3 14 DAP.RR-C/S.002, REV.1

y 1 1 h The ism of PSAR load combinations is closed, with the understandmg that the TU Electric QA V Technical Audit program will overview the implementation and the C/S CAP. 3.2.7,7 Support Self Weight ISSUE DESCRIPTION k In the original Gibbs & Hill designs, the suppon loads due to the support self weight were not calculated consistently. The suppon weight was completely or panially ignored. RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco addressed this issue by consistently and appropriately considenng suppon self weight in all conduit support design validations. THIRO PARTYEVALUATION The Third Pany review of Ebasco's design criteria (Agfs. 7.2.1,7.2.2, 7.23, and 7.2.4] confinned that suppon self weight is required to be included in the analysis of all conduit and junction box suppons. CONCLUSION Ebasco has inclu&d consideration of suppon self weight in their design validation of conduit suppons. '!he issue of support self weight is closed. 3.2.7.8 Torsion of Unistrut Members ISSUE DESCRIPTION Gibbs & Hill did not consider tormonal loadmg of Unistrut members in the original conduit support designs. Since the manufacturer does not support the use of Unistrus shapes for torsional loading and since analysis of the asymmetrical Unistrui mctions is dif6 cult, a testing program was initiated to qualify the suppons using these members. The selection of testmg configurations, emahlidung loading magnitude and directions, test grouping, loading in the clamp assembly, the effect of applicable generic and suppon specific de. sign changes are cp=miM in the qualification test program. This issue applies to Unit 1 and common areas only since there are no Unistrut suppom in Unit 2. RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY Ebasco addreased this issue by 1) evaluating the test results against all applicable concems,2) performing calculations to reduce the test data to results that can be used in the evaluation of suppons, and 3) replacing those Unistrut supports that exhibited significant reduction in capacity. As a result of this effort, all Unistmt supports except CA 1, CA-2, CA 8, JA-1, JA 2 rui JA 3 series will be replaced. CA-type and JA type supports consist of Urustrut or structural steel sections attached directly to concrete that support conduit andjunction boxes, respectively. This resolution pertains to Unistrut sections only. O TN 87 7261 3 15 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

THIRO PAR 7Y EVALUATION 'Ihe Tlurd Party review of the CCL Unistrut test program [Rg 73.2] and Ebasco support ) capacity calculations for the CA-type and JA type Unistrut supports [Refs. 7.2.109,7.2.110, and 7.2.111] confirmed that conservative capacities are being used for those Unistrut configurations that are not being replaced. The Unistrut testmg program was not intended to qualify the clamps used in the tests. Clamp-related concems are addressed in the CCL clamp testing program [Refs. 1 733 and 7.3.4, see Secdon 3.2.7.18). CONCLUSION \\ Ebasco has adequately addressed tte concems raised under this issue. The issue of Unistrut membersloaded in torsionis closed. 3.2.7.9 Improper Use of Catalog Components ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised regarding the use of catalog components in the original Gibbs & Hill design of conduit supports. The following is a summary of these concems.

• AISC Derbed Allowables 'Ihe AISI Code [Ref. 7.5.2], rather than the AISC Specification [R( 7.5.1], should be used for thin wall structural members such as Unistrut.

Components Used in Ways Not Intended by the Vendors - Various Unistrut O' components and Superstrut clamps were used in non-standard configurations, i.e., the application of these panicular components was not consistent with the use intended by the vendor. As such, the components were subjected to load conditions for which there were no pubhshed allowable capacities. RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco has addressed this issue by analyzmg each generic support usmg the proper design code, i.e., the AISC SMa% [Rg 7.5.1] for structural shapes and ttw AISI Code [R(. 7.5.2] for Unistrut scetions. 'Ihe capacities of Unistrut-type suppons that are not being replaced have also been detemuned by tests (see Secdon 3.2.7.8) supplemersed by analysis. Allowables for catalog components, if not supphed by the manufacturer, have also been antahliehed by test, or else the catalog component has been replaced with a qualified component. An excepoon is the allowable loads for the Nelson studs that are not used in conduit clamps. 'Ihese allowables are derived by treating theun as threaded fasteners in accordance with the AISC Specification (see Section 3.2.7.20). THIRD PARTYEVALUATION 'Ihe T!urd Pany review of Ebssco's design criteria (Refs. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2] confirmed that the proper design codes are being used in the design of conduit supports. The Third Party review of the CCL Unistrut test program [Rg 73.2] and Ebasco suppon capacity calculanons for the CA type and 1A-type Unistrut supports (Refs. 7.2.109,7.2.110, and 7.2.111) confirmed that conservative capacities are being used for those Unistrut supports which were tested and will remain as conduit and junction box supports. All Unistrut suppons not t TN 87 7261 3 16 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1 i l

f quali5ed by test will be replaced (See also Section 3.2.7.8 which defines CA type and JA-type supports). The Tlurd Party review of static and cyclic tests of conduit clamps (Refs. 73.3 and 7.3.4] confirmed that the tests are representative of as-built conditions and are suf5cient for developing design allowable capacities. For Thini Party review of the Nelson stud issue, refer to Section 3.2.7.20. CONCLUSION Ebasco has adaaiwaly addressed all concerns raised by this issue. The issue ofimproper use of catalog components is closed. 3.2.7.10 Anchor Bolta ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concerns were raised regarding Gibbs & Hill bolt designs. The following is a summary of these concerns. Prying Factors - The prymg factors for anchar bolt tension were not treated consistently and wt te not techrd:allyjusti5ed. CST-17 Type 17 Suppods -1he design of concrete connections for conduit support CST-17. Type 17 (transverse cantilever supports), did not consider the aMeional moment induced by the 3 1/2 inch eccentricity. This :ype of support is used in Unit 1 only. CA 2a Supports - Outrigger Hilti Kwik boks for CA-2a supports were assumed not to take any load (CA-type supports are denned in Section 3.2.7.8). Because of this assumption, the design drawing waives separation violations between the Hilti bolts in the outriggers and other bolts. This design assumption may not be valid. This type of supportis usedin Unit 1 only. Substitution of Richmond Inserts - Note 3 on Sh. 04a of the S 0910 =^=.** and Note 7 on Sh. G-3b of S2-0910 package allow the substitution of Richmond inserts for Hilti bolts provided that Note 2 on Sh. 04a and Note 6 on Sh. G 3b, respectively, remain satis 5ed. This substitution may result in lower bolt / insert capacities than in the original desig:L RESOLUTDNMETH000 LOGY The respanniWiity of resolving concems related to Gibbs & Hill's " Structural Emhadmerus" Speci5 cation 2323-55 30 has been assigned by TU Electric to the Civil / Structural portion of the l Conective Action Tip,-. which is being performed by Stone and Webster Ra i-adng Corporation (SWEC). The following summarizes Ebasco's resolution of other concems raised with respect to anchorage and/or bolt design: Prying Factors - Prymg factors have been established for various generic sizes of base e angles and base plates through a finite element analysis that considers base angle or base plate stiffbess, anchor bolt stiffness, and concrete stiffness. The prying factors have been O specified in the design validation procedures (Refs. 7.2.11 and 7.2.15]. When the generic sizes of base angles and baseplates are not applicable, an individual analysis is being performed. TN-87-7261 3-17 DAP-RR-C/S 002, REV.1 i

i i l b CST-17, Typt 17 Supports - All of these types of suppons are being replaced or _t removed.- CA 2a Supports - Capacities of the CA 2a suppons have been established by test. Revised Ebasco drawings do not permit the use of outriggers with CA 2a supports. The calculations which established the allowables for CA4ype suppons from the test results have considered potential Hilti bolt spacing violations. Substitution of Richusend Inserts - All supports will be evaluated in their as-built condition for the impact of substitution of Richmond Insens. Design criteria for both ) l units reauires evaluation of spacing violations between Hilti Kwik bolts and Richmond Inserts. THIRD PARTY EVALUATION Prying Factors - The Third Party review of Ebasco design critclia (Refs. 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, and 7.2.4] confirmed that acceptable methods are specified for evaluation of prying action on bolts. The Third Pany review of Nam's Unit 2 special study for conduit support anchorage [Ref. 7.2.58] conArmed that an w+Fhl: approach was used to establish prying factors. These results have been incorporated in Ebasco's technical guidelines for Unit 2 (Ref. 7.2.15]. The Thud Pany review of Ebasco technical guidelines for Unit 1 [Ref. 7.2.111 con 8rmed that prymg factors have been included for generic sizes of base angles and baseplates and 'q that an acceptable approach has been specified to evaluate other types. The prying A/ factors included in the technical guidelmes are taken from an Ebasco cable tray hanger special study (Ref. 7.2.121]. The Tlurd Pany review of this dw.u erd is discussed in DAP RR-C/S-001 [Rg. 7.4.11]. CST 17, Type 17 Supports - 1he Third Pany confirmed that these suppons are being replaced or removed. CA 2a Supports -1he Third Pany review of the CCL Unistrut test program (Ref. 7.3.2] and Nam support sp uy calculations for the CA-type Urustrut suppon [Refs. 7.2.109 and 7.2.110] conArmed that conservative capacities have been determined for these. suppons. These calentarians take the test results divided by an appropriate factor of safety and enamWe potential Hilti specmg violanons.

• Saharataniaa of hh=aad Inserts - The Third Pany review of Ebasco's design criteria (Rd. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2] has conArmed that selected portions of 2323-SS-30 have been iewiyvi 4 directly into the criteria for evaluation of Richmond Inserts. Hence, peninent sections of Ebasco's design criteria will require revision if the C/S-CAP revises or supersedes the technical content of 2323-SS 30. The Third Party review of the walkdown procedures [Refs. 7.1.3, 7.1.4, and 7.1.5] connrmed that adequate instructions have been given to identify Richmond insert substitutions.

CONCLUSION The C/S-CAP has the responsibility for resolving anchorage and anchor bolt design concems related to Gibbs & Hill's Specification 2323 SS-30. All other concerns raised by this issue have been adequately addressed by Ebasco. The issue of anchor bolts is closed, with the understanding TN 87-7261 3 18 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

i. O i that the TU Electric QA Technical Audit program will overview the implementation of the C/S-CAP. 3.2.7.11 Longitudinal Loads on Transverse Supports ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concems were raised that the original Gibbs & Hill conduit suppoit designs did not consider longitudinal loads on transverse supports. 'lhe transverse supports may have longitudmal stiffnesses that are similar to those of the longitudinal supports. This issue applies to Unit I and common areas only, because in Unit 2, all suppons are designed as being multi-directional. RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco will validate the designs of all generic supports as multidirectional supports. All existing transverse supports will be replaced or modified to be multidirectional supports. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION Third Party review of Ebasco's design criteria [Rgfs. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2] confirmed that the design of all conduit supports is required to be validated for three directions ofload. CONCLUSION O Ebasco has aWa*=Iy addressed the concerns raised under this issue. The issue oflongitudinal loads on transverse supports is closed. 3.2.7.12 Hilti Kwik Bolt Substitutions ISSUE DESCRIPTION The original Gibbs & Hill designs allowed substitution of Hilti Kwik bolts and Super Kwik bolts shown on the drawing S4910 with those of a larger size. A concem was raised that the capacity of the substituted bolt may be less than the original bolt, since the spacing may be smaller than that required. RESOLUT}0NMETN000 LOGY A complete walkdown of Unit I conduit is being performed by Ebasco. Bolt patterns, spectngs, sizes, and emharknant lengths are being recorded on as-built drawings for every support, thus indicating any bolt substitutions. Design validadon of conduit supports will be based on these as-built drawings. 'Ihe S 0910 drawing package has been revised so as not to allow bolt substitution for future installations. For Unit 2, the S2-0910 drawing package has been revised to allow certain bolt substitutions which have been jusufled by generic studies [R<f. 7.2.72). For Unit 2 conduit mstalled prior to this change, the effect of Hilti Kwik bolt and Super Kwik bolt substitutions will be addressed during the Unit 2 design validation effort [Ref. 7.2.116]. O l mgm mm

0 l THIRO PARTf EVALUATION The 'Ihird Party review of the Ebasco special study (Ref. 7.2.72] confirmed that certain substitutions have beenjustified on a generic basis, however, other cases would require individual justification (R( 7.2.116]. The Third Party review of the walkdown procedures (Refs. 7.13, 7.1.4 and 7.1J) confinned that the procedures specify that an adN'a'a amount ofinformation be gathered to identify Hilti Kwik bolt substitutions.. 'Ihe Third pany review of Ebasco's design criteria (Refs. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2] confirmed that adequate guidelines are provided for the evaluation of substitutions that require individualjustification. CONCLUSION The methodology used to ac' dress this issue is adgn=** 'Ihe issue of Hilti Kwik bolt substitutions is closed. 3.2.7.13 Substitution of Srnaller Conduits on CA-Type Supports ISSUE DESCRIPTION The original Gibbs & Hill drawmss allowed smaller diameter conduits to be installed on CA-type suppom (CA-type suppom are defined in Section 3.2.7.8) unless specifically prohibited by the drawmgs. Since rigid response was assumed for detennining seismic loads for large (> 2-inch) diameter and peak spectral accelerations were used for small ($ 2 inch) diameter conduits, the equivalent seismic load of the small diameter conduits may. exceed those of the large diameter conduits. 'Ihis issue applies to Unit 1 and common areas only, since there are no CA type suppom in Unit 2. RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY Ebasco addressed this issue for the two differers categories of CA-type suppom: Unistrut suppons and suppom fabricated of structural shapes and plates. Unistrut supports are bemg qualified by test or analysis (see Section 3.2.7.8). The designs of CA-type supports fabricated of structural shapes and plates have been validated using only one set of seismic responses which envelope all conduit sizes. 'Ihe relevant sections of the S-0910 drawmss (Rg 7.2.112] have been updated to provide the proper support capacities. Walkdowns of the conduit runs will assure that the installed conduit nms conform with the requirements of the updated S-0910 drawings. THIRO PAR 7 DEVALUATION The Third Party review of Ebasco's design criteria (Ref. 7.2.2] confinned that Ebasco is using only one set of seismic responses for the design validation of conduit supports. (Refer to Section 3.2.7.2 for evaluation of dynamic amplification factors). 'Ihe 'Ihird Party review of the walkdown procedures (Refs. 7.1.4 and 7.1J) confirmed that appropriate procedures are in place to gather the information necessary to address this issue. The Third Party review of Ebasco's calculation [Ref. 7.2.84] and the updated revision of the S-0910 drawings (Rev. CP 1) confirmed that the capacities of CA type supports fabricated of TN-87 7261 3-20 DAP RR C/S 002, REV.1 ) 1

structural shapes and pimes have been validated using seismic loads based on flexible conduit responses. CONCLUSION ' ' The methodology used to address this issue is W~ 1he issue of substitution of smaller conduits on CA-type supports is closed. 3.2.7.14.L Use of CA-Type Supports in LS Spans ISSUE DESCRIPTION. ~ CA-type supports are used to suppon LA spans, the length of which is limited to 6 ft. CST-type and CSM-type suppos (cantilevered transverse and multi-directional suppons, respectively) are used to suppon LS spans, which can be up to 12 ft in length for transverse spans and 24 ft in length forlongitudinal spans. In field installations, when conduits run from walls to equipment in the middle of a room a transition is made between LA spans and LS spans, i.e., from a shoner span (more rigid) con 6 uration to a longer span (more flexible) configuration. 3 For CA type suppom, seismic design loads for large diameter conduits (> 2 inch diameter) were i based on the assumption of rigid response. Since the conduits were field run, CA-type suppons may be installed adjacent to multi-direcuonal suppom. The span between the two suppons is considered to be an LA span, since the span length must not exceed that specified by the design of the CA-type supports. However, the span cannot be assumed to be rigid due to the flexibility of the multi direcuonal suppon and the adjacent LS spans. 'lhis issue applies to Unit I and common areas only. RESCLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco has addressed this issue by vnMahng the design of all CA type supports using only one set of seismic responses winch envelope all conduit sizes. The LA-spans have been elimmated from the S.0910 package (Rg 7.2.112]; all spans are to be design vnManad as LS-spans. A complete engmeering walkdown of conduit runs in Unit I and common areas is bemg performed and isometnc drawings are being prepared. These isometrics are being evaluated in accordance with the S 0910 package (R<f. 7.2.112) and Ebasco technical guidelines (Ref. 7.2.10]. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The Third petty review of Ebasco's design criteria (Ref. 7.2.2] confirmed that Ebasco is using only one set of seismic responses for the design validation of conduit supports. The Third Pany review of the walkdown procedures (Refs. 7.1.4 and 7.1.5] confirmed that appropriate procedures are in place to gather the information ww y to address this issue. The Third Party review of l Ebasco's technical guidelines (Ref. 7.2.10] confirmed that adequate procedures are in place to evaluate the isometrics prepared during the walkdowns. CONCLUSION O The methodology used to address this issue is adequate. The issue of use of CA-type supports in LS spans is closed. TN-87-7261 3 21 DAP-RR-C/S 002, REV.1

t' l O 3.2.7.4 s stresses in Cable Trays Due to Attached Conduit Supports ISSUE DESCRIPTION The original Gibbs & Hill designs allowed conduit stubs (Sheet CSD-16 of original Gibbs & Hill 4 - S-0910 drawings) to be clamped to the cable tray rails. One concem was raised that the cable I tray spans and cable tray supports were not checked for the load imposed by the conduit. Another concem was raised that the cable tray attachment detail and conduit were not designed for an equivalent seismic load which considered the flexibility of the cable tray. His issue l applies to Unit I and common areas only. l RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY L Ebasco is validating the design of conduit attached to cable trays using seismic loads based on 1.5 l times peak spectral acceleration. De effect on the cable trays is bl.ing evaluated within the Cable Tray / Supports Corrective Action Program. _l THIRD PARTYEVALUATION De Third Party review of Phaarn's design Criteria [Rgf. 7.2.2] confirmed that conduit attached to cable trays are required to be design validated using 1.5 times peak spectral acceleration. The ' identificadon of conduit attached to cable trays and the evaluation of the associated cable tray stresses are being handled by the Cable Tray / Supports Corrective Action Program. Third Party review of the cable tray / supports design validation has been performed for the Cable

• O Tray / Supports Corrective Action Program and is documented in DAP-RR C/S-001 [Ref. 7.4.11J.

CONCLUSION The methodology used to address this issue is W=. De issue of stresses in cable trays due to attached conduit supports is closed. 3.2.7.16 Increases in Allowable Span Lengths ISSUE DESCRIPTION In the revised Gibbs & Hill S-0910 dmwmss, LA span lengths (spans designed for rigid response, i.e., natural frequency >33Hz) were increased by the ratio of tt.e refined to the unrefined spectra. De conduit stresses were not evaluated for the increased span length. This issue applies to Unit I and common areas only. RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY 1 Ebasco evaluated all conduit bendmg stresses for LS span lengths (flexible spans) using the l provisions of their design criteria [Ref. 7.2.2] and technical guidelines (Ref. 7.2.7]. LA spans have been elimmated from the S-0910 package. 1 THIRD PARTY EVALUATION The Third Party review of Ebasco's design criteria (Ref. 7.2.2] and technical guidelines (Ref. O 7.2.7) confirmed that appropriate criteria and procedures have been specified for design l validating conduit spans. LA spans have been eliminated from the S-0910 pacLage; all spans are being design validated as LS spans. TN-87 7261 3 22 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1 ____

l' CONCLUSION \\ Evaluation of conduit bendmg stresses for the LS span lengths adequately addresses the concems raised in this issue. De issue of increases in allowable span lengths is closed. 3.2.7.17 Substitution of Next Heavier Structural Member ISSUE DESCRIPTION A note on the original Gibbs & Hill S-0910 drawings (Ref. 7.2.112] allowed substitution of the next heavier member for the member shown on the conduit support drawmga Since suppon self weight has not been properly considered in some designs (see Section 3.2.7.7), components of the suppon may be overstressed. The issue applies to Unit I and common areas only. RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY All conduit runs are being walked down. Cases where the next heavier member has been substituted, except for tube steel members, are being noted. Since the tube steel thickness cannot be determined during these walkdowns, a special study has been performed to evaluate the effect of substitution of the next heavier member on support capacities. The generic study covers the single cantilever type and L-shape cantilever type supports. Other suppons utilizing tube steel sections are being evaluated using the weight of the next heavier member and the sectional properties of the member size shown on the design drawings. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The T!urd Party review of the walkdown procedures [Refs. 7.1.4 and 7.1.5) confirmed that the procedures specify that an eq"* amount ofinfonnation be gathered to identify and evaluate suppons where the next heavier member has been substituted. De nird Pany review of Ebasco's special studies (Refs. 7.230 and 7.2.41) confirmed that the effects of the next heavier tube steel substitution on suppon capacities have been properly assessed. De Third Party review of Ebasco's technical guidelines for isometric evaluation [Ref. 7.2.10) confirmed that the results and limitations of the special studies (Ref. 7.230 and 7.2.41] have been properly included. CONCLUSION Ebasco's walkdown procedures, special studies, and technical guiMim adequately address the concems in this issue. De issue of the substitution of the next heavier structural member is closed. 3.2.7.18 Clamp Usage ISSUE DESCRIPTION ne following concerns were raised with respect to clamp usage: I

• Clamp Modifications - Unistrut P2558 clamps may be reamed to accommodate larger l

diameter bolts. As a result of reaming the clamps, minimum edge distance requirements were violated and the washers for the larger diameter Hilti Kwik bolts will not fit properly.

• Modification of C708 S Clamps The C708-S clamps were modified by cutting off a

) portion of the clamp ears. Justification for this modification was not provided. TN 87 7261 3 23 DAP.RR-Cf3 002, REV.1

0 Clamp Distortion - Clamp distortion was noted on four conduit suppons. RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY Clamp Modifications - A conduit clamp testing program by CCL [Ref.r. 733 and 73.4] e detennmed allowables for the clamps used for conduit suppons. The test program . considered the effect of oversized bolts, edge distance violation, bolt type and size, and distonion of clamps. Ebasco reviewed these test results sad incorporated them into the design criteria for conduit suppons. i Modification of C708-S Clamps - The conduit clamp testing program by CCL [Ref. e 73.3 and 7.3.4] was used to determine allowables for the C708-S clamps considering the modifications allowed by the original Gibbs & Hill drawmss [Rd. 7.2.112 and 7.2.113]. Ebasco reviewed these tests results and incorporated them into the design criteria for conduit suppons. Clamp Distortion - The CCL test program has considered clamp distortion as a parameter for all clamps. _With the exception cf clamps anchored with 1/4-inch anchor bolts, the test programs produced results for potential clamp distornons in excess of. design tolerances. For clamps anchored with 1/4-inch anchor bolts, the test program determined that a decrease in bolt spacmg in excess of the design tolerance resulted in loss oflongitudinal restramt. These clamps will be ine=*ad during the Post Construction Hardware Validation Program (PCHVP) to assure that they meet the requued tolerances or are appropriately modified. THIRD PARTYEVALUATION f The "nurd Pany review of the CCL test program 1Raf. 7.33 and 7J.4] confinned that the tests tret their objectives and were representative of as-built conditions, including clamp modifications and clamp distortion. The Third Party review of neem's special study [Ref. 7.2.34] for clamp allowables confirmed that the test results have been propedy interpreted. The Third Pany review of Ebasco's design criteria [Rd 7.2.1 and 7.2.2] confirmed that the results of the CCL test piograin [Ref. 7.2.34] have been appropriately incorporated in the criteria. The Third Party review of the walkdown procedures [Refs. 7.1J,7.1.4, and 7.1.5] confirmed that appropriate procedures are in place to identify clamp information r-- y for design validation. The Thmi Party has also confinned Ebasco's commitment [Ref. 7.2.19] to inspect the 1/4, inch bolt clamps as prt of the PCHVP and concurs that this action, when implemented, will adequately address the issue of distortion for these clamps. The Third Party is aware of recent revisions to a few clamp allowable loads reported by CCL [Ref. 7J.5]. " Ibis infbreation has not yet been evaluated by Ebasco. . CONCLUSION Ebasco's clamp testing program, design validation procedures, and commitment to PCHVP inspections adaan==ly address all concems raised in this issue. The issue of clamp usage is closed, with the unders.ung that the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program will overview the implementanon of the PCHVP and possible future incorporation of the revised CCL clamp allowables in the Ebasco design validation procedures. O TN-87 7261 3-24 DAP RR C/S 002, REV.1

3.2.7.19 Documentation Deviations between inspection Reports, CMC's and IN-FP Drawings ISSUE DESCRIPTION 'Ihe following concerns were raised regarding documentation and conduit configuration deviations:

• Documentation Deviations -In the original design process, an inspection was perfonned for each conduit line and doewnented on a Conduit I ine Inspection Repon (IR).

Deviations were identified between the IR's and the applicable Component Modification Cards (CMC's) ano Individually Engineered Fire-Protected conduit and supports (IN-FP) drawings.

• Conduit Configuration Deviations - Deviations were identified between the final IR's and the installed conduit configurations.

The issue applies to Unit I and common areas only. RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco is performing an engineering walkdown to generate as built drawings of the conduit runs and supports, includmg those covered by 'Ihermo-Lag. The design of each individual conduit run is being validated for conformance with the revised S 0910 drawing package. Ebasco investigated each of the six documentation and conduit configuration deviations identiNd under this issue. A determmation was made that there is no safety significance to any of the identified deviations. THIRD PAR 1 DEVALUATION 'Ihe 'Ihird Party review of the engineering walkdown procedures [Rgs. 7.1.4 and 7.1.5] confinned that W=*= procedures have been specified for the preparation of as-built drawings for conduit runs and maponrts and that Thermo Lag is to be removed from conduit supports to perfomi as buil6g [Rg7.2.117]. '!he Third Party review of the Ebasco paper on Quality of Construction [Ref. 7.2.19] confinned that adequase documentation exists to quantify the attributes necessary to perform the design validation. The Third Party review of Ebasco's technical guidelines [Ref. 7.2.10] confhmed that mMa*= procedures are in place to quantify inaccessible attributes and to evaluate the isometric drawings prepared during the engmeering walkdowns. 1 The Third Party concuned that the six deviations identified in this issue have no safety significance. CONCLUSCN Ebasco's design valldmion program adaq"*1y addresses the issue of documentation deviations between Inspecuon Reports, CMCs and IN FP drawings. This issue is closed. ' O TN-87 7261 3 25 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

3.2.7.20 Nelcon Studs ISSUE DESCRIPTION In the original Gibbs & Hill conduit support design calculations, Nelson studs were not checked for confonnance with vendor specifications and allowables. In subsequent Gibbs & Hill calculations, concems were raised that the calculations did not account for the flexibility of the ciamp and shim plate, relaxation of preload, and eccentricity of the shear load applied to Nelson studs due.to the thickness of the shim plate. In addition. the analysis of the clamp shim plate itself was not adequate. RESOLUTION METHODOLOGY Allowable capacities for clamps using Nelson studs have been established by a CCL testing program (R<fs, 73J and 73.4]. De testmg program simulates actual conduit clamp installations. i The shim plate and strucmral steel member subjected to stud preload were checked for local stresses using an elastoplastic analysis method. ne allowable loads for Nelson smds that are not used in conduit clamps are determined by treanng them as threaded fasteners in accordance with the AISC Specification (Ref. 7.5.1]. THIRO PARTY EVALUATION The Third Party review of the CCL clamp tests [Rgfs. 733 and 73.4] confirmed that the testing program Waly addremes the concems raised by this issue. I ne nird Party review of Ebesco's calculanon [R<f, 7.2.99] confinned that an appropriate analytical method was used to evaluam the shim plate, welds between the shim place and f suppomns member, and local snesses in the supporting member. The Third Party review of Phasen's design Criteria (R<fs. 7.2.1 Gnd 7.2.2] Confirmed that appropriate Nelson stud presenmon forces and a ductility ratio are specified for evaluation of conduit connecnon detads. The crieria specify that allowables for Nelson smds be cletermined using the provisions of the AISC specification [Ref. 7.5.1]. his wvach has the concunence of the vendor (Ref. 7.2.114]. CONCLUSDN Ebasco's tesdag program for conduit clamps anchored by Nelson studs, special analysis methods, and use of de AISC Specification [Rqf. 7.5.1] satisfactorily address this issue. De issue of Nelson studs is closed. 3.2.7.21 Conduit Fire Protection Calculations ISSUE DESCRIPTION The following concerns were raised regarding the Gibbs & Hill calculations for conduits with fire l. protectioninsulation: (- N

• Thermo-Lag Configuration - De Thermo-Lag weight was calcuir.ted assuming a round configuration; however, a square configuration was also used in the field.

TNG7 7829 %m NmM" ** o

i \\ \\ f ,\\

• CA la Supports - The tables of capacities for the CA-la suppons in the engineering instruction do not specify the limits of the suppon configuration used in the analysis.

(CA-type supports are oefined in Section 3.2.7.8.)

• CA 2a Supports -The calculations state that CA-la capacities should be used for CA 2a supports. The tabulated capacities in the engineering instruction for the CA-2a suppons appear to be in enor when compared to the CA la capacities.
• IN FP Calculations - The specific concems on these calculations are as follows:

- IN-FP drawings do not give suppon orientation but the calculations assume a limiting configuration for analysis. - The effects of CMCs have been neglected in some of the calculations. - Capacities of supports wem taken from cunent revisions of the suppon drawings, whereas, suppons were installed and iren W4 to earlier revisions of the drawings. c This issue applies to Unit I and common areas only. RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY The actual Thermo-Lag configurations of all fire-protected conduit as well as the relevant data for design validation have been as-built during the engmeeting walkdown. The individual concems l were addressed as follows: Thermo Lag Configuration and IN FP Calculations - All fire protected conduit and their supports have been individually design validated. CA la and CA 2a Supports - The capacities of CA la and CA-2a suppons have been revised and validated. Engbeenng Instrucdon CP EI-4.0 4.9 [R( 7.1.6] has been superceded by the S-0910 d: swings (#( 7.2.112] and the associated technical guidelines iRef. 7.2.10}. THIRO PAR 7 DEVALUATION l Thermo Lag C: " .diom and IN FP Calculations - The Third pany review of the walkdown procedures [Ref. 7.1.5] confirmed that appropriate procedures are in l' place to obtain the as-built information necessary to address this issue. Funber, the j Third Pany review detennined that 1hermo-Lag is to be removed from conduit i supporta to facilitate the as-builting process (R( 7.2.117). The Third Pany review of l Ebesco's design enteria and technical gmdelines (Refs. 7.2.2 and 7.2.10] confirmed that adequase procedures are in place to quannfy inaccessible attributes and to validate the design of fire-protected conduit and conduit supports. CA la and CA 2a Supports - Refer to Section 3.2.7.8 for capacity validation of CA-la and CA-2a Unistrut supports. The revised capacities have been incorporated in the S-0910 drawings (Ref. 7.2.112]. CONCLUSION The methodology used to address this issue is adequate. Tk issue of conduit fire protection calculations is closed. 1

3.2.7.22 Span increase for Fire Protected Spans ISSUE DESCRIPTION. Concems were raised reganiing the original Gibbs & Hill designs supponing the allowable conduit spans for fire protected nms. The specific concems are as follows: Allowable Stress Values. - Vendor test data was used withoutjustification of the applicability of the test data to ,,, the installed conduits. - The allowable stmss values vary with the nominal conduit size. - The maximum of the lowest yield stress determined from vendor test data or an arbitrary minimum of 33 ksi was used withoutjustification to establish allowables fu each conduit size. Stress Evaluation (applies to Unit I and common areas only). - In the conduit stress evaluation, a dynamic amplification factor of 1.0 was used - withoutjust15 cation. RESOLUTIONMETHOOOLOGY Allowable Stress Values - Conduit material yield stress has been taken as 25 ksi for all conduit sizes, which confonns to accepted industry practice. Stress Evaluation - 1he actual configurations have been as-built for all fire-protected e O. . runs. The designs of these conduit runs have been individually validated. THIRO PARTYEVALUATION

• Allowable Stress Values - The 1hird Pany review of Ebasco's Uni: I and 2 conduit design criteria [Rgfs. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2] confirmed that appropriate values of yield stress have been used as the basis for design allowables.

1

• Stress Evaluation - Refer to Section 3.2.7.21 for evaluation of fire-protected runs.

CONCLUSION Ebasco has W=-8y addressed the concems raised under this issue. The issue of span increase for fhe-protected spans is closed. 3.2.7.23 Grouted Penetrations ISSUE DESCRIPTION The original Gibbs & Hill designs assumed grouted penetrations to be multidirectional supports that carry the entire langiadnal load for straight conduit runs. Calculadons were not performed to demonstrate the capabdity of the penetration to cany the requued loads. In addition, the relative stiffnesses of the suppons and the concrete penetration were not considered. RESOLUTION METHODOt.OGY Ebasco has considered grouted penetrations to be multidirectional suppons. The capacity and suppon stiffness of grouted penetrations have been addressed by Ebasco in a special study (Ref. 1 TN-87 7261 3-28 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

---

y at O-7.2.73). In panicular, the concem of relative stiffness has been addressed in the analysis by the

' assumption of fixed end boundary conditions at the grouted penetration. THIRD PARTY EVALUATION The Third Party review of the Ebasm special study on grouted penetrations [Ref. 7.2.73] confinned that the capacity and stiffness effects of grouted penetrations have been adequstsly addressed. The Tlurd Party review of Ebasco design criteria (Rd. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2] confirmed that adequate procedures are in place to consider grouted penetrations in the design validation of conduit runs. CONCLUSION Ebasco has adequately addressed the concems raised under this issue. The issue of grouted penetrations is closed. 3.2.7.24 Rigidity of CA-Type Supports ISSUE DESCRIPTION The original Gibbs & Hill designs did not include stiffbess calculations to validate the assumption that the CA-type suppons were rigid. (CA-type supports am defined in Section 3.2.7.8.) 1his issue is applicable to Unit I and common amas only. RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY The Ebasco criteria has specific minimum frequency mquirements for all suppons. CA type supports are no longer reqmred to be rigid. Frequencies for the CA-type Urustrut suppons and supports fabricated from structural shapes and plates were calculated in the validadon of the CA-type support designs. THIRD PARTY EVALUATION The Third Pany review of the CA type Unistrut suppon calculations (Refs. 7.2.109 and 7.2.110] and a sample calculation on a CA-type suppon fabricated from structural shapes (Ref. 7.2.84] confinned that Ebesco is +8+g suppon fM-and compenng them to the requirements set forth in the dessa criteria [R<f. 7.2.2]. Suppon capacities are bemg deternuned so that the f eqi.e.i.;y equiremens of the design criteria are met. CONCLUSJON Evaluation of CA-type suppons for frequercy requirements Waly addresses the concems raised by this issue. The issue of rigidity of CA-type suppons is closed. 3.2.7.25. Enveloping Configurations for Design ISSUE DESCRlPTION Generic suppons have numerous design parameters and tolerances forinstallation. To be ('(V] enveloping, the design must be evaluated for the worst case configuration allowed by the drawing. Conceme have bua raised that the original Gibbs & Hill generic design calculations TN-87 7261 3 29 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1 1

. did not consider the tnost critical support configuration, maximum load eccentricities, installation tolerances, and component substitutions. RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY Ebasco has validated the design of generic conduit supports considering the most crideal suppon configuration, mammum load eccentricities, and installadon tolerarces. 'Ihe effect of component substitutions, Hilti Kwik bolts and next heaviet member, are addie ad in Sections 3.2.7.12 and 3.2.7.17. Modified and Individually Engmeered ("IN") supports a e being design validated on a case-by-case basis usirq as-built data. .l THIRO PARTY EVALUATION The Third Party review of Ebasco's design criteria and procedures (Refs. 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.11, and j 7.2.15] confirmed that adaa'a'a instructions are provided to address the concerns raised under i this issue. Further, the Third Pany review of various generic support calculations (Refs. 7.2.79, 7.2.80, 7.2.81, 7.2.82,7.2.83, 7.2.84,7.2.91, 7.2.92, 7.2.93, 7.2.94, 7.2.95, 7.2.96, 7.2.99, 7.2.100, 7.2.101, 7.2.102, and 7.2.108] confirmed that critical support configurations, maximum load 1 eccentricities, and !npan=% tolerances were considered. CONCLUSION Ebasco has adequately addressed the concerns raised in this issue by design validadon of all generic conduit suppon designs. The issue of envelopmg configurations for design is closed. 3.2.7.26 Design Drawing Discrepancies ISSUE DESCRIPTION Concerns were raised that discrepancies and inconstmencies exist bewi the original generic conduit support drawings and the assumptions and models used in the original generic conduit suppon design. This issue applies to Unit I and common areas. RESOLUTIONMETHODOLOGY Ebasco has addressed this issue by validating all generic conduit support designs and reissuing i the genenc conduit support drawmss. The designs of all modified and individually-engineered ("IN") supports are being validated based on as-built th% and new drawings are issued for these supports. THIRO PARTYEVALUATION During the 'Ihird Party review of vanous generic conduit sspport designs for Units 1 and 2 {Refs. 7.2.79,7.2.80, 7.2.81, 7.2.82, 7.2.83, 7.2.84, 7.2.91, 7.2.92, 7.2.93, 7.2.94, 7.2.95, 7.2.96, 7.2.99, 7.2.100, 7.2.101, 7.2.102, and 7.2.108] the applicable cunent generic conduit support drawings were compared with the designs. The drawings were found to be consistent with the designs. Further, the 'Ihird Party evaluation of the specific items idendfled by Cygna (Ref. 7.4.18] confirmed that these design drawing discrepancies have been addressed. ] TN-87 7261 3 30 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

CCWCLUSION Ebasco's design validadon program has adequately addressed and corrected the discrepancies and inconsistencies between generic conduit support drawings and generic conduit support designs. The issue of design drawing discrepancies is closed. 3.2.7.27 Walkdown Discrepancies ISSUE DESCRIPTION During the walkdown of conduit supports the following concerns were identifled:

• Clamp Installation - Clamp distortion and violation of maximutn gap between clamp and shint plate were identified.
• Anchor Bolt Installation H3ti bolt proximity violations, differences between field installation of Hilti bolts and design drawings, and improper scanng of Richmond Insens and support base angles were identified.
• Installation of Structural Steel - Installadon tolerances and maximum member sizes allowed by the design drawmgs have been exceeded in the field.
• Ipatallation of Unistrut - Unistrut nuts were not properly seated, members were i

substituted and rotated. CSD 1 connect'on details were skewed and gaps exceeded the maximums allowed by the design drawings, and outriggers are skewed.

• Conduit / Pipe Interflerances - Pipes and conduit are in contact with conduit suppens for other conduit runs.

. Conduit Placement - Spacing violations between flexible conduit and conduit being skewed with respect to the tube steed have been identified. 'Ihis issue applies to Unit 1 and common areas only. RESQLUTION METHODOLOGY The following methods were used by Fhaam to additss the concems discussed above:

• ClampInstallation

- Clamp distortion was considered in the clamp tests as discussed in Section 3.2.7.18. - Gaps between the clamos and shim plate were not considered by Cygna to be a design t '=-ri[Rgf. 7J.4]. Gaps were inspected as pan of the CPRT Quality of Construction Frv, and found to be acceptable.

• Anchor Bolt healtation

- Hilti bolt proximity violations and construction installation for Hilti bolts and Richmond Inserts were inspected as pan of the CPRT Quality of Construction l Program, resulting in the idenufication of adve.2 trends. The resolution of this issue l is being addressed by the C/S-CAP. - Gaps between base angles and concrete are being addressed by the Ebasco engineering walkdown. O

• Installation of Structural Steel - These issues are being addressed by the Ebasco

- 1*ae t TN 87 7261 3 31 DAP.R' C/S-002, REV.1 1 R

.1 Installation of Unistrut - The seating of Unisuut nuts is being addressed in the PCHVP. - Member substitution, member rotation, CSD-1 connection details, and skewed outriggers a being addressed by the Ebasco engineering walkdown. Conduit / Pipe Interferences - Clearances between piping and conduit are being addressed by the C/S-CAP.

• Conduit Placernent - Spacing violations between flexible conduit and nxation of conduit attachments are being addressed by the Ebasco engineering walkdown.

THIRD PARTYEVALUATION The Third Pany review of the walkdown procedures [R( 7.1.4 end 7.1 5] confirmed that adequate procedures have been specified for preparation of as-built drawings for conduit and supports to address those issues to be resolved by Ebasco's engmeenng walkdown. As an additional level of assurance, the walkdown procedures provide insuuctions for documenting potential construction deviations observed during implementation of the walkdown procedures. The Third Pany review of Ebasco's positioc paper on quality of construction [Ag 7.2.19] confirmed that the issue related to clamp gaps has been addressed by the CPRT Quality of Construction PmW. This review also confirmed Ebssco's comnunnent to address the seating of Unisuut nuts as pan of the PCHVP [Ref. 7.2.120]. CONCLUSION The C/S-CAP has the responsibility for resolving the anchor bolt installation and conduit /gr;pe interference concerns. The PCHVP has the responsibility for resolving the concerti regarding seating of Unistrut nuts. The concern related to clamp gaps has been addressed by the CPRT Quality of Consavetion Program. All other concems raised by this issue have been W=1y addmssad by Ebasco's walkdown pmsdidiii. The issue of walkdown disempancies is closed, with the undeis.eding that the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program will overview the implementation of the C/S-CAP and the PCHVP. 3.2.7.28 Systems Concept ISSUE DESCRIPTION For the atajority of supports in the original Gibbs & Hill 2323-S 0910 drawings, the design evaluations am being performed for individual supports with applied point loads representing the conduit. Loads frot2 all restrained directions and tributary spans are being applied to the support r model. However, for the design evaluauon of CMa supports (CA-type supports are defined in Section 3.2.7.8) ied the CSD-la detali (Z-clip), the interaction between supports on a con @it run or between the suppon and the conduit is used to validate the use ofleduced bads oh the suppon or conaccuon. 1 The applicability of the above Gibbs & Hill design assumptions to other supports with similar details was not demonstrated. O r TN 87 7261 3-32 DAP RR C/S 002, SEV.1 i

i RESQLUTIONMETHODOLOGY The Umstrut supports specifically identified in this issue are to be replaced. Ebasco has used the i system concept design approach only for surface-mounted conduit supports with 2-bolt anchorages. These supports have been design validated by considering that the moments due to , the longitudinal loads are shared between the conduit and the support according to their stiffnesses. Reactions at the adjacent supports from load coupling are considered to be negligible. ] THIRO PARTYEVALUATION The 'Ihird Party review of sample calculations for Ebasco's surface mounted conduit suppons j with 2 bolt anchorages [Rg 7.2.84,7.2.91,' 7.2.93, and 72.102] confirmed that this issue has j been adequately addressed. CONCLUSION Ebasco's calculanons for surface-mounted conduit suppons adequately address the concems raised in this issue. The issue of systems concept is closed. 3.2.7.29 Cumulative Effect of Review lasues ISSUE DESCRIPTION A concern was 4.d by Cygna that small oonconservatisms resulung from sepamte issues may have a sien*a's cumulative effect for supports affected by more than one issue. Y RESOLUTIONMETH000 LOGY This issue is inherently being addressed by the comprehensive engmeeting approach to the design validation of the conduit /suppons. The approach varies between UnDs 1 and 2 because prior to Cygna's IAP review, the Unit I conduit was aheady installed and the Unit 2 installation had just begun. The Unit 2 conduit is being fully =$=-M Isometric drawmss are being rW for each conduit run and are being validesed to the requirements of the re issued S2-0910 drawings (Ref j 7.2.113] and Ebasco technical guidelines [Ref. 7.2.14). The Unit I conduit runs ase being walked down and as-built isometric drawings are being prepared. 'the conduit runs are bemg validated for conformance to the requirements of the S-0910 drawings [Ref. 7.2.112] and Ebasco techrucal guidehnes [Ref. 7.2.10]. The overall design validation program has fully addresr,ed and resolved each of the generic technical issues both individually and collectively, has provided as-built documentation to perform conduit /suppons design validation, and has confirmed the adequacy of the design i validation approach through testmg and extensive analytical studies. This provides reasonable assurance that the margin of safety of the conduit /suppons is accSptable. THIRO PARTYEVALUATION The Third Party concurs that the overall program followed by Ebasco, namely the as-builting progmm, design validation procedures, and confinnatory testing, provides reasonable assurance that CPSES conddt/ supports have an adequate safety margin. TN 87 7261 3 33 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

I CONCLUSION The issue of cumulative effects of itview issues is closed. j l l ) i O i l i 1 i i I i i i i 1 l I l O' 1 TN<37 7261 3-34 OAp.RR C/S-002, REV.1

.b 4.0 SELF-INITIATED REVIEW All of the 'Ibird Party review activities required by DSAP VIH for the review of conduit / supports design adequacy are extemal source issue reviews nr corrective action overviews. 'Ihere are no self-initiated reviews associated with this scope. i .r0 V O L TM-87 7261 41 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1

G 5.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION For the purposes of this report, corrective action is defined as Ebasco's implementation of their procedures for the conduit / support scope defined in Attachment 2 of DSAP VIII. This includes obtairung as-built data and validating the design of all of the conduit / supports for Unit 1 and completely engmeering the conduit / supports for Unit 2. The Third Party review of Ebasco's conduit / supports design validation procedures and supporting documentation for overall %my and resolution of extemal source issues is discussed in Section 3~.0 of this Report. The Third Party review concluded that these procedures contain the appropriate methodology to resolve extemal source issues and are in conformance with applicable CPSES criteria and commitments. 4 The responsibility for overview of Ebasco's corrective action was transferred from the Third l Party to the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program (CPRT Program Plan, Revision 4) before l any substantive review work was concluded. Documentauon of the limited Thirti Party l corrective action overview that was completed has been transmitted [Af. 7.4.10] to the TU Electric QA Technical Audit Program. i .O 4 1 l O TN-87 7261 51 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1 )

i O s.o cowetusions This report presents the results of the 'Ihird Party overview of the design adequacy of conduit / supports at the CPSES. 'Ihe scope of the 'Ihird Pany overview included evaluation of Ebasco's resolution of extemal soume issues, as well as assessment of Ebasco's design validation procedures for compliance with the CPSES FSAR and licensing commitments. 'Ihe Third Pany identified 29 extemal source issue groups that encompass the issues discussed in the extemal source documents listed in Attachment A. For each issue group, the Third Pany has reviewed"peninent Ebasco design validation procedures, special studies, generic calculations, and test program results that address and resolve the concems raised. 'Ihe Third Pany has also reviewed these documents for compliance with the CPSES FSAR and licensing commitments. The 'Itird Party has concluded that Ebasco's conduit / supports design validation pmgram is comprehensive and capable of resolving known technical issues and assuring that the CPSES conduit /suppon design will comply with the CPSES FSAR and licensing commitments. O l l TN-87 7261 6-1 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

L t ,Q

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 TU ELECTRIC Documents ~.1.1 TU Electric CPSES FSAR. 7.1.2 "CPRT Program Plan." Rev. 4. 7.1.3 CPE-EB-FVM CS-002, Field Verification Method, Desip Control of Electrical Conduit Raceways Unit 2 Rev. 4, dated July 6,1987. e 7.1.4 CPE EB-FVM CS-014, Field Verification Method, Design Control of Sectrical Cautuit Raceways for Unit 2 Installation in Unit I and Common Areas. Rev. 5, dated July 31,'1987. 7.1.5 CPE EB-FVM CS-033, Field Verification Method, Design Control of Ecctrical Conduit Raceways for Unit 1 Installation in Unit 1 and Common Areas, Rev. 2, dated June 19,1987. .7.1.6 TUGCO Instruction CP EI-4.0-4.9. 7.2 EBASCO Documents Design Criteris 7.2.1 Ebasco S$6 Mon No. SAG. CP2, Unit 2 Design Criteria for Seismic Category I Bectrical Conduit System Rev. 4,5,6,7 and 9. 7.2.2 Ebasco SpeciAcation No. SAG. CPIO, Unit 1 Design Criteria for Seismic Category I Bactncal Conduit System, Rev. O,2,3 and 5. 7.2.3 Ebasco Specification No. SAG. CP12, Unit 2 Design Criteria forJunction Boxes for Seismic Cate3 pry I sectrical Conduit Systems, Rev. O, 2, and 4. 7.2.4 Ebasco Specification No. SAG. CP17, Unit 1 Design Criteria for Junction Boxes for Seismic Category I Bectrical Conduit System Rev.1,3,5 and 7. 7.2.5 Engineering Guidelines for Conduit Support Design Adequacy, DBD-CS 22, Rev. 0. Design Procedures 7.2.6 Ebasco Specification No. SAG. CP14, Specification of Static and Cyclic Torque Test for Evaluation of Torsional Load Carrymg Capability of Conduit Connections, Rev.1. 7.2.7 Technical Guidelines for System Analysis of Conduit Span Configurations, SAG. CP20 Rev. O and 4. (~ 7.2.8 Technical Guidelines for Thermal Analysis of Seismic Category I Bectrical Conduit System, SAG. CP21, Rev. 3. TN 87 7261 71 DAP RR-C/S 002, REV.1

e- -72.9 Technical Guidelines for 'Ihermal Analysis of Seismic Category I Ecctrical ~ Conduit Systems, SAG. CP22, Rev. 2. 7.2.10 Technical Guidelines for Seismic Category I sectrical Conduit Isometric Validation Unit No. I and Common Areas, SAG.CP25, Rev.1. 7.2.11 General Instructions for Design Verification of Ecctrical Conduit and Box Suppons, Unit # 1. SAG. CP29, Rev. O and 4. 7.2.'12 Procedure for Conduit Isometric Design Validation Package Close-out, SAG. CP35,Rev.O. 7.2.13 Guidelines for Calculation Package Ng=;ori, Review and Fding by Site Civil - Engmeenng Unit 2 Conduit Supports and Cable Tray Hangers, CP-SG-01, Rev. 2. 7.2.14 Technical Guidelines for Seismic Category I Ecctrical Conduit ISO Validation. Unit 2, CP SG 02, Rev. 2. t 7.2.15 Guidelines for Design Validation of Seismic Category I Ecctrical Conduit & Box Suppons, CP-SG-03, Rev.1. 7.2.16 Ebesco (PSES Unit 2 Conduit Calculanon Book # 8, Fmite Bement Analysis Procedure, Rev. O and 3. 7.2.17 Pmcedures to determme reduced support capacity to meet minimum frequency and allowable stress requimnents, SUPT-0231, Rev. PR. 7.2.18 Pmcedures for preparation of STRUDL Analysis Input. SPAN-1008 Rev. PR. 7.2.19 Position Paper en Quality of Construction of C,onduits and Conduit Supports, Rev. O, dated IW16/87. Unit 1 -Special Studies 7.2.20 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN-1001, General Design j Informanon References, Rev. PR and 1. 7.2.21 Ebesco (PSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN-1002, Seismic Spectrum Loading Database - 2% & 3% Damping, Rev. 0. I 7.2.22 Ebseco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN 1004, Group Seismic Spectra - 2% & 3% Dempmg, Rev. O. { l 7.2.23 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN-1005, Group Seismic Spectrum ) Envelopes Database - 2% & 3% Damping, Rev. O. 7.2.24 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN-1006, Evaluadon of Conduit Clamps, Rev. O. Q 7.2.25 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN-1007, Conduit Clamp Capacity, k/ Rev. O. TN-87 7261 72 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1

I i p, 7.2.26 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculadon Book SPAN-1009, Final Design "G" Q Values, Rev. O. 7.2.27 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculadon Book SPAN 1010, Suppon Frequency i Requirements, Rev. O. 7.2.28 Ebasco CPSES Unit #1 Calculation Book SPAN-1012, Procedure for Evaluation of Soft Systems, Rev. O. 1 1 7.2.29 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Boot SPAN 1113, Load Distribution on 'I Double Bend and Single Bend Study, Rev. PR. 7.2.30 Ebasco CPSES Unit #1 Calculation Book SPAN-1189, CYGNA Issue 17-Substitution of Next Heavier Structural Member Size, Rev.1. 7.2.31 Ebak:o CPSES Unit #1 Calculation Book SPAN-1192, Straight Run Conduit Suppon Reaction Study for Uneven Spans and Suppon Stiffness, Rev.1. 7.2.32 Ebasco CPSES Unit #1 Calculation Book SPAN 1193, Straight Run Conduit Suppon Reaction Study for Uneven Spans with Mirumum Suppon Frequency, Rev. O. 7.2.33 Ebasco CPSES Unit #1 Calculation Book SPAN-1199, Conduit Span Design Validation Using Yield Stress F =25 Ksi Rev. O. y 7.2.34 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN-1200, Generic Study on Revised Clamp Allowribles,Rev. O. 7.2.35 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUPT-0041 Design Aids, Rev. O. 7.2.36 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUPT-0211, CSM Application Database by EZHANG, Rev. PR. 7.2.37 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUPT-0221, Comparison Between EZHANG & STRUDL Runs, Rev. PR. 7.2.38 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUFT-0233, Design "G" Values, Rev. PR. 7.2.39 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUPT-0235, Miscellaneous Studies, Rev. O. 7.2.40 Fhaam CPSES Unit 1 Conduit Calculation Book SUPT-0246, Suppon Design Venfication for CYGNA Issue No. 5, Rev.1. 7.2.41 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUPT 0247, Substitution of Next Heavier Structural Member, Rev. O. 7.2.42 Ebasco CPSES Unit #1 Calculation Book SUPT-0253. Effects of Oversize Bolt Holes, Rev.1. 7.2.43 O Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book THER 1751, Vol. I, Junction Box 18" x 12" x 12" Type 1 (2 bolts), Rev. O. TN 87 7261 7-3 DAP.RR C/S-002, REV.1 1

I 7.2.44 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book THER 1751, Vol. II, Junction Box 18" x 12" x 12" Type 1 (4 bolts) (JB2A), Rev. O. 7.2.45 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book THER-1760 Use of Unit #2 Calc. Books 84,85, and 91 for Unit #1, Rev. O. 7.2.46' Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book THER-1761, Study of Multiple Run l Conduits on Single Support, Rev. O. t '7.2.47 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book THER-1901,7hermal Analysis, Rev. 0. 7.2.48 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book THER 1961, Conduit Support Stiffhesses Rev.O. 7.2.49 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book THER-1981, Hand Calculations - Add . Thermal, Seismic, and Deal Loads and Compare with Capacity, Rev.1. 7.2.50 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book CP-JB 20, Grouping of Electrical Seimnic Category I Junction Box, Rev. 0. 7.2.51 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book CP JB-21. Envelopmg of Seismic Design Spectra for Junction Box, Rev. O. 7.2.52 Ebasco Services, Inc., E5ects of Bolt Hole Ovenize in CTH and Conduit System Adequacy, Rev. 4. Unit 2-Special Studies 7.2.53 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 2. Conduit System Frequencies and Design "G" Values, Rev. O. 7.2.54 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 5 Allowable Stresses, Rev. O. 7.2.55 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 6, Welding Requirements, Rev.1. 7.2.56 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculadon Book # 7. Tube Section Properties, Rev. O. 7.2.57' Ebasco OSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 59, Floor Response Spectra for enneminmaar Intemal Structures and Safeguard Buildings, Rev. O. 7.2.58 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Conduit Calculation Book # 60 Study on Conduit j Support Anchorage, Rev.1. 7.2.59 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 78. Torsional Capacity of Clamps, Rev. O. 7.2.60 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Thermal Study Calculadon Book # 81, Straight Run Conduit Graphs, System Stiffhess Versus 7hermal leads, Rev.1. 7.2.61 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 7hermal Study Calculation Book # 82 Surface Mounted Conduits - Graphs of Clamp Stifthess Venus Thermalleads, Rev.1. l TN 87 7261 7-4 DAP.RR-C/S-002, AEV.1

(Q) Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Thennal Study Calculation Book # 84, Compenson of 7.2.62 Single and Double Bends versus Projected / Straight Runs, Rev. O. i 7.2.63 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 'Ihermal Calculation Book # 85, Comparison of l Variation in Span Lengths and Support Stiffness for Straight Run Condait, Rev. 1. 7.2.64 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 'Ihermal Calculation Book # 86, Study of Multiple Run f ~ Conduits on Single Supports, Rev. O. -i 7.2.65 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Thermal Study Calculation Book # 87, Volumes I & II. Straight Run Conduit Combuung Seismic Load with 'Ihennal & Dead Load l (Group IV), Rev.1. 7.2.66 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 'Ihermal Calculation Book # 91,'Ihermal Loads on One f End Fixed Straight Run, Rev. O. y 7.2.67 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Thermal Study Calculation Book # 92, Volume I, Rev. O and Volumes II, & III, Rev.1. Accident Thermal Analysis. I 7.2.68 Phaam CPSES Unit # 2 Thermal Study Calculadon Book # 94, Combining { Loads for Surface Mounted Conduit. Rev. O. 7.2.69 Phaam CPSES Unit # 2 'Ihermal Study Calculation Book # 111, Volumes 1 11, hmenna Boxes Thermal Analysis, Rev. O. 7.2.70 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 129, Development of Skeleton for Frequency and Response Spectrum Analysis with STRUDL forISO Evaluation, Rev. O. .7.2.71 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 132 Embedded Conduit Cantilever Span (G-8a & LS-Sa), Rev. 4, 7.2.72 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Conduit Calculation Book # 145, Anchor Bolt Substitution (0-3a), Rev. O. 7.2.73 Ebasco OSES Unit # 2 Conduit Calculation Book # 151, Concrete Embedment Forces and Allowables, Rev. 0 & 1. 7.2.74 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Conduit Calculation Book # 156. Effect of Oversize Hole on 2 Bok Supports Rev. 2. 7.2.75 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Conduit Calculation Book # 158, Calculations to Respond to 'Ihird Party Concerns, Rev. 0. Unit 1 -Generic Calculations 7.2.76 Ebasco CPSBS Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN-1116, LS-Straight Aux., Rev. PR. 7.2.77 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN 1131, LS DBL Bend Int., Rev. PR. TN-87 7261 7-5 0AP.RR-C/S-002. REV.1

7.2.78 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SPAN-1170, LS-Overhang w/ DBL Bend AB, Rev. 0. 7.2.79 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUN-1010, CSM-18a, Rev.1. 7.2.80 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUM-1020. CSM-23. Rev. O. 7.2.81 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUPT-1024 CSM-27 Rev. O. l 7.2,82 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUM-1050, CSM-43 Rev. PR. 7.2.83 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUPT-1226, JS-36, Rev. O. 7.2.84 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book SUPT-1301, Support Type CA-3a & 3b,Rev.C. 7.2.85 Naca CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book CP JB 22 3BT, Electrical Junction Box Qualification Box No. 3BT, Rev. O. 7.2.86 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book CP-JB 22-15. JB# 15. Rev. O. 7.2.87 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book CNB-22 16AU, Electrical Junction Box Qualification Box No.16AU, Rev. O. 7.2.88 Ebesco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book CP.JB-22 19E, Efectrical Junction Box Qualification Box No.19E, Rev.1. 7.2.89 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book CP.JB-22-20, Grouping of Electrical Seimnic Category I JB, Rev. O. 7.2.90 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 1 Calculation Book CP JB-22-27 Docurnentation of STRUDL Input Parameters,Rev.1. Unit 2-Generic Calculations 7.2.91 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 10. CSM 2b Rev.1. 7.2.92 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 11. CSM 7b, Rev. O. 7.2.93 Ebaaco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 13, CSM-2a IV, Rev. O. 7.2.94 Ebaaco (PSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 23, CSM-12a, Rev. O. 7.2.95 Ebaaco (PSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 27. JS-1a, Rev. 2. 7.2.96 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 30, CSM 11b, Rev. 3. 7.2.97 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 36, LS 10s,10b, & 10c, Rev. O. 7.2.98 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book N1 LS-6a,6b,6c, & 6d, Rev.1. 7.2.99 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 44, CSD Series, Rev.1. 7.2.100 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 48, JS 2b-II, Rev. O. TN-87 7261 76 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

Od 7.2.101 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book e 55, JS 3C II, Rev. O. 7.2.102 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 57 CSM 2b-IV Rev. O. i 7.2.103 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 61, LS-2a Rev. O. 7.2.104 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 69. LLS-6a & 6b, Rev.1. 7.2.105 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 123-1, Direct Concrete Mounted Junction Box (36" x 30" x 36"), Rev. 2. 7.2.106 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 123-4, Structural Steel Support Mounted Junction Box (12" x 12" x 6"), Rev. 2. 7.2.107 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 127, K-Factors in LS-Series Dwgs., Rev.1. 7.2.108 Ebasco CPSES Unit # 2 Calculation Book # 133 Vols.1 - 23, Anchor Bolt Interaction Ratio, Rev. O. Test Related Calculations 7.2.109 Calculation No. TNE-CS-CA-CA-la, Capacities of Conduit Suppons, Rev. 3. 7.2.110 Calculation No. TNE CS-CA-C4-2b, Design of Conduit Supports, Rev.1. 7.2.111 Calculation No. TNE-CS-CA-JA-1 Design of Conduit Suppons Rev. O. Drawinga 7.2.112 Drswing No. Package 2323-S 0910. 7.2.113 Drawing No. Package 2323-S2-0910. Letters 7.2.114 Ebesco Imter EB-T-3052, Fnxn J. P. Padalino To Dr. C.P. Mortgat, Dated May 28,1987 with attached TRW Letter from Harry A. Chambers to H.S. Yu dated 5/2/87. 7.2.115 Ebesco Letter EB-T-1965, From R.C. Iotti to Doug Nyman, "TU Electric, CPSES, Ar=phility of Fillet Welds Below Mimmum AISC Size and of Skewed Fillet Welds." dated 3/3/87 with the following attachments: 1. Ebasco Letter From R. A. Keilbach to R.C. Iotti, dated 2/25/87. 2. Ebasco Welding Procedure Specification No. WP15, Revision 1, dated 1/12/84 3. AWS Structural Welding Code Comminee Interpretation No. D1 86-012. C { t

4..5, QAl-20-5, Liquid Penetrant Evaluation of Arc Strike j

Regions. TN 87 7261 77 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

3 5. Van Malssen, S.H., "The Effects of Arc Strikes on Steels Used in Nuclear Construction", Welding Joumal. July,1984.. 6. Welding Procedure Qualification Record CP AWBB153, Dated 12/27/85. 7.2.116 Ebasco Letter EB T-6102, from E. Odar to C. Mortgat, dated 10/16/87. 7.2.117 Ebasco Memo CND-54-12, from E. Odar to M. Strehlow/C.Y. Chiou, dated 8/17/87. 7.2.118 Ebasco Letter EB-T-6199, from E. Odar to C. Mongat dated 10/29/87. 7.2.119 Ebasco Letter EB-T-6219, from E. Odar to C. Mongat dated 10/30/87. 7.2.120 Ebasco Letter EB-T-6149, from E. Odar to C. Mortgat dated 10/21/87. l Miscellaneous 7.2.121 Ebasco CPSES Cable Tray Hanger Special Study, Volume I, Book 3. Prying Action Factors and Formulas for Evaluating Anchor Bolts, Rev.1. 7.3 Test Labs Documents 7.3.1 CCL Test Procedure # 1903.29-1, Rev.1. Test Procedure for Static and Cyclic Tests of Conduit Couplings. G 7.3.2 CCL Repon No. A 678-85, Seismic Qualification Test Repon of Conduit Support Systems, Volume I and II, dated 10/9/85. 7.3.3 CCL Repon No. A-699-85, Conduit Clamp Test Repon, Phase I dated 12/17/85. 7.3.4 CCL Repon No. A-702 86, Conduit Clamp Test Report, Phase II dated 4/7/86. 7.3.5 CCL Letter 87000059.ESI from F.A. Thomas to J.P. Padatino (Ebasco), dated 9/29/87. 7.4 DAP Review Documents Gerwral 7.4.1 Comanche Peak Fzsponse Team, Design Adequacy Program, Quality Assurance Program and Procedures, Rev. 27: May 26,1987. 7.4.2 DAP-CR-C/S-001 "C/S Design Criteria List," Rev. 2. 7.4.3 DAP-CLA-C/S-012. " Design Criteria Review Checklist for Cable Tray / Conduit Supports," Rev.1. 7.4.4 DAP-E-C/S 119 "Thennal Loads," Rev.1. 7.4.5 DAP-E-C/S-126, " Inaccessible Attributes, Fillet We'd Size," Rev. 0-7.4.6 DAP E-C/S-148, " Design Verification Process - Ebasco," Rev. O. TN-87-7261 7-8 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1

w t 7.4.8 DAP-E C/S-182, " Inaccessible Attributes - Genera 1 (Ebasco)" Rev. O. 7.4.9 DAP E-C/5-183, " Oversize Bolt Holes in CTS Anchorage," Rev. O. 7.4.10 Technical Audit Surveillance, Design Verification of Train A & B Conduit. DSAP VIII, Revision 0, dated May,29,1987. i 7.4.11 DAP RR-C/S 001, Discipline _ Specific Results Repon: Civil / Structural Cable Trays and Suppons, Rev.1. Engineering Evaluations for Ebasco Documents 7.4.12 DAP E-C/S-301, " Unit #1 Train A & B As-Builting Procedures," Rev.1. 7.4.13 DAP-E-C/S-302, " Unit #2 Train A & B As-Builting Procedures," Rev. 2. 7.4.14 DAP-ECS 303, "CP SG 01, Rev. 2 - Guidelines for Calculation Package Preparanon Review and Filing by Site Civil Fmainaaring," Rev.1. l 7.4.15 DAP E-C/S-304, "Umstrut Tesdng to Establish Unistrut Allowables for CPSES Unit # 1," Rev. 0. 7.4.16 DAP-E-C/5 305, " Thermal Efflects on Conduit Systems," Rev.1. 7.4.17 DAP-E-C/S-306, " Evaluation of Mmunum Size Fillet Weld," Rev. 0. -.O 7.4.18 DAP-E-C/S 307," Units 1 & 2 Train A/B Conduit Suppon Capacity Validation," Rev.1. p,. 7.4.19. DAP-E-C/S-308, " Evaluations of Conduit Clamp Tests," Rev. O. 7.4.20 DAP-E-C/S-309, "Documentanon of Quality of Construction for Train A & B Conduit and emhait Suppons," Rev. O. 7.4.21 DAP E-C/5-310. "Evaluadon of the Procedum for Train A & B Conduit Inaccessible Attributes," Rev. O. 7.4.22 DAP-E C/5-311, " Evaluation of CPSES Train A & B Conduit Electrical Junction Bosas Design Validation," Rev. O. 7.4.23 DAP-E C/5 312. "Evaluanon of Procedure forIsometric Design Vahdation." Package hA" Rev.1. 7.4.24 DAP-E-C/S-313. " Span Allowable Studies," Rev.1. 7.4.25 DAP-E-C/5-314, " Train A & B Conduit Isometric Drawing Design Validation." Rev.O.. 7.4.26 DAP-E-C/S-315, "Evaluanon of Skewed Welds with Included Angles Ims 'Ihan 45*," Rey, O. 7.4.27 DAP E-C/S-316, " Evaluation of Static and Cyclic Tests of Condu't Couplings," Rev. O.

r Q DAP Checklists for Ebssco Documents 7.4.28 DAP-CLC-C/S-601 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Procedure Review Checklist, dated 8/6/87. 7.4.29 DAP-CLC-C/S-602 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Procedure Review Checklist, dated 8/6/87. 7.4.30 DAP-CLC-C/S-603 Train A & B Conduit Support Procedure Review Checklist, dated 8M/87. 7.4.31 DAP-CLC-C/S-604 Ovindhg Suppl.1) Train A & B Conduit Suppon Procedure Review Checklist, dated 8/6/87. 7.4.32 DAP-CLC-C/S-605 (Including Suppl.1) Train A & B Conduit Support Procedure Review Checklist, dated 8/6/87 and 8/19/87. 7.4.33 DAP-CLC-C/S-606 (Including Suppl.1 & 2) Train A & B Conduit Support Procedure Review Checklist, dated 8/6/87 and 8/19/87. 7.4.34 DAP-CLC-C/S 607 (Including Suppl.1,2, & 3) Train A & B Conduit Support Procedure Review (%4lia, dated SM/87 and IW16/87 7.4.35 DAP-CLC-C/S-608 Train A & B Conduit Support Procedure Review thr*1ist, dated 8/6/87. 7.4.36 DAP-CLC-C/S-609 0-MMg Suppl.1,2, & 3) Train A & B Conduit Supports i Procedure Review Checklist, dated 8/6/87 and 10/16/87 7.4.37 DAP-CLC-C/S-701 Train A & B Conduit Support calm'a% Review Checklist, dated 8/7/87, 7.4.38 DAP-CLC-C/S-702 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/7/87. 7.4.39 DAP-CLC-C/S-703 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/7/87. i 7.4.40 DAP CLC-C/S-704 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, daad8n/87. 7.4.41 DAP-CLC-C/S-705 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/7/87. 7.4.42 DAP-CLC-C/S-706 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/7/87. 7.4.43 DAP-CLC-C/S-707 Train A & B Conduit Support c=Im1=% Review Checklist, dated 8/7/87. 7.4.44 DAP-CLC-C/S-708 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/7/87. TN-87 7261 7 10 DAP-RR C/S-002, REV.1

7.4.45 DAP-CLC-C/S-709 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8n/87. 7.4.46 DAP-CLC-C/S-710 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/7/87. 7.4.47 DAP-CLC C/S-790 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.48 DAP-CLC-C/S 791 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.49 DAP CLC C/S-792 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.50 DAP-CLC C./S-793 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87, 7.4.51 DAP-CLC-C/S 794 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.52 DAP-CLC-C/S-795 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87, f.s 7.4.53 DAP-CLC-C/S-7% Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist. - dated 8/19/87. 7.4.54 DAP-CLC-C/S 797 Train A & B Concuit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.55 DAP-CLC-GS-798 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Procedure Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.56 DAP-CLC-C/S-799 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.57 DAP-GC-C/S-800 Train A & B Coruiuit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.58 DAP-aC C/S 801 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.59 DAP-CLC-C/S-802 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist. dated 8/19/87. l 7.4.60 DAP CLC-C/S-803 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.61 DAP-CLC-C/S-804 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.62 DAP-CLC-C/S 805 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, l dated 8/19/87. I TN-87 7261 7 11 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

I 7.4.63 DAP-CLC-C/S-806 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist,. dated 8/19/87. 7.4.64 DAP-CLC-C/S-807 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.65 DAP-CLC-C/S-808 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4'.'66 DAP-CLC-C/S 809 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.67 DAP-CLC-C/S-810 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.68 DAP-aC-C/S-811 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.69 DAP-CLC-C/S-812 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. .7.4.70 DAP-CLC-C/S-813 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review chek 115t. dated 8/19/87. 7.4.71 DAP-CLC-C/S-814 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculanon Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.72 DAP-CLC-C/S-815 Train A & B Conduit Support Calmiadon Review Checklist. dated 8/19/87. 7.4.73 DAP-CLC-C/S-816 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, . dated 8/19/87. 7.4.74 DAP.-CLC-C/5-817 Tmin A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87, 7.4.75 DAP-aC-C/S-818 Train A & B Conduit Suppon enlmiadan Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. l 7.4.76 DAP CLC-C/S-819 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.77 DAP-aC-C/S-820 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.78 DAP-CLC-C/S-821 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.79 DAP CLC-C/S-822 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.80 DAP-CLC-C/S 823 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculanon Review Checklist dated 8/19/87. TN 87 7261 7 12 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1

~ ('N 7.4.81 DAP-CLC-C/S-824 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, \\_. dated 8/19/87. 7.4.82 DAP-CLC-C/S-825 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.83 DAP CLC-C/S-826 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.84 DAP-CLC-C/S 827 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.85 DAP-CLCG-828 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.86 DAP-CLC-C/S-829 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.87 DAP-CLC-C/S-830 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.88 DAP-CLC-C/S-831 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.89 DAP-CLC-C/S-832 Train A & B Conduit Suppon Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. O O 7.4.90 DAP-CLC-C/S-833 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.91 DAP-CLC-C/S 834 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.92 DAP-CLC-C/S-835 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.93 DAP-CLC-C/S-836 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.94 DAP-CLC-C/S-837 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.95 DAP-CLC-C/S-838 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/27/87. 7.4.96 DAP CLC-C/S-839 Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. 7.4.97 DAP-CLC-C/S-840 (Including Suppl.1) Train A & B Conduit Support Calculation Review Checklist, dated 8/19/87. ) TN-87 7261 7-13 OAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

l 1 i 'h 7.5 Other Documents 7.5.1 American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), " Specification for the Design, l Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," in Manual of Steel Construction,7th Edition,1%9. 7.5.2 American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), " Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members," 1%8. 7.53 AISC Letter to Mr. LD. Nace dated August 29,1986. 7.5.4 Cygan Conduit Supports Review Issues List, Rev.12, dated 11/20/85. i 1 O l l TN 87 7 14 OAP RR C/S-002, REV.1 7261- - m

O 1 ATTACHMENT A EXTERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS O l i l O TN-87-7261 l DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1 I

9 ? ,e y G A7TACHMENT A EXTERNAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS Source Document Date Document Title ASLB1 09/01/83 BOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECO.RD AND TO STRIKE ASLB-2 12/28/83 BOARD ORDER AND MEMORANDUM LBP-83-81: (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN) ASLB-3 02/08/84 MEMORANDUM AND BOARD ORDER LBP-84-10: (RECONSIDERATION CONCERNING QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN) ASL.B-4 06/29/84 ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP 84-25 (WRITTEN FILING DECISIONS, #1: SOME AWS/ASME ISSUES) ASLB 5 12/18/84 BOARD MEMORANDUM CONCERNING WELDING ISSUES ASLB-6 12/18/84 BOARD MEMORANDUM -REOPENING DISCOVERY: MISLEADING STATEMENT (} ASLB 7 07/29/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT \\~/ ) ASLB-8 07/30/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-9 09/13/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIFT ASLB 10 09/13/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIFT ASLB-11 09/14/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIFT ASLB 12 09/15/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-13 09/16/82 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-14 04/25/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIFT ASLB-15 05/16/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-16 05/17/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-17 05/17/83 AFLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-18 05/18/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-19 OS/19/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 20 05/20/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-21 06/13/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB-22 06/14/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 23 06/15/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 24 06/16/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT n ASLB-25 10/17/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT ASLB 26 10/18/83 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRIPT TN-87 7261 A-1 DAP RR-C/S 002, REV.1

h ATTACHMENT A-ContinW Source Document - Dee Doevman Tids - ASLB-27 02/20/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 28 02/21/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 29-02/23/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 30 03/19/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 31 03/20/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 32 03/21/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 33 03/22/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 34 03/23/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFT ASLB 35 03/30/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB 36 04/18/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS'IRANSCRFr ASLB-37 04/24/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-38 04/25/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr . ASLB-39 04/26/84 ASLB PROGEDINGS1RANSCRIPT ASLB-40 04/27/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS 1RANSCRFT ASLB-41 05M1/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFT - ASLB 42 - 05S2/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFr ASLB-43 05 S 3/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFC ASLB-44 02/22/84 ASLB PROCEEDINGS TRANSCRFT s ASLB-45 1Q/31/85 ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LBP-8514 (PROCEDURAL RULING BOARD CONCERN ABOUT QA POR DESION). ASLB-46 02/28/84 TELEPHONE CONPERENCE-TO DISCUSS SCHEDULING MATTERS RELATED TO MARCH 12 THROUGH MARCH 16 HEARINGS CASE 1 07/29/82 CASE EXHIBIT 659 - WALSH TESTIMONY (EXH 659A H) CASE 2 08/19/82 CASE EXHIBIT 669 - DOYLE ORAL DEPOSITION (VOLUME I), EXHIBIT 669A - (VOLUME II), AND EXHIBIT 669B -(DEPOSITION EXHIBITS) CASE 3 09/13/82 CASE EXHIBrr 683 - DOYLE SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY CASE-4 07/28/83 OBJECTION TO B'OARD'S FINDINGS AND CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' 07/15/83

SUMMARY

OF i THE RECORD REGARDING WEAVE AND DOWNHILL WELDING I CASE 5 08/22/83 CASE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i TN47 7261 A-2 DAP-RR C/S-002, REV,1

4 ATTACHMENT A - Continued s_. Document Dese DocumentTkle CASE-6 09 S 3/83 CASE'S MOITON REGARDING 09N7/83 CONFERENCE CALL CASE-7 1I/10/83 CASE'S RESPONSE TO (1) APFLICANTS' BRIEF REGARDING BOARDINQUIRYINTO APPLICABILITY OF AWS AND CODES TO WELDING ON PIPE SUPPORTS AT CPSES: (2) NRC RESPONSE TO. BOARD QUESTION ON CPSES WELDING CODE CASE 8 11/23/83 CASE'S MOI 10N FOR RECONSIDERATION (AFFIDAVTTS ON OPEN ITEMS RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS) CASE-9 08/06/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANT 3 MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF FRICTION FORCES IN THE DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS WTTH SMALL THERMAL MOVEMENTS CASE 10 08/06/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME 1 CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO DESIGN ISSUES ] CASE-11 08/06/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING ALLEGED ERRORS MADEIN DETERMINING DAMPING FACTORS POR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDmONS CASE-12 08/13/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SECTION PROPERTY VALUES CASE-13 08/2W84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGA110NS REGARDING U BOLTS ACTING AS TWO-WAY RESTRAINTS CASE 14 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' { STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH l THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING THE UPPER LATERAL RESTRAINT BEAM CASE-15 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH i i l THERE IS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING CONSIDERATION OF FORCE DISTRIBimON IN AXIAL RESTRAINTS TN47 7261 A3 DAP-RR C/S-002, REV.1

ATTACHMENT A-Continued Documet Due DocumentTitle CASE-16 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICARTS'- STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING ~ APPLICANTS' USE OF GENERIC STIFFNESSES ~' INSTEAD OF ACTUAL IN PIPING ANALYSIS CASE-17 - 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING DIFFERENTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF LARGE-FRAMED, WALL-TO-WALL AND FLOOR-TO-CEILING SUPPORTS CASE-18 08/27/84 CASE'S PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING SAFETY FACTORS CASE-19 08/29/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND S1RESSES CASE 20 09/1W84 CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO RICHMOND INSERTS AS TO WHICH THERE ARE NO MATERIALISSUES ~ CASE 21 10/01/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO l CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONREGARDING CONSIDERATION OFFRICTION FORCES j CASE-22 10WOS/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR I

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING } CONSIDERATION OF CINCHING DOWN OF J U-BOLTS. CASE 23 10p09/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDDiG LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES CASE 24 10/13/84 ATTACHMENTS TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CINCHING DOWN OF U-BOLTS O l TN-87 7261 A-4 DAP-RR-C/S 002, REV.1

i' ) I (~ y 'ACHMENT A -Continued sowc4 Dr.:umera Das Docenem Tids CASE-25 10/15/84 DOCUMENTS ANDINFORMATION REQUESTED BY CASE REGARDING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING STABILTIY OF PIPE SUPPORTS CASE-26 10/18/84 CASE'S ' PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING APPLICANTS' QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR CPSES CASE 10/18/84 CASE'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO APPLICANTS REGARDING CROSS-OVER LEO RESTRAINTS CASE-28 10/W84 CASE'S 2ND PARTIAL ANSWER TO APPLICA?RS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING APPLICANTS' QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS CASE 29 11/2W84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICA?ES' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING THE UPPER LATERAL RESTRAINT BEAM CASE 30 12/19/84 CASE'S 4TH ROUND ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLYTO CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDINGTHE EFFECTS OF GAPS CASE-31 01/17/85 CASE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE a CASE 32 02A)4/85 CASE'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE RE: CREDIBILITY CASE-33 02/25/85 CASE'S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CASE 34 02/25/85 CASE'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CASE-35 03/04/85 CASE'S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO APPLICANTS AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE CASE 36 04/26/83 SURREBUTTAL 'IESTIMONY OF JACK DOYLE (CASE EXHIBIT 761 AND ATTACHMENTS) CASE 37 04/28/83 SUPPLEMENTARY SURREBUITAL TESTIMONY OF JACK DOYLE(CASE EXHIBtr 762) O TN-87 7261 A5 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

'~ ~ ATTACHMENT A -Continued soum hw! Das DocumentTide CASE 38 05M4/83 SUPPLEMENTARY SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JACK DOYLE (CASE EXHIBIT 763 AND ATTACHMENTS) CASE-39 11/04/83 CASE RESPONSE TO NRC AFFIDAVITS ON OPEN TIEMS RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS CASE 40 11/28/83 CASE'S ANSWER TO BOARD's 10/25/83 MEMORANDUM (PROCEDURE CONCERNING QUALITY ASSURANCE) CASE-41 02SI/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUALTTY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN) BY APPLICANTS AND NRC STAFF CASE-42 08/13/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' STATEMENT - OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF GAPS ON S'IRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR UNDER SEISMIC LOADING CONDITIONS CASE-43 05/04/83 SURREB TTALTESTIMONYOFMARK ANTHONY WALSH CASE-44 1042/84 ~ CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASES'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS' MOTION REGARDING ALLEGED ERRORS MADE IN DE'IERMINING DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDITIONS. CASE 45 12/19/85 CASE'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' 11/12/85 CHANGES TO AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS' MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION. IAP 1 10/12/84 COMANCHE PEAK INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FINAL REPORT TR-83090 01, REV. 0 IAP-2 11/20/84 COMANCHE PEAK INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FINAL REPORT (PHASE 3) TR-84042-01 IAP-3 03/14/85 TUGCO/CPRT MEETING TO DISCUSS FINDINGS FROM INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM IAP4 04/04/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - PIPE STRESS & PIPE SUPPORTS IAP 5 04S4/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - CABLE 'IRAY SUPPORTS & CONDUIT SUPPORTS O IAP-6 04/04/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL - ELECTRICAI/I&C TN-87 7261 A-6 DAP-RR C/S-002, REV.1

7 .1 i ATTACHMENT A - Continued n~,-r Dem - n~, w eTide IAP 7 04/04/85 REVIEW ISSUES LISTTRANSMTITAL - MECHANICAL SYSTEMS IAP 8 04/04/85. REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL - DESIGN i CONEOL IAP 9 04/23/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL - PIPE STRESS (REV.1) & PIPE SUPPORTS (REV.1) IAP-10 04/23/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS (REV. 9) & CONDUIT SUPPORTS . !REV.1) i - IaP-11 04/23/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRhNSMTITAL - - ELECIRICAUI&C, REVISION 1 IAP-12 04/23/85 REVIEWISSUES LISTTRANSMTITAL - MECHANICAL SYSTEM 3, REVISION 1 IAP-13 04/23/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST'fRANSMTTTAL - DESIGN CONTROL, REVISION O IAP-14 06/21/85 - REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMr!TAL - CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS, REVISION 10 IAP-15 06/21/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMTITAL - DESIGN j CONTROL, RF. VISION 1 IAP 16 08/13/E5 REVIEW ISSUES LIST' TRANSMITTAL - CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS (REV.11) & CONDUIT SUPPORTS j (REY. 2) { IAP.08/13/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIGTTRANSMTITAL - ) MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, REVISION 2 l IAP-18 08/13/85 REVIEWISSUES LIST 7RANSMTITAL-ELECTRICAUI&C, REVISION 2 IAP-19 05/15/84 IAP PHASE 4 - SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANTS' i PLANTO RESPOND TO MEMORANDUM AND l ORDER (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN), I MARCH 13,1984 .1; IAP 20 1009/84 CYGNA LTR. 84056.032 - REACTOR COOLANT THERMAL BARRIER RUPTURE IAP-21 10/22/84 CYGNA LTR. 84056.035 - REACTOR COOLANT . PUMP THERMAL BARRIER RUPTURE - 3 CLARIFICATION IAP 22 01/18/85 CYGNA LTR. 84042.022 - OPEN TrEMS ASSOCIATED WITH WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS IAP-23 01/25/85 CYGNA LTR. 84056.050 - STATUS OF IAP CONCLUSIONS, ALL PHASES TN-87 7261 A7 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1

-~-~--~~ ~ + a- )

llt, l

'1 ?\\- ATTACHMENT A-Continued ' source Docenent - Das Documers Tide IAP-24 01/31/85 CYGNA LTR. 84042.025 i PHASE 3 - WAl<SH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS (RICHMO. DINSERT N ALLOWABLES AND BENDING STRESS 2S)- q 2 IAP 25 01/31/85 CVGNA lrTR_ 84056.053 - PHASE 4 OPEN ITEMS 4 (FUNCHING SHEAR) IAP 26 - 0248/35 CYGNA LTR. 84042.021 - PHASE 3 OPEN ITEMS (MASS PARTICIPATION ANDMASS POINT 'l SPACING) IAP-27 02/12/85 CYGNA LTR. 84056.041 - CAB 12 TRAY SUPPORT REVIEW QUESTIONS j IAP 28 02/19/85 CYGNA LTR. 84042.035 - STAEILITY OF PIPE i SUPPORTS IAP 03M8/85 CYGNA LTR. 83090.023 - RESPONSE TO NRC . QUESTIONS,IAP PHASES 1 AND 2 l IAP 30 03/12/85 CYGNA LM. 84056.058 - PHASE 4 OPEN ITEMS I (PUNCHING SHEAR) O IAP-31 03/25/85 CYGNA LM. 84042.036 - PHASE 3 OPEN TIEMS (CINCHING OF U BOLTS) IAP 32 03/29/85 CYGNA LTR. 84056.060 - GENERIC ISSUES

SUMMARY

.IAP-ALLPHASES -IAP 33 11/20/85 REVIEWISSUES LISTMANSMTITAL CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS (REV.12) IAP-34 11/20/85 REVIEW ISSUES LIST TRANSMITTAL CCNDUIT l SUPPORTS (REY. 3) MAC-1 05/17/78 MAN.AGEMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT NRC1 02/15/83 NRC SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM (SIT) REPORT (50445/82 26X50-446/82-14) AS A RESULT OF WALSH/DOYLE CONCERNS NRC-2 04/11/83 CONSTRUCTION APPRAISALINSPECTION(CAT) 50-445/83-18,50 446/83 12 NRC-3 08/29/83 NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION NRC-4 08/30/83 NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE FORM OF A PARTIAL INrrIAL DECISION NRC5 10 S 3/83 REGIONIV CAT FOLLOW-UP REPORT NRC-6 10/28/83 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTION REGARDING APPLICABLE WELDING CODES AT O. MM 1 TN-87 7261 A-8 DAP-RR C/S-002, REV,1 -l

3 I 'i p .L/ A'ITACHMENT A -Contineed J ~ source Document Dese Documem Tide NRC 7 07/13/84 COMANCHE PEAK SPECIAL REVIEW TEAM REPORT q NRC 8 11/02/84 NRC FfAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION { FOR

SUMMARY

DISE'OSITION ON AWS AND ASME { CODE PROVISIONS ON WELD DESIGN j NRC 9 09/3W85 STAFF EVALUATION OF CPRT PROGRAM PLAN, REVISION 2, DETAILED COMMENTS / CONCERNS NRC 10 07/01/81 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT-CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) NRC-11 10 S 1/81 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSEE UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO.1 NRC 12 01 S 1/82 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 NRC-13 03/01/83 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-C797) SUPPLEMENTNO. 3 NRC-14 11/01/83 ' SAFETY EVALUATTON REPORT - CFSES UNITS 1 & 4 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO.4 C NRC-15 11/01/84 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS I & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENTNO. 6 NRC 16 01/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT-CPSES UNITS I & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO. 7 NRC 17 02 S 1/%5 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO. 8 NRC-18 03/01/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG 0797) SUPPLEMENT NO.9 NRC-19 04 S1/85 S AFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 & 1 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO.10 NRC.20 05 S 1/85 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - CPSES UNITS 1 & 2 (NUREG-0797) SUPPLEMENT NO.11 NRC-21 0942/82 NRCSTAFFTESTIMONY OFJOSEPHI.TAPIA AND W. PAUL CHEN IN REBUTTAL TO THE TESTIMONY OF MARK ANTHONY WALSH CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF P1PE SUPPORTS l NRC 22 05/13/83 INSPECTION REPORT 50-445/83-12: 50-446/83-07 -- INSPECTION CONDUC'ED BY J. I. TAPIA AND W. 1 PAUL CHEN I NRC-23 12/13/83 AFFIDAVITS OF JOSEPH I. TAPIA AND W. PAUL p CHEN ON OPEN ITEMS RELATING TO V WALSH/DOYLE CONCERNS l NRC-24 / / NRCINSPECTION REPORT 82 30 t l l o " ? ': " 1 - ^ " ~ " " " * ~ ' " " "

l l l ) A1 TAC 704ENT A -Centinued l' w.c. l E Document Due Doewneru Tide NRC 2.5 014)8/35 NRCIEITER TO TUGCO RE: TRT QA/QC l FINDINOS (A'ITACHED TO NRCT-6), i NRC-26 05/30/85 NRC REGION IV INSPECTION R& ORTS 2/17/84 THROUGH 5/30/85. o NRC 27 10/11/84 ' NRC INSPECTION REPORT (50-445/84-22)(50-446/84-07)-INS 9ECTIONS CONDUCTED UNDER l RESIDENT INSPECTION PROGRAM 05/19/84 THROUGH 07/21/84 NRC-28 0% 27/79 $UMMARY OF FEBRUARY 13,1979 MEETING ON AUXIIJARY SYSTEMS BRANCH QUESTIONS NRC-29 11/17/80 LETER, R.L. TEDESCO TO R.J. GARY RE: SERVICE INSPECTION OF PRESSURE ISOLATION VALVES NRC-30 01/14/81 LEITER R.L TEDESCO TO R.J. GARY RE: PRESERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING OF SNUBBERS NRC 31 10/14/82 TRIP REPORT AUDIT OF TUSI DOCUMENTATION POR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ( SAFETY-ILELATED EQUIPMENT FOR CPSES 1 AND NRC 32 10/29/82 SSER INPUT ON SEISMIC AND DYNAMIC QUALIFICATION OF SAFETY RELATED ELECTRIC { AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT l NRC-33 01/31/83 REGION IV RESPONSE TO R.J. GARY LETTER ON .i SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE l PERFORMANCE (SALP) ) NRC 34 07A)6/83 SUBMTITAL OF INTERIM STAFF EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN DESIGN FOR THE CPSES NRC-35 01/24/84 SER UNRESOLVEDISSUES REQUIRING I RESOLtTTION PRIOR TO LICENSING CPSES UNTT 1 NRC-36 01/24/84 SER OUTSTANDING ISSUE (1), " PROTECTION AGAINST EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WTDITHE POSTULATED RUPTURE OF PIPING OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT" I NRC-37 02/13/84 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION NRC-38 05/17/84 TRANSMTITAL OF PROPOSED SUPPLEMENT TO j APPENDIX C OF THE SER FOR COMANCHE PEAK l (3 STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (UNITS 1 AND 2) { () NRC-39 09/12/84 NRC STAFF CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW REPORT FOR THE CPSES i TN 87-7261 A 10 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

i .. X. , ta l 1 1 ATTACHMENT A -Candnwd O ~ Da:ument - Den Documma Tide NRC 40 09/18/84 ' COMANCHE PEAK REVIEW; NRC-41 ' 11/13/84 7 ACCEPTABILITY OF ASME CODE RELIEF ~ REQUESTS PERTAINING TO THE PPE.SURVICE I INSPECTION (PSD PROGRAM FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 - NRC-42 11/19/$4 ISSUANCE OFSUPPLEMENT NO,6TO THE ' COMANCHE PEAK STEAM FLECTRIC STATION, l UNITS 1 AND 2 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT NRC-43 06M5/85 USE OF ASME CODE CASES N 397 AND N-411 FOR THE CPSES (UNrrS 1 AND 2) NRC-44 06/07/85

SUMMARY

OF MEETING DETWEEN NDC STAFF ~AND TUGCO TO DISCUSS THE COMANCHE PEAK FIRE $1CyrECTION PROGRAM NRC-45 0910/85 ISSUANCE OF SUPPLEMENT NO,11 TO NUREG-0797 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNrrS 1 AND 2 NRC-46 07/24/85 RESPONSE TO LD. BUTTERFIELD'S MAY 16,1985 REQUEST POR COMMENTS ON THE t WESTINGHOUSE OWNERSGROUP(WOG) GUIDELINES POR PREPARING SUBMrITALS ' REQUESTING NRC APPROVAL OF REACTOR TRIP TECH. SPEC. CHANGES NRC-47 09/25/85 USE OF ASME CODE CASES N 397 AND N411 FOR THE CPSES (UNITS 1 AND 2)' NRCT-1 09/18/84 NRC-152 TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM BRIEFING: COMANCHE PEAK REVIEW NRCT-2 11/01/84 SUh&UJtY OF MEETING TO DISCUSS THE APPLICANTS' PLANFOR RESOLUTION OF REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM EFFORT DESCRIBED IN LETIER DATED 09/18/84 NRCT-3 12/20/84 TRANSCRFr CYGNA/NRC MEETING - INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM NRCT-4 01/10/85 MEETING WITH CYGNA ON CPSES INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTPROGRAM (PHASE 3) NRCT5 01/15/85 MEETING WITH TUGCO CONCERNING THE MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION ON QA/QC PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR COMANCHE PEAK TN-87-7261 A 11 DAP-RR C/S 002 REV.1

(s) ATTACHMENT A-Continued Sowce Document Dess Document Title NRCT-6 01/17/85 MEETING TO DISCUSS TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM STAFF FINDINGS - COMANCHE PEAK j NRCT-7 02 S 7/85

SUMMARY

OF MEETING WITH CASE, TUGCO AND ) NRC CONTENTION 5 PANEL CONCERNING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION i AND TECHNICAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE ASLB i HEARINGS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1985 NRCT-8 02/26/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS UTILITIES AND THE i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION-PIPING AND SUPPORT DESIGN NRCT-9 02/27/85 MEETING BETWEENTEXAS UTILmES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. PIPING AND SUPPORT DESIGN NRCT-10 03 S 6/85 MEETING BETWEENTEXAS UTILmES ANDTHE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING CPSES - TRT TESTING PROGRAM q ISSUES NRCT-11 03N7/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS UTILmES AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING CPSES -MECHANICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS NRCT-12 04/26/85 CYONA BRIEFING TO NRC MANAGEMENT ON COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTPROGRAM q NRCT.13 06 S 6/84 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL (06S6/84) TO DISCUSS VARIOUS MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON ON PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN AND QA i ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMTITED BY THE ) APPLICANT j NRCT-14 OM)6/84 MEETING IN BETHESDA ON TECHNICAL DATA AND SUPPORTING MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONS NRCT-15 06/11/84 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE (NRC, CASE. TUGCO) TO DISCUSS MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON ON PIPE SUPPORTDESIGN AND DESIGN QA i ) qkJ TN-87-7261 A 12 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1 )

l ' ATTACHMENT A-Continued ' Source Document Das Documeru Title NRCT-16 10/23/84 MEETING TO DISCUSS THE APPLICANT'S PLAN i FOR RESOLUTION OF REQUESTS FOR ADDmONAL INFORMATION FROM THE COMANCHE PEAK TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM (TRT) EPFORT . NRCT 17 03/23/85 MEETING TO CONDUCT FEEDB ACK DISCUSSION WITH MESSRS. WALSH AND DOYLE REGARDING CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMANCHE PEAK PLANT NRCT 18 04/19/84 MEETING WITH CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES ON INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (IAP) FOR COMANCHE PEAK NRCT 19 07/03/84 MElmNG BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND CYGNA - 07/03/84 NRCT-20 03M/85 MEETING BETWEEN TEXAS UTILITIES AND THE ] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - QA/QC, APPLICANTS' PROGRAM PLAN NRCT-21 06/20/84 NRC MEETING TO DISCUSS SUBMTITED

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONS NRCT 22 10/19/84 TUGCO MEETING WTTH NRC STAFF NRCT 23 11/13/84 PREHEARING BRIEFING NRCT-24 08/06/84 DISCUSSION ON MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

) DISPOSmON FILED BY APPLICANT, COMANCHE i PEAK NRCT-25 08A)S/84 QUESTIONS ON

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONS FILED BYTEXAS tmLITIES ON COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-26 08/09/84 (HEARING TRANSCRIPT) IN THE MA1TER OF COMANCHE PEAK, TEXAS UTILTTY NRCT-27 08/23/84 COMANCHE PEAK MEETING BETWEEN NUCLEAR REGDLATORY COMMISSION STAPF AND TEXAS UTILITIES - MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON NRCT-28 06/13/85 NRC/TUGCO MEETING OF 06/13/85 AND 06/14/85 NRCT-29 10/02/85 PUBLIC HEARING RE: HOMOGENEOUS HARDWARE POPULATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY REVIEW AND SWEC REANALYSIS PROGRAM. ' NRCT 30 06/13/85 NRC/TUGCO MEETING - VOLUME I - MORNING SESSION o "?" ^' " ~ " " ~ ' * ~ *""'

l ATTACHMENT A -Condnued. I b Sou:n Document Data Documem Title NRCT 31 06/13/85 NRCfTUGCO MEETING - VOLUME II - AFTERNOON SESSION NRCT-32 06/14/85 NRCfrUGCO MEETING - VOLUME I - MORNING SESSION NRCT-33 06/14/85 NRC/TUGCO MEETING - VOLUME II - AFTERNOON SESSION NRCT-34 06/18/85 MEETING ON RECALCULATION OF SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA: COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-35 08/14/85'

SUMMARY

OF MEETING BETWEEN THE NRC COMANCHE PEAK INTIMIDATION PANEL, THE APPLICANT, AND THE INTERVENER TO BRIEF THE COMANCHE PEAK PANEL ON THE ALIEGED INTIMIDATION ISSUES AT COMANCHE PEAK NRCT-36 09/17/85 MEETING BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY TO DISCUSS THE OFFICIAL INSPECTION OF PAINTED SUPPORT WELDS NRCT-37 10/18/85

SUMMARY

OF 10/2-3/85 MEETING - B ASIS FOR ( ESTABLISHING THE HOMOGENEOUS HARDWARE POPULATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY REVIEW, AND THE STONE AND WEBSTER PIPE AND PIPE SUPPORT REANALYSIS PROGRAM NRCT-38 11A)5/85 TUGCO MEETING WITH NRC-CPRT MONTHLY STATUS -NOVEMBER 5-6,1985 - VOLUME I NRCT-39 11A)6/85 TUGCO MEETING WITH NRC-CPRT MONTHLY STATUS-NOVEMBER 5-6,1985 VOLUMEII NRCT-40 11/05/85 HANDOUTS FROM PUBLICMEETING IN GRANBURY NOVEMBER 5-6,1985 NRCT-41 11/12/85 TRANSCRIPT OFPUBLIC HEARING HELD IN DALLAS, TEXAS NRCT-42 12/18/85 TUGCO MEETING WITH NRC-CPRT MONTHLY STATUS NRCT-43 02/06/86 TUGCO-NRCPUBLICMEETING, ARLINGTON. TEXAS TUGC-1 08A)5/83 APPLICANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE FORM OF A PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION TUGC-2 08/29/83 TRANSMTITAL OF " DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10CFR2.206" DENYING PETTTION FILED BY MRS. ELLIS ON BEHALF OF CASE TN-87 7261 A-14 DAP-RR C/S-002, REV.1

ATTACHMENT A-Continued Document Deze DocumentTitle TUGC 3 08/30/83 APPLICANTS' MOTION TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR SPECIAL PROCEEDING, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (IF NECESSARY), AND FOR CLOSING RECORD AND FOR EXPEDITED REPLY TUGC-4 08/31/83 APPLICANTS' (1) ANSWER TO CASE'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD (REGARDING WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS)(2) REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RULING AND(3) MOTION FOR NOTICE OF INTENTTO IMPOSE SANCTIONS TUGC 5 09/06/83 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OFLAW (WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS) TUGC-6 10/28/83 APPLICANTS' BRIEF REGARDING BOARD INQUIRY INTO APPLICABILITY OF AWS AND ASME CODES TO WELDING ON PIPE SUPPORTS AT COMANCHE PEAK TUGC-7 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DEPOSIT REGARDING ALLEGED ERRORS MADE IN O DETERMINING DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADINO CONDmONS TUGC-8 05/17/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO DESIGNISSUES TUGC 9 05/18/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF GAPS ON STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR UNDER SEISMIC LOADING CONDmONS TUGC-10 05/18/84 APPLICANTS' MOfTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CASE ALLEGATION REGARDING SECTION PROPERTY VALUES TUGC-11 05/20/84 APPLICANTS' M(7FION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING UFPER LATERAL RESTRAINT BEAM TUGC-12 05/20/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SAFETY FACTORS TUGC 13 05/21/84 APPLICANTS' MCTTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING USE OFGENERIC STIFFNESSES INSTEAD OF ACTUAL STIFFNESSES IN PIPING ANALYSIS TN-87 7261 A-15 OAP RR C/S-002, REV.1 -_-______-_A

c j I [ ATTACHMENT A -Continued Document Dese Document Tide TUGC-14 ' 05/23/84 - APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING U-BOLTS ACTING AS TWO-WAY RESTRAINTS TUGC-15 06/02/84 APPLICANTS'MCmON FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING DESIGN OF RICHMOND INSERTS ANDTHEIR APPLICATIONTO SUPPORT DESIGN l '. TUGC-16 06/17/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING STABILITY OF PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-17 06/18/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES TUGC-18 06/22/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DIFFERENTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF LARGE-FRAMED, WALL-TO-WALL. AND PLOOR. TO-CEILING PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-19 06/29/84 APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CASE'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING CINCHING DOWN OF U BOLTS TUGC-20 07/03/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR COMANCHE PEAK SIEAM ELECTRIC STATION TUGC-21 07/09/84 ~ APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONREGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING CONSIDERATION OF FORCE DISTRIBUTIONIN AXIAL RESTRAINTS TUGC-22 08/31/84 CORRECTIONS TO THE RICHMOND INSERT MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON TUGC-23 09/19/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF FRICTION FORCES ( TUGC 24 09/21/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO r APPLICANTS' MOTION REGARDING ALLEGED I ERRORS MADEIN DE1ERMINING DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDmONS TN-87 7261 A 16 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV 1 }

.t i A'ITACHMENT A-Continued ~ Sowce M-t Dem Docanom Title f i TUGC 25 09/28/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION REGARDING LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES TUGC 26 10/01/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO - APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING DIFFERENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS OF LARGE PRAMED, WALL-TO. WALL. AND PLOOR TO-CEILING PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-27 10/26/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING THE UPPER LATERAL RES11 TAINT BEAM TUGC-28 10/26/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO (1) CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

j DISPOSMON REGARDING THE EPFECTS OF GAPS 1 AND (2) BOARD CHAIRMAN'S " PRELIMINARY i VIEWS"REGARDING ADDmONALPLEADINGS TUGC 29 11A12/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S PARTIAL v ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION POR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmONREGARDING SAFETY FACTORS TUGC 30 11/12/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS'M0r!ON FOR

SUMMARY

) DISPOSMON REGARDING SECTION PROPERTIES l TUGC 31 0606/83 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO BOARD INQUIRY REGARDING ITERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS FOR PIPING TUGC-32 09/14/82 'IESTIMONY OF KENNETH L. SCHEPPELE. ROGER F. REEDY PETER S. Y. CHANG, JOHN C. FINNERAN, AND GARY KRISHNAN REGARDING WALSH ALLEGATIONS TUGC 33 09/14/82 SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF KENNETH L. SCHEPPELE, ROGER F. REEDY, PEYER S. Y. CHANG,JOHNC.FINNERAN ANDGARY KRISHNAN REGARDING DOYLE ALLEGATIONS TUGC-34 09/13/84 DISCUSSION BETWEEN CYONA ENERGY SERVICES ANDTEXAS UTILmES GENERATING COMPANY AND EBASCO SERVICES,INC. l TUGC-35 05/21/85 TEXAS UTILITIES CPRTMEETING -CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES 05/21/85 AND 05/22/85 l TN-87 7261 A 17 DAP-RR C/S 002, REV.1 L-

l l /"' ATTACHMENT A-Continued b] source Document Dese Document Title TUGC 36 10/01/82 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, SELF INITIATED EVALUATION TUGC 37 08 Min 8 LETTER, H.R. ROCK TO H.C. SCHMIErr RE: PRESSURIZER DISCHARGE PIPING CLASSIFICATION TUGC-38 08/1708 LETTER, H.R. ROCK TO H.C. SCHMIErr RE: LICENSING QUESTION TUGC-39 08/24n8 LETTER, H.R. ROCK TO H.C. SCHMIDT RE: CONFIRMATION OF INSTRUCTIONS - CLASSIFICATION OF PRESSURIZER SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING TUGC-40 03/1999 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: UNIT NO. 1 REACTOR VESSEL NOZZLE WELD METAL DEFECTS TUGC-41 08/1009 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: P!PE SUPPORTS TUGC-42 09/1In9 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: PIPE (q g WALL THICKNESS TUGC-43 01/23/80 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL t TUGC-44 03/28/80 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL j TUGC-45 04/21/80 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: CLASS V PIPING SUPPORTS TUGC 46 04/15/B0 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL TUGC-47 06/19/50 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL TUGC 48 07/14/80 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: CLASS V PIPING SUPPORTS TUGC-49 09/18/80 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: CLASS V PIPING SUPPORTS TUGC 50 10/21/80 LETIER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: DIESEL GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC 51 12/16/80 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL TUGC-52 01/12/81 LETTER, R.J. GARY TO W.C. SEIDLE RE: DIESEL GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS TN-87 7261 A-18 DAP.RR-C/S-002, REV.1

L ATTACHMENT A-Continued Document Dess Docenent Tide l TUGC 53 04/13/81 LETTER, J.S. MARSHALL TO R.L. TEDESCO RE: PRESERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING OF SNUBBERS TUGC 54 07/29/81 LETTER RJ GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: DIESEL GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC-55 06/03/81 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: PIPING MINIMUM WALL TUGC-56 10/02/81 LETTER. RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: DIESEL GENERATOR PIPE SUPPORTS TUGC 57 03/31/82 LETTER, H.C. SCHMIIyr TO S.B. BURWELL RE: FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY OF CLASS 2 AND 3 BENDS ANDELBOWS l. TUGC58 08/16/82 LETTER, RJ, GARY TO H.R. DENTON RE: DESIGN CERTIFICATION TUGC-59 .05/13/82 LETTER H.C. SCHMIDT TO S. BURWELL RE: STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL CONTROL TUGC-60 03/08/83 LETTER, H.C. SCHMIDT TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: ( ACCIDENT MONITORING - STEAM GENERATOR SAFETY VALVE POSITIONINDICATION TUGC 61 03/29/83 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: VENDOR INSTALLED HVAC SYSTEM (SDAR 106 CP-83-06) TUGC-62 06/21/83 LETTER, RJ. GARY TO G.L. MADSEN RE: COMPONDrr COOLING WATER CLASS V PIPING (QA FILE: CP 83 *1,SDAR 111) TUGC 63 07/22/83 ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN-INTERIM STAFF EVALUATION TUGC 64 08/31/83 RESPONSE TO NRCNOTICE OF VIOLATION - INSPECTION REPORT NO. 83-23, FINDING NO.1 TUGC-65 104)6/83 SER TABLES ON EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION TUGC-66 01/05/84 LETTER, H.C. SCHMIDT TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: HIGH/ MODERATE ENERGY PIPE BREAK ANALYSIS l TUGC-67 02/17/84 LETTER, RJ GARY TO BJ, YOUNGBLOOD RE: REQUEST FOR PARTIAL EXEMPTION TUGC-68 03/08/84 HUMAN FACTORS CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW-FINAL REPORT TUGC-69 04/06/84 TUGCO COMMENTS ON CYGNA'S INDEPEhtENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM l I . TN 87-7261 l A 19 ' DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

i I t ATTACHMENT A -Continued Source Document Dese DocumentTitle TUGC-70 06/29/84 LETTER H.C. SCHMIDT TO B.J. YOUNGBLOOD RE: EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION - JUSTIFICATIONS FOR INTERIM OPERATION TUGC 71 09/28/84 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: IMPACT OF TEMPERATURE DUE TO MAIN STEAM { LINE BREAK OUTSiDE CONTAINMENT ON l EQUIPMENT THAT REQ UIRES ENVIRONMENTAL I QUALIFICATION TUGC-72 01/17/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION STATUS REPORT TUGC-72 02/14/85 LETTER, J.W. Bb'X TO BJ. YOUNGBLOOD RE: MAIN STEAM LINE BREAKS OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT TUGC-74 04/09/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO BJ, YOUNGBLOOD RE: FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS TUGC 75 04/23/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO B.J. YOUNGBLOOD RE: TEMPORARY CHANGES TO PROCEDURES TUGC-76 05 S2/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO V.S. NOONAN RE: ARBITRARY INTERMEDIATE PIPE BREAKS TUGC-77 06/07/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO V.S. NOONAN RE: NRC GENERIC LETTER 83 28 TUGC-78 07/10/85 LETTER, W.G. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE: RESOLUTION OF TMI ACTION ITEMS II.K.3.30 AND II.K.3.3I RELATED TO SMALL BREAK LOCA ANALYSIS TUGC-79 07/15/85 LETTER, W.G. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE: CLARIFICATION TO TEXAS UTILTTIES LETTER TXX-4426 TUGC-80 10/14/85 LETIER, W.G. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE: RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 85-06 (ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS WITHOt.rr SCRAM) TUGC-81 12/20/85 LETTER, J.W. BECK TO E.H. JOHNSON RE: DAMAGE STUDY EVALUATION OF WESTINGHOUSE SDAR: CP 85 46 TUGC 82 02/28/86 LETTER W.O. COUNSEL TO V.S. NOONAN RE: USE OF ASME CODE EDITION AND ADDENDA TUGC83 12/15/86 TRANSCRIPT OF CYNGA/SWEC MEETING IN GLEN ROSE. TEXAS l l TN-87 7261 A-20 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1 1

'l l ATTACHMENT A -Continued Some h=aar Dess Document Tide TUGC-84 04/05/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS { RELATED TO WELDING ISSUES { REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RESPONSE XASL-001 08/19/83 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION ON THERMAL STRESS IN PIPE SUPPORTS XASL-002 07/06/83 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - THERMAL STRESS IN PIPE SUPPORTS XASL-003 10/18/84 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - MORE DETAIL ON INDIVIDUAL PIPE SUPPORTS XASL-004 11/10/83 AFFIDAVTT OFJACK DOYLE XASL-005 10A)6/83 PARTIALINITIAL DECISION (CHANGEIN MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR A500 STEEL) XCAS-001 08/16/83 ' CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON THERMAL STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORTS XCAS-002 07/15/83 MCyTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S 07A)6/87 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - THERMAL STRESS IN PIPE SUPPORTS XCAS 003 05/09/83 CASE'S RESPONSE TO BOARD's REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF INTERRELATIONSHIP OF ASME APPENDIX XVII,2271.3, TO REST OF ASME CODE XCAS 004 10A)6/84 CASE'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO - WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CASE'S FIRST MCYTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICANTS' DESIGN XCAS-005 09/26/84 CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOARD'S PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION REGARDING A500 STEEL XCAS-006 05/14/84 CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON OF CERTAIN CASE i ALLEGATIONS REGARDING AWS AND ASME CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO WELDING i I ISSUES XCAS-007 01/17/85 CASE'S 01/17/85 SUPPLEMENT TO CASE'S ANSWERTO APPLICANTS'MOTIONFOR

• O

SUMMARY

DISPOSmON REGARDING LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS ANDSTRESSES 4 TN-87 7261 A-21 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1 i

1 A'ITACHMENT A-Continued Source Document Dess Document Tide XCAS-008 11/05/84 C ASES ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOARD REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING CINCHING DOWN U BOLTS XNRC-001 05/11/83 NRC STAFFRESPONSE TO BOARD INQUIRY REGARDING APPENDIX XVII OF THE ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE XNRC-002 05M3/83 NRC STAFF REPLY TO CASE'S BRIEF REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LOCA IN DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PIPE SUPPORTS XNRC-003 04/29/83 NRC STAFF MOTION FOR PROTECITVE ORDER XNRC-004 04/20/83 NRC STAFF ANSWER TO CASE MOTIONS SEEKING ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS XNRC 005 06/02/82 NRC STAFF'S ANSWER SUPPORTING APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 5 . XNRC-006 03/15/82 NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO CFUR'S MCTTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL ~ Os XNRC-007 09/28/84 NRCSTAFFRESPONSETO APPLICANTS' AND CASE'S FINDINGS OF FACT ON WELD FABRICATION XNRC-008 02 S 2/84 NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CASE'S (1) DECEMBER 23,1983 RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES, AND (2) JANUARY 16,1984 CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES IN 12/23/83 PLEADING XNRC 009 02 S 6/84 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S MCyrION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BOARD'S 12/28/83 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN) XNRC-010 01/27/84 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESION) XNRC-011 12/13/83 NRC STAFF MOTION TO REOPEN RECORD TO ADMIT THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JAI RAJ N. RAJAN XNRC-012 12/13/83 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CASE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (AFFIDAVITS ON OPEN ITEMS RELATING TO WALSH/DOYLE ALLEGATIONS) XNRC-013 10/28/83 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO BOARD QUESTION REGARDING APPLICABLE WELDING CODES AT CPSES TN-87 7261 A 22 DAP-RR C/S-002, REV.1

A'ITACHMENT A-Continued ~_ r. l XNRC-014 09/12/83 NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-44543-24, 50-446/83-15 XNRC-015 02/17/83 LE' ITER FROM G. L. MADSEN, CHIEF, REACTOR PROJECT BRANCH 1. TO R. J. GARY, EXECUTIVE l. VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, i TUGCO l \\ XNRC-016 04/13/83 LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OFTEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50445 AND 50 446 XNRC 017 03/17/83 LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OFTEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 XNRC-018 02/22/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFF - IN THE MATTER OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNrrS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50 446 XNRC-019 02M)8/83 LETTER FROM NRC STAFF COUNSEL TO ASLB IN THE MATIER OF'IEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK S'IEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNrrS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50 446 .XNRC-020 02/18/82 LETTER FROM NRC STAFF COUNSEL TO ASLB IN THE MATTER OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNrrS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 XNRC 021 03/27/83 LETTER AND REPORT ENnTLED " REVIEW OF CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY CITIZENS ASSOCIATION FOR SOUND ENERGY ABOUT CONDUCT OF REGIONIV INVESTIGATIONS / INSPECTION TO ASLB" XNRC-022 11A)4/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFIN THE MATTER OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 O ^"" * " TN-67 7261 A-23 r*P RR C/S-002, REV.1

1 i / ATTACHMENT A-Continued Sowce i Document Dess % -

• Tide 1

XNRC 023 1141/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFIN THE MATTER OF TEXAS UTIUTIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNTTS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 .4 AND 50-446 l XNRC-024 10/14/83 COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFIN THE MATTER OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50446 XNRC 025 12/11/84 LETTER FROM D. R. HUNTER, CHIEF, REACTOR l PROJECT BRANCH 2. TO M. D. SPENCE, PRESIDENT,TUGCO XNRC-026 05/17/84 LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFFTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OFTEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) O. XNRC 027 05/11/84 ADDENDUM TO PAGE 27 OFNRC STAFF TESTIMONY ON WELDING FABRICATION CONCERNS RAISED BY MR. AND MRS STINES. XNRC-028 04/24/84 LETTER FROM NRC TO APPLICATNTINTHE MATTER OFTHE NRC STAFF RECEIVING ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, ET. AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRICCOMPANY UNTT1 AND2). DOCKET NS. 50-445 AND 50-446. XTUG-001 02/18/87 APPLICANTS' INTERROGATORIES TO INTERVENER,(SET NO.1987-4) XTUG-002 08M2/83 APPLICANTS MOTION POR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON THERMAL STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORTS XTUG-003 05/11/83 APPLICANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY BRIEF REGARDING PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN. l XTUG-004 05 S 3/83 APPLICANTS' REPLY BRIEF REGARDING i CONSIDERATION OF LOCA IN DESIGN CRTTERIA FOR P!PE SUPPORTS j XTUG-005 04/21/83 APPLICANTS' BRIEF REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF THERMAL STRESSES IN DESIGN OF ?!PE SUPPORTS i ) TN-87 7261 A 24 DAP RR C/S 002, REV.1 { i

e 1 ATTACHMENT A -Continued s_. Document Dese - N - ' Tide XTUG-006 07/03/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE RE APPLICANTS' QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR DESIGN OF PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION XTUG-007 06/29/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ' AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE ' REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CINCHING i U BOLTS XTUG-008 06/18/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND S'IRESSES XTUG-009 06/17/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS I AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINEISSUE REGARDING STABILITY OF PIPE SUPPORTS l XTUG-010 06S2/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS CJ ""'^" ' " ' ' " " " " ' " ' ' * ' ' * * ' " " ' " THERE ARE NO MATERIALISSUES XTUG-011 05/2W84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINEISSUE i XTUG-012 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' STA1EMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICHTHERE IS NO GENUINEISSUE XTUG 013 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THEREIS NO GENUINE ISSUE REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF FRICTION FORCES IN THE DESIGN OF PIPE SUPPORTS WITH 1 SMALL THERMAL MOVEMENTS XTUG-014 05/16/84 APPLICANTS' STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINEISSUE i REGARDING APPLICANTS' CONSIDERATION OF DAMPING FACTORS FOR OBE AND SSE LOADING CONDITIONS XTUG-015 06M1/83 COUNSEL FOR TUGCO - RE: TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO., ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECIRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) { DOCKETNOS 50-445 AND 50-446 f XTUG-016 11/19/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S MOTION CONCERNING INFORMATION REGARDING .O CINCHING DOWN U-BOLTS TN-87 7261 A.25 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1

1 ATTACHMENT A - Continued Document Dias Document Tids XTUG 017 11/16/84 APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO BOARD'S PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION REGARDING A500 STEEL XTUG 018 11M5/84 APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (MORE DETAIL ON INDIVIDUAL PIPE SUPPORTS) XTUG-019 07/11/84 COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS RE: TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2), DOCKET NOS. 50 445 AND 50-446 XTUG-020 06/29/84 COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS - SUBJ. TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC. ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446) XTUG-021 06/17/84 LETTER FROM APPLICANTS' COUNSEL TO ASLB - SUBJ. TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, ET AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS. 50 445 AND 50-446 XTUG 022 04/11/84 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PARTIAL INTTIAL DECISIONREGARDING A500 STEEL . XTUG 023 0@02/84 LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTTO ASLB INTHE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SAFETY FACTORS, ET. AL. (COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC COMPANY, UNrr 1 AND UNrr 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446. ) i i i 1 O TN 87 7261 A.26 DAP RR C/S 002, REV 1

4 O ATTACHMENT B

SUMMARY

OF CONDUlT-RELATED DISCREPANCY / ISSUE RESOLUTION (DIR) REPORTS BY EXTERNAL SOURCE AND ISSUE GROUPS O O 1 )

l 1 fm ' ATTACHMENT B %) ' l

SUMMARY

OF CONDUIT RELATED DISCREPANCY / ISSUE RESOLUTION (DIR) REPORTS BY EXTERNAL SOURCE AND ISSUE GROUPS Issue Group External Source IAP ASIB NRC NRCT IAP 16 IAP 34 Other 1 Controlling Lead Case for Design E-0161 E-0752 (IAP 32) 2 Dynamic Amplificanon Factors (DAF) E-0162 E-1020 (NRCT 3) E 0255 (NRCT 17) ~ 3 Seismic Response Combination Method E-0163 Measurement of umw-t From Top ofToppmg E-0164 5 Non<onformance with AISC Specifications E-0165 E-1171 E-0761 (IAP 32) 6 Appropnate FSAR Imad Combmations E 0166 E 0753 E-0257 (IAP 32) (NRCT-17) 7 Support Self Weight E4167 E-0757 (IAP-32) 8 Unistrut Design E-0168 E4762 (IAP 32) E-0758 (IAP-32) 9 i Improper Use of Catalog Components E4169 E 1163 E 0763 (IAP-32) o TN-87 7261 B-1 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1

g .~ I' p _ ih ATTACHMENT B -Continued Issus Group External Source IAP AS11d NRC NRCT l IAP 16 IAP 34 Other 10 Anchor Bolt Design E-0169 E 1164 E-0760 E-1165 (IAP-32) E-1166 E4759 (IAP 32) 11 Longitudinalloads on Transverse Supports E4171 E-0756 GAP-32) 12 Hild Kwik Bolt Substitutions E-0172 E-0759 GAP 32) 13 Substitution of Smaller j ~ Conduits on CA type Supports E-0173 I 14 Use of CA-type Supports in LS-Spens E-0174 E4755 (IAP 32) L 15 Conduit Supports l Attached to Cable Trays E 0175 16 - l Increases in Allowable Span Lengths E 0176 17 Substitution of Next Heavier Strucaral Member E-0177 E-0759 (IAP 32) 18 j Clamp Usage E 0178 E-1167 E 1170 I \\ O TN-87 7261 B-2 DAP RR-C/S 002, REV.1

I fh ATTACHMENT B -Continued Issus Group Extemal Source IAP ASLB NRC NRCT IAP.16 IAP 34 Oitar 19 Documentation In intions Between Inspection Repons, CMC's and IN FP Drawings E 1168 E 1169 20 Nelson Studs E4179 21 Conduit Fire Protection Calculations E-0180 E-1158 E 1159 E-1160 22 Span Increase for Fire A Protacied Spens E-0181 23 Grouisd Penetrations E4182 24 Rigidity of CA-type Supports E-0183 25 Enver.. q ConSgurations for Design E.1157 E4759 (IAP-32) 26 Design Drewing Discrepancese E 1156 27 Walkdown Discrepecise E.1155 E-1001 (NRC 20) 28 Systems Concept E 1154 29 Cumulative Effect of Review Issues E4184 E4754 E.1030 { . f (IAP 32) (NRCT 12) 1 I. \\' E-0272 ) (TUGCO 36) 1 i gggq .c a nm mm - - - - -

9 t' O ATTACHMENT C PROJECT AND THIRD PARTY DOCUMENT / ISSUE CROSS-REFERENCE LIST O O TN-87 7261 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

i. V A'ITACHMENT C PROJECI' AND THIRD PARTY DOCUMENT / ISSUE CROSS-REFERENCE LIST Relevant Extemal Source "Diird Party Review Project Document Issus Groups (s) b nent 1, DESIGN CRITERIA SAG.CP2 (711] 1,2,3,6,7,9,10,11,18. DAP-CLC C/S-607 [7334] 20,2123,25 DAP-E-C/S-305 [7.4.16] DAP E-C/5 307 (7.4.18] SAGEP10 (7.2.2] - 1,2,3,4,6,7,9,10,11. DAP4LC-C/5-609 (74361 13,14,15,16,18,20,21, DAP-E-C/S 305 (7A.16] 21 23,24,25 DAP-E C/5 30 p.4.181 SAG.CP12 [7.23] 1,13,6,7,10 DAP-CLC-C/S-605 (7.432] DAP-E-C/5-311 [7.4.22] SAG.CP17 [714] 1,2,3,6,7,10 DAP.CLf-C/S-606 [7.433] DAP E C/5 311 (7.4.221 DBD-C/S 22 [7.2.5) DAP-CLC C/S-608 (7A35] DAP E-C/5-307 [7.4.18] 2, WALKDOWN PROCEDURES CPE-EB-FVM C/S 002 (7.13] 10.12,18 DAP E-C/5-302 UA.13] CPE-EB-FVM4/S.014 [7.1.4] 4,5,10,11 13,14.17, DAP E C/S-301 6.4.12] 18,19,27 CPE-EB FVM C/S 033 p.15] 4,5,10,11 13,14,17 DAP-E-C/5-301 [7A.12] 18,19,21,2127

3. DESIGN PROCEDURES SAG.CP14

[7 2.6] DAP-E-C/5 316 [7.4.27] SAG.CP20 (7.27] 2,16 DAP-CLC-C/5-604 [7.431] DAP E-C/5 313 [7A.24] SAG.CP21 p.2.8) 6 DAP-E-C/5 305 [7.4.16] SAG.CP22 p.2.9) 6 DAP E-C/5-305 [7A.16] 1 SAG.CP25 [7.2.10] 1,3,10,12,13,14,15 DAP E-C/5-314 (74.25] 16,17,19,20,21,23,29 DAP-E-C/5-310 (7.4.21) SAPIP 29 [7.2.11] 3.5.10,25 DAP-E-C/S 307 [7A.18] DAP CLC-C/S 602 [7A.29] SAG.CP35 [7.2.12] DAP E C/5 312 [7.4.23] l CP-SG-01 [7.2.13] DAP E-C/S.303 [7A.14] CP-SO-02 [7 2.14] 1,3,10,12,20,23,29 DAP-E-C/5 314 [7.4.25] CP-SO 03 [7.2.15] 3,5,10,25 DAP E C/S 307 (7.4.18] Book N [7.2.16] 2 DAP CLC C/5 798 [7.4.55] DAP-E-C/5 313 [7.4.24] SUPT 0231 p.2.17) DAPC1f C/5-603 [7.430] DAP-E-C/S 307 (7A.18] SPAN 1008 (7.2.18] DAP C14-C/5-601 (7.4.28] Quality of Construction (7.2.19] 5,19,27 DAP-E C/5 309 (7.4.20] l Position Paper TN 87-7261 C1 DAP-RR C/S 002, REV.1

,Q A'ITACHMENT C-Continued O Relevant Extemal Source Third Pany Review Project Document issue Groups (s) Document

4. SPECIALSTUDIES 4a. Unit 1 Book SPAN 1001

[7120] DAP-CLC-C/S-707 [7.4A3] DAP-E C/5 313 [7.4.24] DAP E-C/S 314 [7.4.25] Boat SPAN-1002 [7.2.21] DAP-Cif-C/S-702 [7.438] Book SPAN 1004 [7.2.22] DAP.CLC-C/S-705 [7AAll Book SPAN-1005 [7.2.23] DAP CLCC/S-802 [7.4.59] Book SPAN 1006 [7124] DAP CLC-C/5-809 [7A 66] Book SPAN 1007 [7.2.25] DAP-Cir-C/5 709 [7AA5] Book SPAN-1009 [7.2.26] DAPC14-C/S-808 (7.4.65] Book SPAN 1010 [7127] DAP Cif-C/S-710 [7AA6] Book SPAN-1012 [7.2.28] DAP E-C/S 313 [7A.24] DAP-E-C/5-314 [7.4.25] Book SPAN-1113 [7.2.29] DAP-CLCC/S.832 [7A.89] Book SPAN 1189 [7.230] 7.17 DAP-E-C/S-307 [7A.18] DAP-E-C/5-313 [7A.24] DAP-E-C/S-314 [7.4.25] Book SPAN 1192 [7.2.31] DAP-E-C/5-313 [7.4 24] Book SPAN 1193 [7132] DAP-E-C/5 313 [7.2.24] Book SPAN-1199 [7133] 22 DAP-E C/5-313 [7.4.24] { [ i Book SPAN 1200 [7.2.34] 18 DAP-E-C/S 308 (7.4.19] Book SUPT-0041 [7.23S] DAP-CLC-C/S-704 [7.4.40] Book SUFT-0211 [7.236] DAPCLC-C/S 703 [1.439] Book SUPT-0221 [7.237] DAP-CLC.C/5-708 [7A.44] Book SUPT-0233 [7138] DAPCLC-C/5 701 [7.437] Book SUPT-0235 [7.2.39] DAP-C14-C/S 813 [7.4.70] Book SUPT-0246 [7.2A0] 5 DAPCI C-C/5-823 [7.4.80] 3 DAP-E-C/S-309 [7.4.20] i Book SUFT-0247 [7.2.41] 17 DAP-E-C/S 307 [7.4.18] Book SUPT 0253 [7142] 5 DAP-E-C/S 309 [7A.20] } BookTHER 1751(I) [7143] 6 DAP E C/S 311 [7.4.22] BookTHER 1751(II) [7144] 6 DAP-E-C/5 311 [7.4.22] Book 7EER 1760 [7.2.45] 6 DAP E4/S 305 [7A.16] BookTHER 1761 [7146] 6 DAP E-C/S 305 [7.4.16] Book THER 1901 [7.2.47] 6 DAP-CLC C/S-819 [7.4.76] DAP E-C/S 305 [7A.16] Book THER 1961 [7.2.48] 6 DAP-E-C/S-305 [7.4.16] Book THER 1981 [7149] 6 DAP E-C/S 305 [7.4.16] Book CPJB 20 [7150] DAP C14-C/S-818 [7.4.75] f Book CPJB 21 [7151] DAP CLC-C/5-706 [7.4.42] Oversize Bolt Holes [7.2.52] 5 DAP E-C/S 309 [7.4.20] Minimum Size [7.2.115] DAP-E-C/S 306 [7.4.17] Fillet Wekis Skewed welds [7.2.115] DAP-E C/5-315 [7.4.26] TN-87 7261 C2 DAP.RR-C/S 002, REV.1

7, -4 ATTACHMENT C-Continued Relevant Exismal Source Third Party Review Project Docunant Issus Grogs (s) Documet t 4b. Unk 2 ~ Book #2 (7153] DAPCLC-C/5 793 [7.4 50] j Book #5 [7.2.54] DAPCLC C/5 794 (7.4.51] l Book #6 (7.2.55] DAP-CLC-C/5-795 (7.4.52] DAP E-C/3 307 [7A.18] Book #7 (7.2 56] DAPCLC-C/5 796 (7.4.53] Book #$9 [7.2.57] DAP.C14-C/5 799 [7A.56] Book #60 (7.2.58] 10 DAP-CIC-C/5-807 [7.4.64] DAP-E-C/5 307 [7A.18] Book #78 [7.2 59] DAPCLC C/5-797 (7A54] -Book #81 [7.2.60] 6 DAPCLC C/5-804 [7A.61] DAP E-C/5-305 (7.4.16] Book #82 (7.2.61] 6 DAP.E-C/5-305 [7.4.16] Book #4 [7.2.62] 6 DAP C1f C/5-805 (7A.62] DAP-E-C/5-305 [7A.16] Book M5 [7163] 6 DAP E C/5 305 (7A.16] Book M6 [7.2.64] 6 DAP-E.C/5 305 (7A.16] Book #87 (7.2.65] 6 DAP C1f-C/5-822 [7A.79] DAP E-C/5-305 [7A.16] Book #91 [7166] 6 DAP E-C/5 305 (7A.16] Book #92 (7167] 6 DAP414 C/5 339 [7A.96] DAP E-C/5-305 [7.4.16] DAP E-C/5-311 [7A.22] Book #94 [7168] 6 DAPC14-C/5 821 [7.4.78] DAP-E-C/5-305 (7A.16] Book #111 [7.2A9] 6 DAP C1f-C/5-810 (7A.67] DAP-E4/5 311 [7.4.22] Book #129 [7170] DAP4Lf C/5-826 (7.4.83] Book #132 [7171] DAPCI.C-C/5-817 (7.4.74] Book #145 (7.2.72] 12 DAPCLC-C/5-406 [7A.63] Book #151 [7173] 6,23 DAP C14-C/5-840 (7A.97) DAP-E C/5 305 [7.4.16] Book #156 [7174] 5 DAP E-C/5 309 [7A.20] Book #158 [7.2.75] 5 DAP E-C/5-309 (7.4.20]

5. GDSRICCALCULATIONS Sa.. Unit 1 Book SPAN 1116

[7.2.76) 2 DAP C14-C/5-831 (7A.88] Book 5 PAN 1131 [7.2.77] 2 DAPC14-C/5-837 (7.4.94] Book SPAN 1170 [7.2.78] 2 DAP C1f C/5 830 (7A.87] Book SUPT 1010 (7.2.79] 25,26 DAPC14 C/5-834 (7A.91] DAP E-C/5 307 (7A.18] Book SUPT 1020 [7180) 25,26 DAP CLC C/5-836 [7A.93) DAP E-C/5-507 [7,4.18] Book SUPr 1024 [7.2.81] 25,26 DAP.CLC C/5 815 [7.4.72) w-DAP E-C/5 307 [7A.18] Book SUPT 1050 (7.2.82] 25,26 DAP Cir-C/5-814 (7.4.71] DAP E C/5 307 [7A.18] TN 87 7261 C3 0AP-RR C/S 002, REV.1

i / ATTACHMENT C-Continued Relevant Extemal Source 7hird Party Review Project Document Issue Groups (s) Document l Book SUPT-1226 p183) 25,26 DAP-CLC-C/5-835 (7.4.92) DAP ECS 307 (7.4.18] Book SUPT 1301 [7184] 13,24,25,26,28 DAP-CLC C/S-833 [7.4.90] l DAP-EC5-307 (7.4.18] Book CP-JB 22-3BT (7.2.85] DAP-EC5-311 (7.4.221 Book CP.JB 22-15 [7.2.86] DAPCLC C/S 829 [7.4.86] DAP-ECS 311 [7.4.22] Book CP.JB-2216AU [7.2.87] DAP-E-C/5-311 [7.4.22] BookCP-JB 2219E (7188] DAP EC5 311 [7.4.22] Book CP-JB-22 20 [7189] DAP-E-C/5-311 (7.4.22] Book CP JB 22 27 (7.2.90) DAP-E-C/5 311 (7.4.22] $b. Unit 2 Bookl0 (7.2.91] 25,26,28 DAP-C1fC3-828 [7A.85) DAP EC5 307 UA.18] Book 11 P192] 25,26 DAP.CLC-C4-790 (7.4A7) DAP-ECS 307 [7A.18] Book 13 (7193] 25,26,28 DAP CLCC5 801 (7A.58] DAP-E45 307 [7A.18) Book 23 P194] 25,26 DAP-CLCCS 800 [7A.57] DAP-EC5 307 (7.4.18] ,.~s, Book 27 [7.2.95) 25,26 DAP.C12-C/5-791 [7.4.48] / DAP E-C/5 307 (7.4.181 Book 30 [7.2.96) 25,26 DAP4LCC5-803 [7A,60) DAP-ECS 307 [7.4.18] Book 36 (7.2.97) 2 DAP-C14-C/5-825 (7.4.821 Book 41 (7.2 98) 2 DAP CLCC5 816 (7A.73] Book 44 p.2.99) 20,25,26 DAPC1445-811 [7.4.68] DAP E-C/5-307 (7.4.18] Book 48 (7.2.100) 25,26 DAP CLC C/5 792 (7A.49] DAP-EC5-307 (7A.18) Book 55 [7.2.101) 25,26 DAPCIIC5-827 (7.4.84) DAP EC5 307 (7.4.18] Book 57 (7.2.102] 25,26,28 DAP-CLCCS-828 [7A.85] DAP-EC5-307 [7.4.18] Book 61 (7.2.103) 2 DAP414 C/5-820 p.4.77] Book 69 p.2.104] 2 DAP414C5-812 (7A.69] Book 123-1 (7.2.105) DAP E-C/5 311 [7A.22] Book 123 4 [7.2.106) DAP-E-C/5 311 (7A.22] Book 127 p.2.107) DAP4LC-C/5-838 (7A.95] DAP-E45-314 (7A.25] Book 133 (7.2.108) 25,26 DAP CLC.C/5 424 [7A.81) DAP E C/5 307 (74.18]

6. TEST PROGRAMS CCL #1903.29-1 (7.3.1)

DAP-E-C/S 316 (7.4.27] CCL A-678 85 (7.3.2) 1,8,9,10,i1,13,21,24 DAP-E-C/S-304 [7A.15) (q 25,28 f TNECS-CA-CA 1a [7.2.109] 1,8,9,10,11,13,21,24 DAP E C/S-304 (7.4.15] 25 TN-87 7261 C-4 DAP RR C/S-002, REV.1 l --__-__ - _a

k. l l.- ATTACHMDG C-Continued Relevant Externa 15cm N Pg h Pro M h Issus Groups (s) Docunent TNE4/5-CA-CA-2b [7.2.110] 1,8,9,10,11.13,21,24 DAP-E C/5-304 (7.4.15] 25 TNEC/5CAJA1 (7.2 111] 1.8,9,11 DAP-E-C/5-304 (7.4.151 CCL A-699-45 [7.33] 5,9.18,20,27 DAP-E4/5-308 (7.4.19) CCL A-702 86 [7.3.4) 5,9,18,20,27 DAP-E-C/5-308 [7.4.19] l o v I M47 7261 C-5 OAp.RR-C/S 002, REV.1

~~y O l l ATTACHMENT D ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS LIST ) O O TN . -.......-8 7 7261 DAP-RR-C/S-002, REV.1

3 O ATTACHMENT D ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS LIST Abbrevianon or Acrortym Explanscion AISC American Institute of Steel Construction AISI AmericanIron and SteelInstitute ANCO Anco Engmeers ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board C/S-CAP Civil / Structural Corrective Action Program CASE Citizens Association for Sound Energy CCL Corporate Consulting and Development Company, LTD. CMC ComponentModification Card CPRT Carnanche Peak Response Team CPSES Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station CTH CableTray Hanger CYGNA Cygna Energy Services DAF Dynamic AmplicationFactor DAP Design Adequacy Program DIR Discrepancy / Issue Resolution Report DSAP Discipline Specific Action Plan EBASCO Rhaarn Services Incorporated ESM Equivalent Static Method FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report IAP r% Aasessment Program IN FP Individually FWred (Support) Fire Protected IR Inspection Rport ISAP Issue Specific Action Plan NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission OBE Operating Base Earthquake I PCHVP Post Construcdon Hardware Validation Program l QA Quality Ass 2rance QC Quality Control I O \\ I

ATTACHMENT D-Condnued i Abbrevianon or Acronym Explanadon RSM Response Spectrum Method SSER Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report . SAT Satisfrtory SER Safety Evaluadon Report SRSS Square Root Sum of the Squares SSE Safe Shutdown Eanhquake SWEC Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation UNSAT Unsadsfactory O ~ 1 l ) O TN-87 7261 D2 DAP RR-C/S-002, REV.1 _}}